National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

[Essexyellows]

Ah, EU Corruption............. easy.................they blame the Member States.
"Attempts have been made to quantify the cost of corruption in the EU. According to the European Commission, corruption costs the EU economy around €120 billion per year in terms of lost tax revenue and investments.4 The European Parliamentary Research Service's Cost of Non-Europe report,5 specifically focused on this subject, has found that if one includes indirect costs, EU GDP suffers annual losses ranging between €179 and €990 billion (depending on the assumed extent of reduction in corruption levels feasible for Member States). According to the report, corruption related to public procurement alone costs the EU over €5 billion annually. The European Commission says that there are no corruption-free zones in the EU, as all Member States are affected by the problem, albeit to varying degrees. "
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/608687/EPRS_STU(2017)608687_EN.pdf

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Ah, EU Corruption............. easy.................they blame the Member States.

And where's your evidence that it isn't the member states to blame?

The UK is among these corrupt states (though, as always with Brexiters, when we do it the Telegraph presents it as the EU's fault).

 

[Gary Baldi]

To ask a vague question from ignorance. What has the EU done to stop corruption over the years?

 

[HayfieldYellow]

To ask a vague question from ignorance. What has the EU done to stop corruption over the years?

For a start, it's published an anti-corruption report since 2014. At least the EU tries to put a figure on the problem. Brexiters just blithely claim that the EU is "riddled with corruption" without figures or evidence. They just know it must be true, by magic.

Of course, Brexiters like Nigel Farage would never misuse EU funds. Perish the thought.

 

[Gary Baldi]

For a start, it's published an anti-corruption report since 2014. At least the EU tries to put a figure on the problem. Brexiters just blithely claim that the EU is "riddled with corruption" without figures or evidence. They just know it must be true, by magic.

Of course, Brexiters like Nigel Farage would never misuse EU funds. Perish the thought.

To take it on. What have they done other than publish a report? Have they held back funds? Banned recipients from receiving money? Etc

 

[HayfieldYellow]

They've issued fines and they seek to recover the money. I don't know, beyond that, and perhaps they should do more - very few Remainers have ever claimed the EU is perfect, but Brexiters do seem to expect perfection (while not applying the same scruples to equivalent bodies) and are willing to make wild accusations without any evidence. The EU isn't completely immune to criticism or above the law, whatever Brexiters like to think.

Strange how EU corruption is a massive problem, and taken completely at face value, but the Leave campaign's overspending and Russian connections are dismissed as irrelevant, politically motivated smears.

 

[Essexyellows]

Anyway, back to Square One.

Referendum was done. We voted to Leave.

JFDI.

 

[Marked Ox]

To take it on. What have they done other than publish a report? Have they held back funds? Banned recipients from receiving money? Etc

Yes, I believe they are in the process (or have) of recovering funds from Nigel Farage.

 

[Marked Ox]

Those who "shop based on price" should show more consideration to their purchasing as well.
If that means eating less, wasting less and eating a healthier diet its not a bad thing.
We have created generations that think food should be cheap and can be wasted.
Generations that haven`t experienced shortages or hunger and expect to buy food out of season and cheaply with not a care.

What if they are already eating as little as possible because they can't afford anymore yet eating the cheapest types like Tesco Value etc. There are kids who go to school without breakfast and parents who go without so their kids eat properly as they can't afford otherwise.

It really isn't as straightforward as you make out.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Referendum was done. We voted to Leave. JFDI.

I'm really troubled by the idea of a second (actually third) referendum, but I'm afraid this attitude is too simplistic and absolutist for me. If it becomes obvious that Brexit is going to harm the country (and let's not argue the toss over how you define "obvious"; it's a hypothetical point) would you insist on going ahead, whatever the circumstances? If it's clear that a significant majority (and again, I don't want to argue what that means) are now against it, do we still have to do it? If you personally changed your mind, would you still demand Brexit? How s**t does it have to get before we overrule "the will of the people" (or at least, ask the people if their will is unchanged)?

To use a football analogy, I currently think Karl Robinson deserves more time, and I expect results to improve. But I will have changed my mind if we are bottom at Christmas. And I'll certainly expect him out if we're relegated at the end of the season. And if he were still here and took us back into the Conference the season after, I'd find another club to follow. It makes no sense to me, this sticking to a position regardless of the changing circumstances, just because you fervently believed in something at the start.

 

[Essexyellows]

I'm really troubled by the idea of a second (actually third) referendum, but I'm afraid this attitude is too simplistic and absolutist for me. If it becomes obvious that Brexit is going to harm the country (and let's not argue the toss over how you define "obvious"; it's a hypothetical point) would you insist on going ahead, whatever the circumstances? If it's clear that a significant majority (and again, I don't want to argue what that means) are now against it, do we still have to do it? If you personally changed your mind, would you still demand Brexit? How s**t does it have to get before we overrule "the will of the people" (or at least, ask the people if their will is unchanged)?

To use a football analogy, I currently think Karl Robinson deserves more time, and I expect results to improve. But I will have changed my mind if we are bottom at Christmas. And I'll certainly expect him out if we're relegated at the end of the season. And if he were still here and took us back into the Conference the season after, I'd find another club to follow. It makes no sense to me, this sticking to a position regardless of the changing circumstances, just because you fervently believed in something at the start.

Hence the poll & debate on here. If it comes to "No Deal" through EU intransigence & the desire to punish us for leaving then so be it.
Trade will not stop overnight, the world will not stop turning, planes will not fall from the sky. I won`t stop doing my job in public procurement.

Its a strange irony that what we voted to join in `75 ( A free trade agreement) has expanded into some monstrous leech that has embedded itself into every faculty of our lives and vainly attempts to make "one size fit all", life isn`t like that.

Football analogy............ you can change anything in life but not your team. I`m lucky enough to have seen the peak of success and the true pits of misery but I have never deserted the club because "we" are the club. The owners, players, staff are just passing by in their lives. Apply same analogy to the Country.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

You haven't answered the question. I didn't ask you "do you think Brexit will be harmful?", because I know what your answer will be. I asked "how bad would it have to get for you to change your mind?"

If it comes to "No Deal" through EU intransigence & the desire to punish us for leaving then so be it.

That's a very jaundiced and emotional way of looking at it. The EU has rules, they set out their negotiating red lines (just as Theresa May did) at the start, and we are trying to have the benefits without the responsibilities. It's a failing of Brexiters that they see everything in such confrontational, black-and-white terms. Also, Leave campaigners promised the negotiations would be easy. Another of their lies (or, to put it kindly, "optimistic predictions").

Your argument amounts to no more than "we've decided (narrowly) to do this, so we can't change our minds. Ever. Fingers crossed, lads." That's not good enough for me - the risks are all too plain, the benefits far from obvious, and the mandate too shaky.

I'm not answering the OP's poll because it implies approval...but FWIW I think (hope) we'll do a deal, but it'll still be worse than Remaining in the EU. And I just don't see the point. The damage will be tangible and the benefits are merely emotional. We'll still have immigrants, the NHS will still be underfunded, and the Tories will have an even freer rein to undermine workers' rights and mess up the environment, we'll be worse off on average, and Eurosceptics will still blame the EU. It's a complete waste of time.

Its a strange irony that what we voted to join in `75 ( A free trade agreement) has expanded into some monstrous leech that has embedded itself into every faculty of our lives and vainly attempts to make "one size fit all", life isn`t like that.

I simply don't accept this.

• 1975 was a vote to Remain, not to Join (a small point of accuracy)
• The political aspects of the EEC and its direction of travel are openly acknowledged in the Treaty of Rome and were widely discussed in 1975 (indeed, they were the "No" campaign's main argument). Nobody misled the electorate in 1975: that's just rewriting history.
• The EU doesn't "embed itself into every faculty of our lives". That's a massive overexaggeration. I can barely think of anything in my life that is directly impacted by the EU (except a few practical things that make life better or easier, like pet passports and the abolition of roaming charges).

 

[Essexyellows]

"Do I think Brexit will be harmful? "

No. There will be minor inconveniences but not the Armageddon predicted by those who wish to remain.
Things will change in the interim however it is unlikely ANYONE knows how...... barring those who wish to retain the status quo, those who are scared of change or having the freedom to make our own choices.

We decided to leave by a referendum with a question that had to be kept simple, much like `75.

In 1975 it could be argued that the electorate was less informed than they are today, no internet, greater traditional media influence etc.

Shall we re-run 1975 because of that?

 

[Essexyellows]

PS: I deal with EU Regulations every hour of every working day..................... its burden on the public sector is onerous, costly and unnecessary. It also favours larger, global companies who have the resources to jump through the hoops.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

There will be minor inconveniences but not the Armageddon predicted by those who wish to remain.

You're still not answering the question. I know you don't think Brexit will be harmful (I hope you're right, but most of the experts disagree with you).

My question is, how bad does it have to get for you to change your mind? If the planes did start falling out of the sky (nobody ever said that, by the way, but if they did), would you still insist on the "will of the people", even though it had been shown to be wrong, and was no longer the majority view?

those who are scared of change or having the freedom to make our own choices.

Unnecessarily emotional claim: I'm not scared of change or freedom, I just think we're throwing away a fairly favourable deal for a worse one, and none of the "freedom" arguments convinces me. What's more, I don't trust our own goverment any more or less than I trust the EU, and I recognise that my one Westminster vote among millions of fellow Brits is worth pretty much the same as my one EU vote among millions of fellow Europeans: precious little and outnumbered by everybody else (though at least the EU uses PR, so every vote actually counts, unlike in the oh-so-democratic UK, where FPTP means 60% of votes are largely pointless). What a disproportionate fuss about a principle that's questionable and theoretical at best.

Brexit should have been a rather boring, sterile, discussion about economics and how countries co-operate. The Leave leaders knew they could never win that argument, so they had to make it personal instead. Incidentally, I rather object to being labelled a coward, if it's all the same to you.

In 1975 it could be argued that the electorate was less informed than they are today, no internet, greater traditional media influence etc.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. First you claim the public were conned in 1975, then you claim they were uninformed. You can't have it both ways. Besides, if we're so well informed today, how come we are so divided and there is no consensus?

its burden on the public sector is onerous, costly and unnecessary

Name a regulation that bothers you. In my industry, GDPR is a bit of a pain in the a**e, but it's not that onerous - particularly if you aren't doing unreasonable things with your customers' data - and it's certainly not unnecessary (and it's in the public's interest). Besides, the UK will have to impose equivalent regulations in many areas anyway. I don't want a bonfire of regulations that will mean companies can do whatever they like, thanks all the same.

Basically, you're magnifying all the positives, downplaying the risks and ignoring all the negatives, which has been Brexit's failing all along.

 

[tonyw]

My question is, how bad does it have to get for you to change your mind? If the planes did start falling out of the sky (nobody ever said that, by the way, but if they did), would you still insist on the "will of the people", even though it had been shown to be wrong, and was no longer the majority view?

Actually, reports would seem to suggest that planes are much less likely to be falling out of the sky after a No Deal Brexit.

This is because they're not going to be in the sky in the first place!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/avo...ill-take-a-huge-amount-of-work-iata-says.html

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Ah, but that's only Michael O'Leary and the head of IATA saying that. What would they know about aviation and running airlines?

(One of the ironies of being a Remainer is that you find yourself on the same side as some bloody awful people. Michael O'Leary FFS.)

 

[Manorlounger]

I'm not very interested in playing "chase the argument" with you, Manorlounger. This was your original claim:



You don't express yourself very clearly, but this can only be the usual Brexiter's belief that the EU can't get the Court of Auditors (who you describe, without evidence, as "the most corrupt of accountants") to sign off their accounts. That's straightforwardly not true, as the link I provided showed: the accounts have been signed off annually since 2007.

So, having been shown to be plainly wrong (the Court of Auditors, corrupt or otherwise, have signed off the EU's accounts), you've changed your claim to:



How many times are you going to move the goalposts, and where's YOUR source and YOUR evidence of corruption, so people can gauge its independence or otherwise?

I imagine I could research the methodology of the Court of Auditors and debunk your claims of bias too (Full Fact says "the numbers accurately reflect what’s actually happened—it’s just that some of it shouldn’t have happened in the first place"; and if the CoA is engaged in a whitewash, why acknowledge any errors at all? Why not just give the EU a completely clean bill of health?), but you'd only come up with some other skewed Eurosceptic article of faith and I've got better things to do than chase your gish gallop around for you. The Brexiter habit of rubbishing any source they disagree with, while presenting no evidence for their own lurid claims, is pretty transparent and frankly pretty tiresome.

Besides, the relevant question is not "is there corruption within the EU?" - to which the sensible, adult, answer is, "presumably some, as there is in all organisations of its size". If you really cared about corruption and weren't seeking to throw mud specifically at the EU, you'd ask yourself "is the level of corruption within the EU unexpectedly high, or significantly worse than other similar bodies?" There's definitely corruption within Westminster (expenses scandal, cash for questions, WMDs, etc.) but you're not advocating abolishing Parliament or dissolving the Conservative or Labour parties for the sins of their members. No, for some reason, it's only the EU that has to be 100% whiter-than-white. Very selective, your squeamish regard for public probity.

Sensitive chap aren't you.

I have voiced my opinions, I have given my views and what I believe to be the case as I see it.

Your rhetoric is both aggressive and insulting.

I spent many years living and working in Europe and Scandinavia and, having learnt to converse in the languages of the various nations, gained an insight into the people and culture.

I am not inclined to spend time researching and substantiating just to counter your, frankly, trite and monotonous outpouring of the inevitable doom and gloom accompanied by the four horseman, general pestilence and the downfall of civilisation which apparently will ensue following our departure from the EU.

I came to my decision to vote leave after much consideration (that must surprise you) and having voted leave with the majority, expect that decision to be respected.
The reaction of the EU to that decision has further confirmed my views that they need us more than we need them. The demands, both financially and politically, being set as the price of leaving are evidence (yes, in my opinion) of the nature of the EU.

I am not racist, nor do I have a problem with immigration. I drink French, Italian, German, Spanish wine (and a few others) I currently drive a German car and I take regular holidays in Europe. None of that means that I wish or need to belong to a United States of Europe and concede national identity or political control to bodies whose interests do not reflect the interests of the UK.

Now, as you do not want to "chase the argument" (not entirely sure what that means) and you also have a problem with "gish gallop" (not withstanding your own outpourings). I shall leave you to pontificate to your hearts content. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Sensitive chap aren't you.
....
Your rhetoric is both aggressive and insulting.
...
trite and monotonous

I never insulted you and I certainly didn't accuse you of being a racist, I merely questioned your claims and pointed out that your statement about the EU auditors was wrong (this is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of simple fact, and your claim is untrue - the EU's accounts have been signed off for the last 10 years). You refused to acknowledge this error, instead setting off on a new argument (that the EU's auditors are somehow corrupt or unreliable - which you haven't given any evidence for). That's what I meant by "chasing your argument".

And now you've called me "trite and monotonous" and accused me of "pontificating". But I'm the sensitive, aggressive, insulting one, apparently.

Don't want your arguments to be challenged? Don't make claims that aren't true.

 

[Leysboy]

I don’t want us to have a deal with the EU, for years we’ve been told what we can and can’t do by these people. I want us to be in control of everything, from controlling our borders, who can come in, and who can’t. I want us to be alone! I voted to leave, and have my reasons for that. I don’t have a problem for people entering the country, as long as they either have enough funds to sustain being here, or they can offer the nation something ie a skill/trade. I don’t want people coming here in uncontrollable numbers, it driven the wages down for a number of occupations. People have had enough of it, for the foreign workers it’s brilliant money. But 9/10 the money they make doesn’t stay within, which is bad for our economy. Then you have Mrs Merkel saying to these East Europeans, and North Africans. “ Yes please we want you to come here, now that’s all well and good, but it’s caused massive divisions within countries, and that’s not what you need. Its not just about immigration although that was a reason to vote leave. There are a number of reasons for me!

The main thing for me was, having to do what these unelected people told us to do. That will all stop now, and thank god!

We don’t need to worry about having a no deal. They will want to make trades with us, more than we will to them.

What makes me laugh is these idiots calling for a second referendum. Forget it! It was a massive turnout of voters, and frankly it would be shambolic and laughable to have a second vote.

If Remain won, then we would never have had this talk of a second vote. I’m glad Mrs May has said no to that straight away. I do wonder at times if she is the right person to be prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party. She was a remainer, but she’s followed through quite well considering. Shes
Lost a few members of the party, but all in all she’s doing ok. But just ok.

Mr Corbyn can try as much as he likes for a General Election, the thing is he is such a clown he will put us straight back into the EU. Thankfully he and his Labour Party will not be in power for
Some considerable time.

That’s all from me on this subject.