The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[chalga]

True cost of EU membership is £980 million per week

 

A new study on the true costs of EU membership, by leading City analyst Bob Lyddon, has been published and makes for extremely worrying reading.

 

The analysis takes into account the money paid directly to the EU budget, £267 million per week. Also included is:

 

The annual net cost of EU migrants (the majority employed in unskilled or semi-skilled low paid work) to the state once the tax they pay is deducted from the benefits they receive, which is £30 billion a year.

 

£12 billion a year is denied to the Exchequer through legal tax avoidance schemes which directly result from Britain being a member of the EU.

 

Extra payments include £2 billion a year given to the EU foreign aid budget (which are not officially designated as payments to Brussels).

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/877708/brexit-news-uk-eu-latest-bill-membership-money-cost-billion-study-research

 

The EU don't set UK wages and benefits,so any costs on migrants is directly the responsibility of UK government policy and UK business,plus the failure of UK workers to take up jobs that migrants will,instead collecting benefits ,which they may well continue to do post Brexit unless they are forced to take up those jobs,in farms,food processing,care homes etc,that migrants now do.Any UK worker that does decide to take up those jobs will still be getting the same benefits and paying the same tax.

[Magilla]

You missed out 23rd June 2016 where the decision to leave was also validated by the voting public.

 

Nah, I acknowledged it

 

No view on any of the points I raised or is it a go quiet like the 'promises' you claim you can't remember?

[nightrider]

There is no need for any other vote. The question asked was simply do you want to stay or leave, the majority said, leave. Period. We are not like Ireland who had to face a second vote because the first one gave the wrong answer. We are GREAT Britain, we are better than that.

 

 

Angel1.

 

We live in a democracy. If enough people want a vote, then we should have a vote. The idea you can bake in a decision for eternity is ludicrous.

[Car Boot]

We live in a democracy. If enough people want a vote, then we should have a vote. The idea you can bake in a decision for eternity is ludicrous.

 

I agree.

 

We waited 41 years after the 1975 referendum to correct that mistake. Perhaps we should have another referendum in 2057 to see if we would like to rejoin?

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2017 at 16:05 ----------

 

Have another referendum then when the deal is set. You arent frightened of losing are you?

 

How about we actually carry out the democratic mandate of the 2016 vote before we have another referendum?

 

Let's leave the corrupt, wasteful EU and see if it can survive ten years without the UK's financial contributions. Personally I doubt it very much. It will be lucky to last five.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Car Boot

[chalga]

I agree.

 

We waited 41 years after the 1975 referendum to correct that mistake. Perhaps we should have another referendum in 2057 to see if we would like to rejoin?

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2017 at 16:05 ----------

 

 

How about we actually carry out the democratic mandate of the 2016 vote before we have another referendum?

 

Let's leave the corrupt, wasteful EU and see if it can survive ten years without the UK's financial contributions. Personally I doubt it very much.

 

The EU is not dependent on UK contributions,or anything from the UK,the Brexit talks are more than proving that.The UK will not decide anything about the future of the EU,the sooner you are out,the better for the rest of the EU,can you be out by the morning?

[Car Boot]

The EU is not dependent on UK contributions,or anything from the UK,the Brexit talks are more than proving that.

 

Could you please kindly explain that to Merkel and Macron?

 

The UK will not decide anything about the future of the EU,the sooner you are out,the better for the rest of the EU,can you be out by the morning?

 

I would much prefer to be out now, this minute. And not pay a penny more to these grasping, overpaid and underworked, pampered EU parasites.

[retep]

Which added up to diddly squat. People can work over the maximum if they want and the protection for workers on zero hour contracts is minor.

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2017 at 14:02 ----------

 

 

 

No, are you trying to make out that everything is now more expensive?

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2017 at 22:18 ----------

 

 

The article was about imported food not home grown. BTW where did you get your crystal ball from?

 

£10.99 from here,

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crystal-3-1inch-Photography-Display-Wooden/dp/B01238GW7Q/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_201_bs_t_1/260-9619528-7075620?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZR70PSZW616H9YGZAJYD

 

Only 13 left, seems a lucky number, mostly bought by Sheffield forumers.

[chalga]

Could you please kindly explain that to Merkel and Macron?

 

 

 

I would much prefer to be out now, this minute. And not pay a penny more to these grasping, overpaid and underworked, pampered EU parasites.

 

They are trying to get you out,unfortunately you do not want to walk away,for what reason I have no idea,except to try and get a cake and eat it,and your government are too scared of causing trouble with each other and bringing themselves down to have a coherent discussion about leaving the other way.

[retep]

The EU is not dependent on UK contributions,or anything from the UK,the Brexit talks are more than proving that.The UK will not decide anything about the future of the EU,the sooner you are out,the better for the rest of the EU,can you be out by the morning?

 

Is that why they are begging for money?

[L00b]

Have another referendum then when the deal is set. You arent frightened of losing are you?

How about we actually carry out the democratic mandate of the 2016 vote before we have another referendum?

That's happening regardless of how the majority vote would go in that (notional) second referendum posited by tinfoilhat: the only choice which such a 2nd referendum can give, is to leave with the deal negotiated, or to leave without.

 

It is not up to the UK on its own, to cancel the effect of Article 50. By a second referendum, or through a Parliament vote, or <however else you can think of>. Legally, without the EU's say-so, it cannot. Simple as.

 

Even if there was a second "Leave or Remain" referendum held before 29 March 2019, and 52% or more voters voted Remain, the EU would be under no legal obligation whatsoever to honour its result and 'let the UK stay in', and the UK would be out by 23:00 GMT (00:00 EU time) on 29 March 2019 just the same.

 

This isn't the first time I've explained this. Going by the cognitive standards of some on this thread, and just as with the previous threads, it won't be the last either.

 

Democratic principles can certainly allow the UK to manifest a change of mind, soon or in so many years' time. But as with everything else in life, sometimes decisions are final and/or have unintended consequences. In this particular case, the unintended consequences arises from the triggering of Article 50: the UK is out of the EU for good come-what-may unless the EU decides it's not, because the UK can't pull back its March 2017 notification without the EU' say-so. If the EU doesn't, for whatever reason, then that makes the UK's decision of March 2017 final and out on its ar5e at 23:00 GMT on 29 March 2019 it is. Simple as.

 

Now, the UK electorate democratically voted the leave the EU. The UK's democratically-elected representatives (MPs) then voted to trigger Article 50. The UK electorate democratically re-elected the Tories into No.10. So don't worry, the EU has got the message. To the point wherein Barnier is banging on the table today, asking May & team to put up or shut up.

Edited November 10, 2017 by L00b