Forum menu
Let’s see your maths..
Here's my stab at it.
First of all let's take a look at National Institute Economic Review which states:
"First, and most important, according to our estimate, GDP will be 3% per cent smaller each year in perpetuity than it would have been had the UK stayed an EU member".
Fairly straightforward googling gives:
GDP for 2018 was approx £2.1 trillion.
3% of that is £63 billion.
Payment to EU is £13 billion after rebate (2018)
EU put £4 billion back into UK funding (2018)
Net EU expenditure £9 billion (2018)
Reduction in GDP/EU membership is 63/9 = 7.
Save 9 billion to lose 63!
Let’s see your maths..
Work out 3.5% of GDP (for some reason copy + paste ignores the .5).
Find out UK net contribution to EU. Hint: UK government figures don't account for all credits.
Divide 3.5% of GDP by net EU contribution.
It's 9.5 times if you want to be pedantic.
Save 9 billion to lose 63!
My numbers agree - I knew them before I asked TBH..
But I wanted to see if the poster was going to cook something up in an attempt to justify their post.
Of course they couldn’t, because they were talking shite..
I think it was on here Scotroutes was stating scottish greens are anti europe. Thats not what their manifesto says
"The Green vision for the EU is for a people’s Europe, protecting workers’ rights, the environment, welcoming refugees and reining in the banks and major corporations. Europe has its flaws but progress is being made, driven significantly by Greens, and Scotland can be a leader for that progress. We want to be at the heart of the EU, working to end the economics of inequality, corporate power and unsustainable growth. These are problems that do not respect borders, and it is through cooperation that we can tackle them."
https://greens.scot/membership-of-the-eu
Of course they couldn’t, because they were talking shite..
The mind boggles...
The mind boggles…
Show your working then which refutes that posted - otherwise you are talking shite & will be treated accordingly as a brainless troll.
I explained it to you.
Address your inability to read and you might get somewhere.
Your first calculation is incorrect.
ONS will provide net EU contribution including private sector credits.
No, you didn’t.
You’ve shown no workings at all & showed no sources for your numbers.
Where’s your maths?
I think Farage is serious about standing in most constituencies and that will really damage the tories badly.
I am now thinking well over a hundred seats to the smaller parties and a hung parliament
So what really do you think his game is? Is it as simple as keeping the gravy train going? There are worse reasons I suppose...
It’s as likely a reason as any other. It’s a well paid job, his ego gets stroked a lot, and if we leave he loses both plus his reason for existing.
ONS will provide net EU contribution including private sector credits.
OK that shows a higher figure than the one I quoted because "HM Treasury also publishes figures on the payments between the EU and the UK government and estimated the net contribution in 2018 to be £8.9 billion. Its figures differ to those reported by the ONS as they are estimates, compared with the final figures used in the ONS publication. Treasury figures are also presented on a cash basis, whereas ONS data are presented on an accruals basis".
So if we use ONS (£11bn) rather than HM Treasury (£9bn) the "lost GDP"/"EU contribution" comes out at just under 6 rather than the 7 I calculated.
Nearly there...
Del
Subscriber
I think Farage is serious about standing in most constituencies and that will really damage the tories badly.
I am now thinking well over a hundred seats to the smaller parties and a hung parliament
So what really do you think his game is? Is it as simple as keeping the gravy train going? There are worse reasons I suppose…
That is exactly his game, as confirmed by people I know who have worked for him.
JP
Sounds like they want to be the new DUP
https://twitter.com/tomjharper/status/1190757904447606789?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomjharper/status/1190764063179132930?s=21
£ paywalled https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-asks-about-dominic-cummings-years-working-in-russia-vl6d0w62z
Johnson’s Brexit will end up punishing working leavers far more than remainers
Good.
This is exactly why it’s been sold to working class people as an opportunity for them. Notice how the language used has changed over the months – no one mentions Sovereignty or taking back control anymore. The language around immigration has become much less subtle it’s inferred without being specifically promised that jobs might be easier to come by for working class Leave voters, who either do not understand or do not believe that their rights are to be legislated away.
I'm pretty sure that 'getting it done' is being sold now and not mentioning what it actually is.
Nearly there…
oh hi THM, been a while. Back to offer some more wisdom? Most generous of you.
I can say with a high degree of confidence that is not thm
That is striking. Penny finally dropping amongst the population?
I think that May's rush to A50 without any public process of establishing what we actually want was the biggest mistake here amongst many.
yet another missed opportunity for Brexit Britain... not just the jobs but the access to battery tech that gives the ability to make renewables even more viable
I wouldn't blame Elon for this choice, I'd choose Berlin over the UK if I were in his shoes
To be fair Berlin has been on the up for quite a few year amongst tech companies. Cheap, trendy, Germany in general is pretty Anglo friendly so finding management that can converse with any American owners is easy
That is striking. Penny finally dropping amongst the population?
Which Yougov poll?
If this is the millennials one then hardly surprising.
A huge number of leave voters are retired anyway... and that's the ones that are not dead.
I think that May’s rush to A50 without any public process of establishing what we actually want was the biggest mistake here amongst many.
It's a catalogue of mistakes ... I truly wonder how historians will recount this period...
I think that May’s rush to A50 without any public process of establishing what we actually want was the biggest mistake here amongst many.
Corbyn was, of course, in no way complicit.
It’s a catalogue of mistakes … I truly wonder how historians will recount this period…
Whoever ends up writing the history of this clusterfsck wil say want they are paid to. In some ways it will not matter for the same reasons as we have issues now... If the history fits without world view, it will be treated as truth, if it does not, or is contrary, then it will be ignored or treated as fake news and ignored.
Maybe a reliable unbiased version will be found some day, written by an unbiased observer from another country, someone respected, but I suspect that this will be treated the same way.
History is written by the victors and all that.
Corbyn was, of course, in no way complicit.
May's move forced him to go along with it I think.
May’s move forced him to go along with it I think.
How?
He's the leader of the opposition ... he's meant to oppose.
I see the entire opposite... Corbyn's apathy is what allowed May to go along with "Brexit means Brexit", failure to point out the lies that HIS voters had succumbed to for fear that was branding them as stupid? Reliance on Cameron (a Tory) to lead Remain?
He’s the leader of the opposition … he’s meant to oppose.
More accurately they are supposed to push their policies. That may or may not include opposing.
For the article 50. The issue was they couldnt start negotiations until that was done.
Reliance on Cameron (a Tory) to lead Remain?
No there was an active campaign by all accounts. It just didnt get the same press.
They needed to keep a distance from the tories. They got bitten by that in the Scottish referendum.
Corbyn did allow himself to be pushed into immediate a 50
Poor judgement from him at best
Poor judgement from him at best
with hindsight by the Labour party perhaps. But I'm reasonably sure if given the chance again, Corbyn would push for it, as he is personally a massive supporter of Brexit.
He’s the leader of the opposition … he’s meant to oppose.
Er no, that would just lead to meaningless gainsaying of whatever government says. He's meant to provide an alternative view. He is however constrained by electability, and in the light of the referendum he still had to appeal to voters just like May did. This coming from a political landscape where everyone was afraid of losing voters to UKIP.
We'd all love a powerful champion for remain but you cannot ignore the referendum result.
Corbyn did allow himself to be pushed into immediate a 50
What the actual ****!
Bullshit of the highest order.
Who was pushing him when he called for immediate triggering of A50 before any other major politician, never mind any of any standing in his own party?
For the article 50. The issue was they couldnt start negotiations until that was done.
Couldn’t have started negotiations with the EU… but that was not the point… deciding how we wanted to Leave, and what new relationship we should seek with the EU&EEA, was what needed to happen before A50 was triggered.
We’d all love a powerful champion for remain but you cannot ignore the referendum result.
Act in haste, repent at leisure. Lots of ways to act based on the referendum result rather than push for A50 to be triggered ASAP, and claim that FoM must end [poor forgotten Norway, we’re so in denial] and rule out staying involved in the Single Market.
Who was pushing him when he called for immediate triggering of A50 before any other major politician
His electoral base?
So I'm a remainer.
My constituency is Con/LibDem - Labour stand no chance.
The Tories want a hard Brexit
Labour want a red Brexit
Libdem want to revoke but apparently Swinson is untrustworthy and a vote for them is a vote for Tory Lite.
Who do I vote for?
Who do I vote for?
Whoever has a chance of reducing Johnson’s number of MPs by one.
slowoldman
Subscriber
So I’m a remainer.
My constituency is Con/LibDem – Labour stand no chance.
The Tories want a hard Brexit
Labour want a red Brexit
Libdem want to revoke but apparently Swinson is untrustworthy and a vote for them is a vote for Tory Lite.
Who do I vote for?
Lib Dems of course. Even if you do believe the lib dems are tory lite- which isn't really true- then that's still better than Tory Original. I mean, what's the absolute worst case?
There's that weird thing that people did when it was May vs Corbyn, of saying "Well Corbyn would probably try and do good things, but ineffectually. May on the other hand will do horrible things, but effectively. So I'll vote for her. I mean, in the end she turned out to be both awful AND useless, but it's not like being really efficiently awful is a selling point. Diet evil is still better than full fat evil.
(I'm absolutely sure that Labour do want a red brexit; but equally sure that the brexit they want is impossible. The difference between their fantasy brexit and the Tory one, is that the Tories will use promises of unicorns to deliver the really shite brexit which they actually want. Whereas Labour are more likely to try to deliver unicorns, and then when they can't, go "Ah ****, unicorns don't exist after all. We could just get some massive wood screws and drill them into a pony's face, but it wouldn't really be the same, we'd better not eh. Shame, I'd have liked a unicorn")
I’m absolutely sure that Labour do want a red brexit; but equally sure that the brexit they want is impossible.
This is a ruse, to make it look like they tried to placate Brexiteers, but knowing full well they can't so they wouldn't have to face the economic consequences.
Mmm. Maybe. For sure there are Labour supporters and party members who genuinely believe that they can deliver their perfect brexit if given the chance. Whether Corbyn and Co believe the same, I'm not certain.
Which matters, since it demonstrates a lack of basic competence... But may matter less than the result (I'd be almost as happy for brexit to not happen because of incompetence, as I would be through cleverness. It's less good in the long term though)
Jesus! are we still on this? I thought it was all a bad dream. Remember the good old days, when all we talked about was wood burners and Skoda Octavias.
It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
It can “just get done” by Xmas, don’t worry, Johnson has assured us.
[a promise from the last person in Britain you can trust]
Who do I vote for?
You vote for the party most likely to oust / defeat the tory. Due to our archaic and undemocratic system its the only thing you can do. Its a condemnation of our system that the only sensible way to vote is to vote negatively ie you vote for the person most likely to beat the representative of the party you like least
Sigh, I knew I shouldn't have posted that. Of course I know who to vote for, it was a snipe at the "don't vote for Swinson, you'll just get a Tory" brigade. What else CAN I do FFS?
So I am a remainer and also anti Scottish Independence.
My constituency is Tory now but was SNP pre 2017. Before that it was Lib Dem.
I can't see Lib Dem winning it back, the gap is too big to jump. A vote for Lib Dem could help Tory retain the seat. It feels like I am forced into voting SNP to ensure Tory lose the seat, even though I am no fan of SNP, their single focus on independence or their ability to run a decent (devolved) government.
It is a mess.
Awesome skewering of Trump and Brexit up to the 33 minute mark, well worth a listen.
"The great example of this, is what I think will be seen as the extraordinary, awful or splendid depending on your view, defeat of the United States in the first major cyberwar of our century in 2016. The result of which is that the president of the United States is the payload of a Russian cyber weapon"
This is cheering me up.
I think I may day of scahdenfreude
Arron Banks Twitter account has been hacked & has been used to send out lots of his alleged private messages
https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/1196796803896741888
And Wigmore has helpfully confirmed the leak, so it’s genuine.
I really hope these messages are real
What good will they do, really?
The true brexleivers will just call it fake news and carry on regardless.
seems the raab 'nortehrn momkeys' one is fake 🙁
It makes you wonder how anyone could ever say "it's worth it"...
It makes you wonder how anyone could ever say “it’s worth it”…
So right now the targetted ads are flashing up some betting site...
I can do a very easy economic argument ... the bookie always wins yet millions (or who knows tens of millions) bet anyway and a not insignificant number lose homes, relationships etc. and still do it?
The Govt spent £100 million on the advertising campaign for the Oct 31st Brexit.
That didn't happen either.
Money well spent!
https://www.channel4.com/news/focus-group-can-tories-win-over-people-who-voted-labour-and-leave
Watch and weep. Weapons grade idiocy. These are the people who condemn us to darkness.
Festival of Brexit can be sorted very easily, just contact Rob, sorry, Banksy.
Response to CG's post on the election thread
I believe we should be making our own decisions instead of kowtowing to Brussels
1) What's the difference between kowtowing to Westminster or Brussels? I think that the only answer to this is a nationalistic one. To me, there is no difference between accepting rules from Westminster or Brussels. I'm represented in both places. The only difference is that there are non-British people in Brussels. To me that does not matter. To many Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish people, Westminster rule is being ruled by foreigners, and yet that is what you are presumably in favour of? Why not ask someone from Arkansas how they feel about being part of a United States of America. Is it so bad? Most are quite proud of it. Why couldn't we be proud of being in a United States of Europe, if it ever happened?
2) The UK isn't really 'ruled' from Brussels anyway. But in the legislation that does come from Brussels the UK is a major player. We have a lot of influence in the lawmaking. It's a collective effort - we aren't submissive. We are working WITH foreign governments, not simply taking.
3) Even if you don't like any foreigners having any influence over us, you could view it as a necessary condition of being part of a hugely beneficial trading and negotiating block. If we get rid of foreign influence, we LOSE a huge amount. I don't think many people understand that. We are currently in one of the biggest clubs on earth, we have 27 other governments working with us for mutual benefit. If we leave, we will have no-one working for our benefit and 27 of our nearest neighbours working against us, because we'll be a competitor.
The UK isn’t really ‘ruled’ from Brussels anyway. But in the legislation that does come from Brussels the UK is a major player.
THIS. We are one of the member states who propose legislation. European Commission drafts legislation which then goes to parliament for MEPs to vote on. We elect MEPs. So it's pretty similar to our own system of civil service and parliament (though more efficient).
The UK has voted against only 2% of proposed EU legislation (about 70 odd items non off then of any major constitutional importance, just stuff like food labelling). So we have been broadly in agreement with EU proposals.
How is policy developed in the European Union?
I believe we should be making our own decisions instead of kowtowing to Brussels
The flip side of this is that 27 other *sovereign* countries *were* sometimes doing things that helped *us*, even though they might not have liked it very much.
e.g. Russian sanctions following the Salisbury poisonings.
Why would they do that in future?
One of the (many) great misunderstandings is that Brussels is somehow "in charge." It isn't, it's just a convenient central location to meet up.
The UK's MEPs are fully one tenth of the European Parliament. The EU doesn't "tell us what to do" but rather in a very real sense it's the other way around. We tell a couple of dozen other countries what to do. Vive l'empire!
I idly wonder sometimes whether this whole sorry mess could have been avoided if we'd simply relocated the EU parliament buildings to Birmingham.
I believe we should be making our own decisions instead of kowtowing to Brussels
The short answer to this of course is simply "we already do."
The stupifying irony to this is, if we do leave we'll still have to conform to EU regulations if we want to have any hope of trading with mainland Europe post-brexit, only we'll no longer have any say in defining those rules. If anyone believes that the UK should "make its own rules" then it's actually a very compelling argument in favour of not leaving.
If anyone believes that the UK should “make its own rules” then it’s actually a very compelling argument in favour of not leaving.
Excellent point well made.
I'd also question how a small and progressively less relevant island like Britain would benefit from being a lone entity if a United States of Europe did form.
Edit - and thank you for your post CG, while i may not agree it is good to see other points of view.
Our most ardent leavers are more than happy for us to be kowtowing to Geneva and the unelected foreign bereaucrats of the WTO.
We will be the bitch of the world.
Having read the full post on the other thread now,
CG: I agree with most of what you've said there. But the simple fact is that leaving the EU won't help with anything you've listed, if anything it'll make it worse. Every issue you've mentioned is a domestic problem not a European one, we've done it to ourselves and we've now found a convenient scapegoat to blame it all on.
The "money we send to the EU" is simply a smokescreen. It sounds like a lot of money but in national budget terms it's pocket change. If you're a UK tax payer earning an average salary (circa £28k last I looked) then out of the five grand per year you'll pay in income tax and NI, your contribution to the EU is about £40.
If you care to know what you, personally, gain for that £40 above and beyond the national / international stuff then bang your postcode in here: https://www.myeu.uk/
The "United States of Europe" is simply tabloid scaremongering (it's a shame there isn't a catchy name for this, we could call it "project fear" or something maybe?). There's little to no appetite for this in any member state, and even if there was then as an EU member we could veto the idea if we didn't like it (unless we leave of course, then all bets are off and they can do what they want without us interfering).
If there were any truth in this sort of thing (see also, the fictional "EU army") then would it not in fact be a compelling reason to remain, so that we could either veto it or be a part of it? Would we really want 27 countries on our doorstep assembling some form of military or political powerhouse that we had no say in and were excluded from being part of?
It's all hypothetical of course as it's not happening and unlikely ever to do so, but I simply cannot fathom the logic in this as a reason for leaving. It's surely the opposite.
"The “United States of Europe” is simply tabloid scaremongering (it’s a shame there isn’t a catchy name for this, we could call it “project fear” or something maybe?)."
I call that snidetracking: deliberately saying something false to alter the direction of debate to your own advantage. There's a lot of it that goes on.
MOLGRIPS
Response to CG’s post on the election thread
4/ What does making our own decisions even mean?
If we bail out completely from anything with the word europe in it "we" still have to follow WTI rules if we want to trade under them...
If you want a plane to land in another country you need to accept rules.....
It's not like we don't set most of of our own laws anyway and most of the ones we adopt are just nobrainers anyway... reminds me of the "putting a condom on my John Thomas" sketch where the protestant wife is saying "oooh do it" and the bloke is "well that's not the point, I can if I want" ...
i've watched some of this earlier
Common Market Debate | Edward Heath | Michael Foot
70's tv debate Micheal foot and Edward Heath
notice the vastly improved debate, arguments are fully presented, not sound bites. it's interesting to see how the arguments felt so similar. And in fact a lot of the brexit issues have been about since the 70's.
I do think the big difference to then and now, is, Britain as a "empire" is gone. and so, with the growth of China and russia doing a good job of sowing disharmony, we will need closer allies more than ever. Pissing off our neighbours with a terribly organised brexit doesn't offer us the stability we need for the next couple of decades.
I do think the big difference to then and now, is, Britain as a “empire” is gone.
That ship sailed over 70 years ago. You'd have thought that we'd have managed to get our heads around it by now
Apparently not. It seems that in a lot of peoples heads its still all Spitfires, The Dambusters and Brittania ruling the waves.
Its absolutely pathetic!
