National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

[Ian]

Its not artificial in the slightest. The UK, as a country, can choose to vote a new Govt in - and we see, if enough people get on a bandwagon, things can change quickly. The EU, citizens cannot do that- nor can we overthrow them. We, as citizens of Europe are unable to engender change on the likes Juncker, Tusk, etc or remove them. We are forced to live with their whims and views and they have no fear of being voted out.

My solution would in some respects be similar to the Electoral College System due to the large mass of land of Europe. Or simply follow the system now, but when voting, be asked to vote on a leader with the votes rolled up - at least a level of accountability. Anything has to be better than little accountability from top to bottom doesn't it? What would you do?

My antipathy is based on seeing a rabid bureaucracy that has no sense of fear about being ever voted out or being accountable for what it does. That is not democracy. It's a technocratic dictatorship that I glad we are leaving.

Juncker is elected! Why is the lie that he's not elected still being repeated?

 

[Essexyellows]

I see it as a rather dull & costly organisation that, rather than "racing to the bottom" ,uses the net contributors to over inflate the poorer economies and make those populations "wealthier". Remember our nett contribution is roughly £8.6 BILLION........ I`m sure that could be much better spent internally.
Like you my vote is , generally, pointless thanks to FPTP however I accept that is part of our system.
Now and then my vote does make a difference and this was one such moment when democracy was at its purest. EG: 1 person, 1 vote on 1 question.

 

[Essexyellows]

Juncker is elected! Why is the lie that he's not elected still being repeated?

Read it again...........................

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Remember our nett contribution is roughly £8.6 BILLION........ I`m sure that could be much better spent internally.

Disingenuous, as it ignores the benefits of membership. You can't do a cost-benefit analysis by counting the costs and ignoring the benefits - you're only looking at one side of the equation. It's like claiming that having a job costs you £20 a week (or whatever your bus fare costs) while ignoring the fact that without spending that money you lose your salary. The CBI estimates that EU membership is worth £62bn to £78bn a year. Even if that's double the actual figure, it's still a bargain.

There may be moral and principled arguments for Brexit, but there is absolutely no credible economic case for it. Any Brexit deal will be worse than the status quo in terms of EU trade, and a no-deal Brexit will be much worse. Anyone who voted for it in the poll above either doesn't understand the implications or doesn't care.

[Oh, and £8bn is a lot of money in absolute terms, but in 2016-17 our EU contribution was less than 1% of government spending. It's literally at the bottom of the list on my tax return showing where my money was spent. It's less than we spend on culture ("sport, libraries and museums"). It's, relatively, peanuts, and the fuss about it is completely disproportionate - just another example of Brexiteers emotionalising and trivialising what should be a calm, rational debate about the division of power and economic trade-offs.]

 

[Gary Baldi]

Thanks for engaging.

I think you're overestimating both the power and influence of Juncker, Tusk et al. over the EU, and the power and influence of the EU over the member nations.

I also don't see how an Electoral College solves the issue of Germany being the most populous country in the EU. A directly elected EU leadership would a) probably be German-dominated, unless you rigged the democracy to prevent it; and b) have a more powerful mandate than the mouthpieces they are at the moment - and I don't think many Brexiters would want either.

The idea that my one vote (usually rendered pointless by FPTP) among the Westminster electorate of 50-odd million has real power and my one (PR) vote among 500-odd million in the EU doesn't, seems to me about as worthwhile a comparison as weighing two grains of sand.

What would I do? Frankly, I don't really care. It's fine as it is, with the figureheads appointed (ultimately) by elected representatives of the member countries and a mechanism that makes sure each country is represented at the top tables. I don't see the EU as a "technocratic dictatorship" or a "rabid bureaucracy", but as a rather dull and worthy organisation that does lots of tedious and mostly uncontroversial but necessary things that make life slightly easier for most of us, most of the time, keeps its members from racing each other to the bottom, gives us some clout in a global economy, and lubricates the wheels of the member economies. All of which we'll either lose, or have to replicate at our own expense, when we leave. I just don't see the point.

The electoral college system effectively limits the power of the large cities in the US to control the country, thus the likes of Germany or the UK not holding sway in the EU. Hence why Clinton won the popular vote, while Trump won the election. The collective bloc of Germany and France holds too much power in a democracy of 28 countries. FPTP works locally for the UK - as you can see with the Labour party grass root growth, doesn't work on a larger pan European basis.

Sadly for the EU, the collective size of the economy is waning on a global basis, and will only shrink once we toddle off.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Juncker is elected! Why is the lie that he's not elected still being repeated?

Did I get the chance to elect Juncker at the last European elections? Is he an MEP? Who is he accountable to?

I care not a fig if he is elected internally, he has no external accountability from any European citizen. Thus not a democratic appointment and life long bureaucratic one.

 

[Gary Baldi]

I've not been able to find any credible sources online, but I wonder how many infrastructure projects in the UK have benefitted from EU funding over the years, and how many similar projects going forward will simply not happen if the UK is self-funding?

Anyone who's travelled around this country will have seen the EU flag on boards highlighting EU funding alongside many construction schemes and cultural exhibitions, particularly in some of the relatively less well-off fringe geographical areas of the UK, like Northern Ireland, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland etc etc.

We as a nation have certainly benefitted from membership, and I don't feel bitter towards countries like Romania and Hungary for benefitting in a similar way. I'm proud, as a Briton, that we're able to help raise their living standards and national economies, as I'm proud of our overseas aid budget.

People use the fact that we're the fifth / sixth wealthiest country in the world to illustrate that we can prosper alone outside the EU. Well, as the fifth / sixth wealthiest country in the world we can also afford to help the less fortunate, i.e. most of the world's population. I'd rather continue doing so within the EU, but if we must leave let's keep our moral principals intact.

The contrarian argument is we can invest quicker and subsidise industries while outside of the EU, than we can inside due to the rules - something Labour's plans rely on . Rather than paying 1 pound to get 50p later, we can choose what to do with the £1 now.

In an age of austerity, should we be funding projects in Romania (or wherever) or funding social care and schools in the UK? That is the hard conundrum to decide on.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

The electoral college system effectively limits the power of the large cities in the US to control the country, thus the likes of Germany or the UK not holding sway in the EU.

What, like having a single representative of each country regardless of its size? You mean a bit like exactly how the European Council and the European Commission are constituted at the moment?

Sadly for the EU, the collective size of the economy is waning on a global basis, and will only shrink once we toddle off.

The EU is mainly made up of mature economies, so it's no surprise that it's growing more slowly than the rapidly expanding economies of China, Indonesia, etc. Anyway, however slowly it's growing, it's always going to be important to the UK (it's the biggest trading bloc in the world, it's on our doorstep, and we have numerous existing trade relationships and cultural understandings). And there's nothing stopping EU members trading with the rest of the world anyway.

Eurosceptics have been predicting the demise of the European project since its inception, yet we're still waiting. And if it does fail, the idea that we're immune from the fallout is a strange one. The world is moving towards co-operation, not away from it. Brexit is on the wrong side of history.

Estimates vary, but the UK represents less than 20% of the EU's trade, whereas they represent 44% of ours. The idea that the EU has more to lose than we do is yet another piece of Brexit exceptionalism.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

I have some sympathy with the view that we shouldn't be helping the poor of India when there is a relatively wealthy Indian middle class of 300 million people, and the Indian government can afford a nuclear programme.

So does the Department for International Development . In recent years, our "aid" to India is mostly delivered in the form of training and policy advice rather than hard cash.

Foreign aid is another relatively small slice of the government spending pie that Brexiters often obsess about, rather like they do about the contribution to the EU budget. I can't possibly think of a connection between these areas of government spending.

 

[Essexyellows]

Indeed, I believe the aid budget is currently 0.7% of GDP. If aid was stopped entirely, how would the money be spent instead? Reducing the national debt, or perhaps a housebuilding programme to reduce homelessness?

So as someone who is very altruistic, in another post about helping the poorer EU nations, do you not think our "house" should be in order first before we start helping external countries?
The list of things that need improving is very long, and often described as "under funded".
I don`t notice the EU sending aid convoy`s to help our homeless?
I do see "EU matched funding" for useful things....like cycle lanes and electric car charging points.....but its only matched not "paid for by".

 

[Essexyellows]

Its that bottom line of "UK PLC" being incredibly wealthy that contributed to the shock of the result. Your average family on the street don`t feel wealthy and simple slogans pushed all the right buttons.
From a personal perspective it was the insidious "make one size fit all" that seemed to stem from the EU that tipped my balance.
The reality of life is that not everyone is equal, it is reminiscent of the joke about the tax system.

"Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just£80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."


And that is what we chose to do.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

All this "let's spend the money on something more worthwhile" assumes that there is going to be a Brexit dividend, which seems vanishingly unlikely because (as noted before) it only arrives if you count the costs of membership but not the benefits. Even if the £350m-a-week lie hadn't ignored the rebate, it still assumed that our net payment to the EU simply disappears into the EU's coffers and that there are zero benefits of membership in return. It's preposterous, frankly.

Even if such a dividend arises, it also assumes that Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson and the rest of the Tory party are suddenly going to change their political spots and become redistributive socialists and public spenders rather than frittering away any savings on a tax cut (that tax/beer thing appears to assume punitive tax rates and that millionaires consume the same amount of goods as the poor. It's debunked here and here).

Our membership of the EU means more trade, which means more people in work, which means more income tax, and it means more profit, which means more corporation tax. This means more public money to spend on public services. If, as a result of leaving the EU, the economy shrinks by more than the fee (which, bearing in mind that the EU contribution is only 1% of government spending, requires only a small loss of trade) then we're out of pocket. This was the "£4,300 a week per household" thing from Osborne - which he calculated and presented dishonestly, but the truth is still that a small drop in GDP outweighs the relatively small budget contributions that Brexiters are so obsessed about. Even if Brexit goes relatively well and we're not poorer in 2030 than we are now because of global growth, we're still likely to be poorer that we would have been if we hadn't left the EU. Google "opportunity costs".

 

[Essexyellows]

And trade with the "rest of the world" under WTO counts for little?

That aside the Germans will still want to sell us their cars, the French will still want to sell us their wine etc etc etc.

Business will adapt & overcome because the capitalist drive for ££££`s trumps (small t .....not him..) everything.

The principal the majority took is that what we joined originally was "sold" as purely easy trading...... NOT a United States of Europe.

Remember times were much different back then, no internet, no 24 hour news etc etc. there was only the limited information you were given.

This time round everyone had the chance to make a much more informed choice.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

So as someone who is very altruistic, in another post about helping the poorer EU nations, do you not think our "house" should be in order first before we start helping external countries?

Simplistic. By the same analogy, you shouldn't ever give anything to charity if you've got a mortgage to pay.

I don`t notice the EU sending aid convoy`s to help our homeless?

You didn't look very hard.

I do see "EU matched funding" for useful things....like cycle lanes and electric car charging points.....but its only matched not "paid for by".

I don't see the relevance. A grant is a grant, whether it's 50% or 100%.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

And trade with the "rest of the world" under WTO counts for little?

Where did anyone said that? But the EU gives us better terms than WTO for most of the world through existing free trade deals. Being an EU member doesn't stop us trading with the rest of the world.

That aside the Germans will still want to sell us their cars, the French will still want to sell us their wine etc etc etc.

Ah, the old "BMWs and Prosecco" argument. Our market is not all that important in relative terms. BMW says Brexit customs costs would push up prices.

Business will adapt & overcome because the capitalist drive for ££££`s trumps (small t .....not him..) everything.

Maybe. But at a cost - what are the advantages?

The principal the majority took is that what we joined originally was "sold" as purely easy trading...... NOT a United States of Europe.

The EU is not a "United States of Europe" and the idea that it was sold as purely a trading bloc in the 1970s is a Brexit myth. The political aspects of the EEC were one of the main objections of the "No" campaign. Here's Tony Benn objecting to it in 1975.

Remember times were much different back then, no internet, no 24 hour news etc etc. there was only the limited information you were given. This time round everyone had the chance to make a much more informed choice.

Shame they didn't bother, and instead grabbed at outwardly appealing but overly simplistic understandings then. I'm no expert, but most Brexit arguments are flakier than the Oxford defence.

 

[Gary Baldi]

What, like having a single representative of each country regardless of its size? You mean a bit like exactly how the European Council and the European Commission are constituted at the moment?

Not necessarily. The US version is this: The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 presidential electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis.

The choice would be to break down the EU into regional areas, rather than nation states (the overall goal anyway right?), and elect a president that way. Thus allowing regions with different views to represent themselves more on the European stage without the views being filtered upwards.

The EU is mainly made up of mature economies, so it's no surprise that it's growing more slowly than the rapidly expanding economies of China, Indonesia, etc. Anyway, however slowly it's growing, it's always going to be important to the UK (it's the biggest trading bloc in the world, it's on our doorstep, and we have numerous existing trade relationships and cultural understandings). And there's nothing stopping EU members trading with the rest of the world anyway.

Eurosceptics have been predicting the demise of the European project since its inception, yet we're still waiting. And if it does fail, the idea that we're immune from the fallout is a strange one. The world is moving towards co-operation, not away from it. Brexit is on the wrong side of history.

Estimates vary, but the UK represents less than 20% of the EU's trade, whereas they represent 44% of ours. The idea that the EU has more to lose than we do is yet another piece of Brexit exceptionalism.

I don't doubt the EU is a large economy, but being in it can restrict the UK doing business outside of it with the less mature and growing economies. Does being locked into the EU also create a restriction of economic growth? Considering the docile southern European economies, are we maxed out?

 

[Essexyellows]

The EU is not a "United States of Europe" and the idea that it was sold as purely a trading bloc in the 1970s is a Brexit myth. The political aspects of the EEC were one of the main objections of the "No" campaign. Here's Tony Benn objecting to it in 1975.
Shame they didn't bother, and instead grabbed at outwardly appealing but overly simplistic understandings then. I'm no expert, but most Brexit arguments are flakier than the Oxford defence.

I`m taking it you weren`t old enough to vote, or maybe even born in 1975?

In its leaflet to voters, the Out campaign warned that the Common Market "sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation," in which Britain would be a "mere province".

The In campaign openly acknowledged that being a member of the EEC involved "pooling" sovereignty with the eight other nations who were members at the time, it said Britain could not go it alone in the modern world and it assured voters that British traditions and way of life were not under threat.

So Out had the clear message and In "suggested" pooling was fine. However the ability to analyse either option then was very,very limited unlike today.
Fast forward to now and the Out campaign from 1975 have had more predictions that have come to fruition than the In campaign.
Remember the early 70`s were very different times, 3 day weeks, rising unemployment, growing trade deficit etc etc.
Today we are, generally speaking, in a much better situation which generates the self belief that we can do better on our own.

Hence the win.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

I`m taking it you weren`t old enough to vote, or maybe even born in 1975?

I was 10 years old in 1975. I only vaguely remember the referendum, but I am able to read contemporary newspapers and watch interviews and news programmes from the time.

In its leaflet to voters, the Out campaign warned that the Common Market "sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation," in which Britain would be a "mere province".

Doesn't that rather contradict your earlier claim that "what we joined originally was "sold" as purely easy trading"?

it said Britain could not go it alone in the modern world and it assured voters that British traditions and way of life were not under threat.

Which is entirely true. No successful nation "goes it alone in the modern world" (I think it's only Mauretania that trades purely on WTO terms). British culture isn't under threat except in Brexiters' lurid imaginations. In what way does the EU impact on "British traditions and way of life"? What can't you do that you could in 1975 (and of those things, which are prevented by EU membership)?

Remember the early 70`s were very different times, 3 day weeks, rising unemployment, growing trade deficit etc etc. Today we are, generally speaking, in a much better situation which generates the self belief that we can do better on our own.Hence the win.

So, after 40 years in the EEC/EU the UK is no longer the sick man of Europe and is now economically successful. This is proof that EU membership is terrible for the UK and we should leave immediately. Strange logic, but then Brexit logic often is.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

Not necessarily. The US version is this: The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 presidential electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis.

Doesn't sound all that different to the Commission/Council (one per country) and the Parliament (numbers allocated more-or-less proportionally, except slightly adjusted in favour of the smaller countries)? Anyway, going back to the original argument, this all seems a very technical and theoretical reason to object to the EU.

The choice would be to break down the EU into regional areas, rather than nation states (the overall goal anyway right?)

Who says? Brexiters often make claims like this, but does the EU really seek the end of the nation state? I think that claim is pretty far-fetched.

I don't doubt the EU is a large economy, but being in it can restrict the UK doing business outside of it with the less mature and growing economies. Does being locked into the EU also create a restriction of economic growth?

I see no reason to think it does, no. Do you know of any EU mechanism that does limit economic growth, or trade with other countries - and can you explain how it works? And, perhaps more importantly, why? I don't see any logical reason why the EU would want to restrict the economies of its members, or why anyone sane would agree to it.

Considering the docile southern European economies, are we maxed out?

I don't really know what you mean by that. As we are not in the Euro, how are we affected by "the docile southern European economies"?

 

[Essexyellows]

@HayfieldYellow ............. our economic recovery since 1975 is down to being in the EU? Jeez that is stretching things a bit. Nothing to do with advances in technology, working practices etc etc?

Even 10 year old you may have understood the narrative of the `75 campaign that "trade is good.....join up" ........... you know, a bit like writing stuff on a bus! Had it remained (see I can say the word) as a European trade agreement then this conversation would never be taking place.

Maybe take broader view of why "we" want to be away from the potential storm that will effect all the member states of the EU.

The EU- Euro project is looking like a bank that hasn`t seen the credit crunch coming......... basket case economies admitted, national budgets sent back for review.......... hey lets print more money and load them with more debt to repay the debt they can`t pay..... it sounds more like a payday loan company than a financial structure!

Greece were recently permitted to "put off" the repayment of nearly €100bn of debt by a decade, equivalent to 40pc of the debt which it owes the eurozone. Athens has received €280bn in funds since 2010.

Even the IMF have told the EU/Eurozone that Greek debt of 180% of GDP is, surprisingly, unsustainable so how will they settle their bill?


11.00pm Friday 29th March 2019 ................