Thanks for a detailed reply. They've had 2.5 years to negotiate a trade deal, I honestly don't think another 2.5 years would change anything. 48% of the population and what appears to be the majority MP's and Cabinet Ministers within a coalition government, are doing their damnedest to prevent it. We've already had contempt of Parliament, I'd hate to see contempt of democracy.
I'd say we're already in a position of strength, we're one of only 5 net-contributors to the EU and in terms of the German car industry, Britain's the world's second-largest consumer. That and if the EU believed we were committed to leaving without a deal, should be enough for an amicable split.
The world has flicked over into the next business cycle (approx every 8.6 years), the decline isn't a result of BREXIT in my opinion. Most economic declines are largely predictable, as markets ebb and flow through inflationary and deflationary cycles. Although I expect BREXIT will be blamed for just about everything negative moving forward.
I don't agree Britain's success is mostly attributable to the EU. After all - being a member of the EU has prevented Britain from pursuing better bilateral trade agreements with other countries, especially our forgotten Commonwealth brothers. Agreeing a trade deal with the EU is difficult because of the number of parties involved and isn't in any one country's benefit, we could change that once we're completely independent. Trade with the EU isn't free, we put in more than we take out. It's really international socialism.
It was NATO, the collapse of the USSR and a long period of prosperity that's kept Europe safe from conflict. I give the EU zero credit for this.
Cameron tried to change the EU before the referendum, but failed miserably and was sent away with his tail between his legs. We seemed to have very little clout and a dissenting British voice is often drowned out by the German and French founding alliance. I don't think this will ever change.
My reasons for leaving are two-fold. Firstly the EU is going bankrupt and if Britain remained, we'd be forced to bail out failed southern EU member states. This is throwing good money after bad. Bankruptcy is a natural occurrence in capitalism and shouldn't be feared. Had the banking system been allowed to fail in 2008 and only deposits protected, we would be out of the grasp of the financial crisis by now. Rewarding failure is a bad idea. The PIIGS states will all go bankrupt and I don't want to be part of the EU when that happens. My second reason is so Britain can regain its sovereignty. I appreciate France, Italy and even Germany fail to transpose EU law into their own legislation, but if that's the case, why subscribe to EU law at all? I would much prefer British laws were decided by the British, for the British.
I would prefer a managed withdrawl, but at the expense of staying within the EU's grap, I'll take a no-deal and 6 weeks of pain. The EU will come to their senses, I guarantee it.
shugie wrote:I'm not loyal to the EU, and have always thought it was a poor "fit" for the UK ever since they abandoned the idea of the "two speed Europe" where on group of member states were less integrated, outside Schengen, the euro and perhaps on a different version of some directives and regulations. We've spent the last 40 years building up a complex trade network with the EU, and in financial services (yest, the bankers) we've done quite well in terms of market share, and definitely profits, with their associated tax for UK plc. My opposition to leave is largely the speed and chaotic nature of how it is being done, and that speed is because rich tax dodgers don't want the DAC6 directive (requiring disclosure of all cross border financial transfers that "might" be related to tax avoidance) to be implemented in the UK.
If we get to the point of leaving, we should do it properly, plan ahead a number of years, allow all our industries to get ready, and, most importantly, be able to demonstrate to the EU that we can go for a no deal brexit because we are properly and clearly prepared for it. Negotiations from a position of strength will yield much better results. But the chaos at the moment is damaging our economy to the extent that were a foreign power to do likewise, we would probably declare it a hostile act.
While we all enjoy the ease of travel in Europe, the real benefit the EU brings to the UK is free trade, and that has helped us move from being the "sick man of Europe" as we were in the 1970s, to being the sixth largest economy in the world, not bad for a nation of our size after loosing most of our national wealth in two world wars (another EU benefit in that not happening again perhaps?) and no longer having an empire/ The costs of being in the EU are high, in cash, in obedience to rules some of which are not beneficial to us, but our governments have made the cost higher than it needs to be, the French for example do not implement the EU rules anywhere near as firmly as we do, and get fined for the EU for their failures. But if we had followed the French approach, we would have found the EU rules to be far less troublesome. Our government had exemptions from the EU which would have allowed it to exert greater control over immigration, but chose not to do so, because UK plc likes access to cheap labour, and will continue to do so after brexit by bringing in Asians instead.
I view brexit as a result as much of UK government incompetence, even before Cameron asked a question and failed to prepare, at all, for getting the "wrong" answer as it is of EU failures. Rather than leave in a complete mess, with a deal that no one wants, and the likely breakup of the UK, we should fix the problems we have the EU first. If that proves impossible, plan for an orderly departure as a five year process, with the endpoint a no deal departure unless the EU come up with a good deal.
Hopefully that explains, in as few words as I can manage, why I can oppose brexit without being loyal to the EU.
