Because what you owe is future payments in the budget in future stuff (research agreements, and other projects for the next years after leaving which have already been signed, retirement funds,...). Being a net contributor only means that what you pay every year is less than the investments you get back, not that the money you have been given extra is there for you when you leave. Actually, as you pay "more", your obligations are higher.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Brexit | OT3 | A Feast for Crows
- Thread starter theaface
- Start date
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
I know theres a lot more to it, but man alive that sounds like a shit deal when you put it like that lol.
I mean, a better example would be leaving your appartment before your contract expires. You are supposed to keep paying until it finally expires but you can normally negotiate not to pay so much.
Huw_Dawson
Member
It needs to be a consistent lead for a few months, rather than a large lead in the short term.
We'll know if we are really facing No Deal by Christmas or so. If the polls are against the notion then the chances of the Tory party's Commons group collapsing under the stress and forcing May out at the least become high.
still realllly small.
Because the opinions here don't even slightly represent the real world. And let's be honest, leavers wouldn't dare show their face in this thread.
Faisal Islam talked a while back about how the Cabinet discussed how Brexit had to 'work for the young' or else it'd be reversed within a decade. Looks like that's going well.
Survation Poll: Age 18-34 said:
'sup. I voted leave and probably still would. Gave my reasons for it a while back and got pounced on for them.
But generally I feel the EU is undemocratic, there is no ability for us peons to vote the heads of it out. And it's also a continual power grab to eventually form a superstate. I'd rather just have lots of smaller sovereign states working together for commerce and trade, but never law or military
PJV3
Member
Well remaining seems to gradually be getting the upper hand, and eliminating the older voter it's probably even nearer to opinion here.
But i don't think the point was being surprised by the number, more about people watching a divided government thrashing around happy with no deal but doing nothing on the ground about it, etc.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
I have an idea.
What if we DON'T decide to fuck our economy, destroy our currency and mess with our children's future, until that superstate/military thing you don't want actually even slightly happens?
Also, how is it better that we now have ZERO say in the EU?
If we felt so strongly about superstates and joint militaries, we could veto or just do what weve been doing and argue our case from INSIDE EU decision making chambers to stop things we dont like.
If by some completely unforeseen circumstance Brexit turns out to be terribly bad and the evil unelected (actually elected) EU overlords now decides to table a "let's completely fuck over the UK because there's now literally nothing they can do about it and we found substitutes for all their products and services", we can't Veto that bill.
How is that a better position to be in, if you are truly concerned about the EU and it's intentions?
It isn't, is what I'm saying.
If you have a problem with the EU, our closest neighbours and biggest trade partner, how do you protect the UKs interests by now no longer having a SINGLE shred of decision making power in how the EU treats us?
All I hear are dog whistles. You are too afraid to say what you really feel.
When you say the EU is undemocratic, you deserve to be pounced on. It's demonstrably false. To keep saying this over a year on is bonkers.
As for this notion of an EU superstate (legally and military), even if it were a thing (which it isn't), why can't people who are opposed to it actually articulate WHY they are opposed to it? What's so terrible about a closer union? Is it loss of sovereignty and control? Because fuck me, the current Government is the absolute textbook definition of demonstrating a lack of respect for proper parliamentary process.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Let's ignore the nonsense about the military. You want to take back by control by leaving so we have to follow all the same rules without being able to veto or vote on them?
I'm missing something here...
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This post should be bannable or at least capable of being severely reprimanded. I don't agree with RoyalFool, but of course this place is going to end up an echo chamber when you automatically assume the worst of the other side and insinuate malicious motives. Let's be better than that.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
You all keep saying this. The EU is factually and objectively more democratic than the UK election system.
Im sorry, but this is just some bullshit. You can't go around and say the sky is red and not expect people to lay it on you for saying and believing falsehoods.
Grizzle
Good point well made. I can see that side of the argument, I guess, I don't have faith in our own EU reps actually doing the right thing and not just going along with the gravy train rather than using their veto.
We already allowed the EU to massively creep outside it's original mandate. If we didn't vote no, I can see that just continuing.
I also don't think the long term effects of leaving will be that major to be honest, feel there is a lot of hyperbole at the moment for very small shifts.
Shit like this ruins debates
Good point well made. I can see that side of the argument, I guess, I don't have faith in our own EU reps actually doing the right thing and not just going along with the gravy train rather than using their veto.
We already allowed the EU to massively creep outside it's original mandate. If we didn't vote no, I can see that just continuing.
I also don't think the long term effects of leaving will be that major to be honest, feel there is a lot of hyperbole at the moment for very small shifts.
Shit like this ruins debates
Muffin1611
Banned
I see this all the time and nobody has given me a satisfying explanation: No shit, it's a representative democracy. You can vote for parliament members. They appoint people like the President of the EU Commission.
Your prime minister is literally appointed by your Queen. Please explain to me the difference. You didn't directly vote for May either.
Sure, my understanding is that there is too much abstraction. So if I protest enough maybe the next guy up the chain gets axed, but short of marching on Brussels nobody has the direct ability to kick them out of power.
If you vote folks who vote folks who appoint anither guy that's just an illusion of democracy. As I have no way of actually voting for who gets to sit at the top. It's why in the UK we have different local elections and parlimentry elections.
I've never understood the unelected bureaucrat argument. We vote for MEPs who vote for our interests and such, now if you're stupid enough to give UKIP that job then that's unfortunate. We don't vote for the Lords in the UK, we don't vote for Chancellor, Education secretary etc. You put your trust in others to do the job. As for the top dogs at the EU, they are mostly toothless and mainly recommend, guide things but it's certainly up to other elected officials to push through the agenda.
I also agree with the post above, outside the EU, the UK is giving up it's seat at the table, a rather bloody important one that they'll never ever be able to compete with and if they stay within, they could veto, table their own ideas etc. You think Obama was saying don't leave just because of the economy, America knows it's monumentally stupid to give up the privileged position within the EU and the UK has that in spades. Why throw that away.
I'm totally open to good leave arguments but I've never heard one.
How is this different to what we have at the moment? I don't vote for the leader of our country, the parties themselves do. We only vote for the MP's where the controlling party then has the Queen approve the Prime Minister.
Ahh cool, I guess if you say it'll be okay never mind the experts who have come out and studies that have been done which show the UK will be severely disadvantaged and poorer outside of the EU.
OK, you think/feel this. Do you have any citations and evidence to back up where those feelings are coming from? Because from where I'm sitting, experts, institutions, businesses, etc. are spelling out dire warnings every single day. Are we really in this bizarre post-truth world now where gut instinct trumps logic, reason and hard facts?
Oh and remember that Davis and the DExEu had 50 studies commissioned on the impacts of Brexit which they won't publish. Are you not curious as to why, or do you really believe his "don't want to tip our negotiating hand" hogwash?
Muffin1611
Banned
You can't kick May out either. There's literally no difference.
Of course there's no additional EU local elections, how would that work? Member states already have their own local elections mostly.
Sorry but we have a wealth of data that shows this is the case. I don't want an echo chamber but I also find it comical that these people keep parroting the same demonstrably false talking points. You'll have some corner cases but he didn't mention immigration at all in the post. Renditman at least goes onto immigration - he argues from a supply and demand perspective, he is wrong, but at least he is intellectually honest about it.
So you would like a President of Europe vote as well as the current MEP vote, would that satisfy you?
Still doesn't work though because the heads of Europe aren't that powerful, you would be voting for a mostly headless chicking. They are more like guardians, a figure head to keep things moving.
The Friendly Monster
Member
May I ask who you voted for in the European elections?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is grossly disingenuous. The Prime Minister being appointed by the Monarch is a mere formality, and the Monarch has not appointed anyone other than the leader of the party with the support of the Commons in nearly a hundred and fifty years.
The EU's structure is much less democratic than that of the United Kingdom. Here's the United Kingdom's structure:
Voters directly elect the Parliament (the Legislature).
Voters elect Parliament, who elect the the Government (the Executive).
That's it.
Here's the EU's:
Voters elect National Governments who appoint National Ministers (one half of the Legislature)
Voters elect the European Parliament (the other half of the Legislature)
Voters elect National Governments who appoint National Ministers who appoint Commissioners (the Executive)
The chain is very clearly less direct. That's not even mentioning two more complicating points: firstly, that Commissioners are supposed to act independently of the Ministers who appoint them, so in fact Commissioners are not accountable to National Governments, and are ultimately not accountable to voters. This is particularly true given that functionally the European Parliament has fuck all influence over Commissioners. Secondly, that the European Union has a legislature which has functionally no power whatsoever to legislate.
I'm in favour of the European Union and Remain, but I can also quite clearly see that the EU's structure is a mess and could do with reform.
The sovereignty argument is one I actually have some empathy with. I also think it's one that the majority of leavers - or remainers or non-voters, duh - actually don't care about. The leave vote was essentially a mandate for less immigration, more investment in public services, and no-one to be made poorer for it. As it is, we might get less immigration (to the country's significant disadvantage but hey, it's what people voted for) but good fucking luck with the other two.
The people who care about sovereignty are mainly the people in the Tory party who read about real life in a textbook once. Ask your average leave voter if they care and they might get a tear in their eye and pound their chest triumphantly, but they'd probably change their tune if you said it would cost them, say, £50 a week.
My point is we're basically heading for a Brexit that nobody voted for. The people were asked "Would you like lower levels of immigration, higher levels of public investment and basically nothing else to change?" and answered "Sure, that sounds great." The Brexit elite within the Conservative party has then said, "See? They want their sovereignty back - they don't care if public services get considerably worse or everybody becomes substantially poorer!"
The people who care about sovereignty are mainly the people in the Tory party who read about real life in a textbook once. Ask your average leave voter if they care and they might get a tear in their eye and pound their chest triumphantly, but they'd probably change their tune if you said it would cost them, say, £50 a week.
My point is we're basically heading for a Brexit that nobody voted for. The people were asked "Would you like lower levels of immigration, higher levels of public investment and basically nothing else to change?" and answered "Sure, that sounds great." The Brexit elite within the Conservative party has then said, "See? They want their sovereignty back - they don't care if public services get considerably worse or everybody becomes substantially poorer!"
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Mostly agreed.
Roberto Larcos
Member
There is no effective commerce / trade without law.
Muffin1611
Banned
The point with the prime minister I was making is not particularly that it's appointed by the Queen. It's a technicality, but it's still the parliament electing the prime minister. Arguing that the EU is "undemocratic" because you can't directly axe Juncker is complete nonsense and not any different from the UKs own system.
If you're arguing that some of the EU systems are bloated and a bit too indirect, sure. But this specific argument is simply nonsense.
No way is that enough, this is like Scottish independence, if you are going to risk political suicide by calling a second referendum, those remain numbers need to be much higher, or it solves nothing
Edit- I am new here but if you guys want Leave voters to come in here, you are going to have to accept you are not going to like what they say, to round on them just creates a false reality.... cmon, what one of you has not sat in a meeting and listen to some idiot run on about complete nonsense, and have to endure it...
We should be welcoming leave voters with a 'understanding' ear, unless they play the 'R' card. This thread is currently like a dating site, 99.9% men, and as soon as a lady appears, she gets inundated with messages....
Gently, gently approach is better I feel
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Is he wrong?
I dont want to be that guy, but there does seem to be at least one issue with EU membership that you're not mentioning here:
how to upload picture
You believe that immigrants are disrupting your children's education, clogging up your hospitals and take more out of the system than they put it (despite evidence showing EU migrants actually being net contributors while UK born residents, particularly the old generations, are actually those sucking the juice out of the system).
And you also believe austerity underfunding every social service has nothing to do with social services suffering in quality.
Also this post of you replying to someone disagreeing with another poster that "Islam is taking over the UK".
I mean, there are definitely other issues influencing you other than sovereignty.
So Therese May is going to send an email directly to EU citizens saying: I couldnt be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay.
This is nothing. Every EU citizen is already here living lawfully, if you add living lawfully to the sentence you are basically saying we will have to go through a process to be considered lawful, and if we don't pass that process then we have to leave. So basically you aren't saying anything to calm us, if anything, if feels like a threat. It's absolutely ridiculous.
This is nothing. Every EU citizen is already here living lawfully, if you add living lawfully to the sentence you are basically saying we will have to go through a process to be considered lawful, and if we don't pass that process then we have to leave. So basically you aren't saying anything to calm us, if anything, if feels like a threat. It's absolutely ridiculous.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Democracy isn't some binary system where there's a clear: yes, democratic/no, not democratic. We can talk about degrees of democracy. It is very clearly easier for the UK electorate to unseat May's political platform if they so wanted than it is the European electorate to unseat Juncker's political paltform if they so wanted. Even if the European Parliament refused to re-elect Juncker, they can only elect/refuse to elect candidates nominated by the Council, so the Council has complete veto power. This is just not true of the United Kingdom - the House of Lords does not have veto power over the Prime Minister, and has not in literally hundreds of years.
Relatively, as a structure, the EU is less democratic than the UK. If your sole concern was maximizing the democratic structure of the law-making process, you would be in favour of leaving the EU (unless you expected radical reform in the future or whatever).
WhateverItTakes
Banned
The only way we're getting a second referendum is a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. Labour can say 'oh, they forced it on us' while remaining in their quantum leave/remain state. Though most likely an election might just mean we get a deal, instead of this moronic crashing out business.
I was speaking with an Lithuanian lady the other day, and I mentioned that was she going to stay after Brexit.... she said that in Lithuania you are not allowed dual citizenship, so she could not apply.... that can not be right can it?
The Friendly Monster
Member
As well as not being binary, democracy is more than just the single dimensional continuum you make it sound like. To claim that the EU is less democratic than the UK based on the election of the president is massively simplistic without considering the obvious democratic problems the UK has, e.g. hereditary peers, monarchy, first past the post.
Now that isn't to say the EU system is perfect, but it is possible to effect change from within. I became so disillusioned with UK politics after the AV referendum. It's impossible to take critics of the EU's democratic system from the right seriously after that result.
PJV3
Member
Isn't there only a couple of countries that allow it in the EU, I think Cyprus and the Netherlands, I'm not entirely sure.
Is he wrong?
I dont want to be that guy, but there does seem to be at least one issue with EU membership that you're not mentioning here:
how to upload picture
You believe that immigrants are disrupting your children's education, clogging up your hospitals and take more out of the system than they put it (despite evidence showing EU migrants actually being net contributors while UK born residents, particularly the old generations, are actually those sucking the juice out of the system).
And you also believe austerity underfunding every social service has nothing to do with social services suffering in quality.
Actually in the defense of Royal Fool, look at it like this.... you see services, education, hospitals etc keeling over...
The Government keeps telling you there is no more money, it is perfectly understandable that the average person would see being in the EU as causing these issues...
Hospitals is old people (we all know that) but services and schools are under mass pressure, and being told there is no more money, it is an easy jump to make, to blame it on EU people, because on a binary level, if you remove people = less demand...... now we all know on here that is simply does not work like that, but you have to see it from other peoples viewpoint, and when you do it is easy to see why people voted leave.
and to double down on that point to show why it is a bad idea just to attack leave voters, if Cameron had not called every UKIP voter a racist, none of this may of happened.... when you attack people they get defensive and it solidifies their opinion.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Except he posts on GAF enough to know that it's not immigration that's causing the NHS to fail...
It's one thing to not know the truth, it's another to deliberately disregard it.
PJV3
Member
Sorry I can't accept that at all, the country inflicted austerity on itself.
That's not right. A very clear message from the Leave campaign was that a Leave vote was a vote to "take back control". That's why in that ITV news infographic that gets posted frequently the words "sovereignty", "control" and, humorously "back" are so large.
The real issue is how sovereignty was being sold by the campaign. You cannot be an international trading nation without ceding some control of aspects of that trade to another nation/bloc and/or the WTO. Therefore the Brexit ultras' claims that they can't accept any degree of intervention from abroad is as untrue as it is unworkable.
She can't apply for UK citizenship, no. But what May appears to be offering is effectively "settled status" which means your Lithuanian lady would be able to continue to live here as she does now. She wouldn't have the full rights of a UK citizen, but she doesn't have that now anyway.
of course it did, but what I am saying if you are told there is no more money, it is only natural that you look at other factors, be they unjustified or not
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Hey, I was simply replying to a person saying it should be bannable for a person to state that people aren't being 100% truthful about their reasoning for wanting to leave.
So I dug up some posts showing that he doesn't like the amount of immigrants in his kids schools and his hospitals.
And that he thinks immigrants who are net contributors are "taking all the money".
And that his response to someone saying that the "UK will have Islamic no go zones because Islam is taking over the UK" is to say "you may laugh, but look at classroom demographics in london. Lots of muslims. And now theres a.muslim mayor! Numbers don't lie!".
Actually, let me just quote the convo:
Oh and of course, "sovereignty".
Thank you I will tell here, as I doubt she will be the only one who leaves as they don't understand things
The Friendly Monster
Member
To be clear, it hasn't been decided yet what will happen to EU citizens in the UK after brexit.
lol sorry.....
We are all guilty of saying stupid stuff though about immigration, just the other day my wife who teaches at a school in Peterborough, showed me her class list, and I said "OMG there is not a single English person in your class" she let me have it both barrels, but I was not being racist, I was being stupid and it was a curse comment.... so we all say stupid stuff
Germany allow it too
I know Spain also require you to renounce any other citizenships you have when taking Spanish citizenship, but don't know if they then stop you from acquiring 2nd ones after that
my reply was kind of lazy :/ i was dismissive because i found it an absolutely insane position that is detached from reality. didnt really do anything to convince him otherwise :/
He problem here is assuming that because they have foreign names it means they arent English
I would argue - in addition to that one infographic being telling but maybe not the definitive summary of why people voted to leave - that all those words, even "sovereignty" itself, are basically euphemisms for immigration. You can't tell me that you've not seen similar phrases in xenophobic propaganda. The sovereignty argument is the favourite of a small set of Brexiters in the Tory party and the last refuge of people trying to make any sort of intellectually legitimate pro-Brexit argument. The proof will be in the pudding when services buckle, living standards fall and people don't go, "Oh, all the problems I had prior to the referendum are substantially worse, but that's fine, at least I don't have to vote for an MEP anymore."