Brexit benefits - where are they?

How about starting with the post above yours then.

I’ve read all the posts going back to July and I cannot see anything remotely like a criticism of the UK. Criticizing bad tory government policies or actions is not a dig at the UK. The tories and the UK are not the same thing. Someone on this thread has been very vocal on criticizing left of centre governments (which include previous labour governments) - are these criticisms an attack on the UK?
Maybe I’ve missed something. Can you provide a cut & paste please?

I know what socialism is thank you, I’ve been spelling it out for ages on here, no need to gaslight me.

I also mentioned that the India trade deal is another Brexit benefit I’m not sure if you saw that part.

You’re right I haven’t seen any derogatory posts about the UK because of Brexit but I have seen quite a few remarks which are derogatory against people who voted for it. I haven’t seen any going the other way. Perhaps you would like to put the record straight on what it is exactly that you don’t like about people who voted to leave the European Union and got the majority of the vote ?

2 Likes

It doesn’t seem likely that you know what socialism is. You have repeatedly said that European socialist governments have left financial chaos behind. Sure if you go back to pre-1989 then you will find east European countries that adhered to socialist policies. But these are hardly examples of EU socialism, are they? Your posts suggested that socialism is alive and kicking all over Europe - right now. Which it is not.
Further, socialist see the EU as a problem and working against socialism. A quick glance at some socialist web sites (not my cup of tea but you’re the one claiming the EU is all socialist so I thought I’d have a look) shows that they are against “way in which the EU has helped sustain the neoliberal order”. There was strong left-wing support for Brexit “What makes Brexit and the nativist idea of Europe attractive from a left-wing perspective is the promise of restoring sovereignty to the nation-state”. In part this was to give workers more power by taking away the ease by which non-UK workers, cheaper workers, could flood the UK job market. And overall the capitalist based EU model, sometimes with interventionist actions, is not socialist nor seen by socialists as socialist.
So it does seem your arguments are either based on a false understanding of socialism or your arguments themselves are false.

For me your statement raises the question “why” is it a Brexit benefit? If I understand it correctly then the UK could not have an FTA with India while being an EU member. Now the UK can. So far so good.
I think that it does not necessarily make it a Brexit benefit, only if the FTA is better (for the UK) than a potential deal with India and the EU.

The UK-India FTA is (according to the BBC) at least months away, the EU-India deal probably years away, Am I right assuming that we need to wait until both FTAs have been signed before one can tell that it is a Brexit benefit? Maybe I am wrong here but the recent FTAs (AUS, NZ, JP) have not been that great for the UK right?

1 Like

Hi Jethro

I am confused, you say you have been saying it for ages but your profile shows very few posts and that you only joined on 14 August this year.

2 Likes

I said the EU Parliament is socialist. It’s a thread on Brexit, not on socialism. My original answer to you was that a benefit of Brexit was a rejection of that socialism which the EU Parliament is driven towards as its political end state.

The hard left support from the Corbynites (one example) was that the EU Parliament which governs the 28 would not be socialist enough (a familiar phrase when socialism fails incidentally), and they would not be stakeholders in its design. Thats why they voted to leave as well. Better for them to have a much harder left wing socialism they can control. Thankfully, EU member states are seeing a swing to the right now, rejecting socialism from the inside.

India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Why would we not want to be a part of that and instead opt to tie ourselves into a declining market such as the EU ?

The ability for the UK to make its own trading arrangements is a huge Brexit benefit.

3 Likes

I guess that I could not make my point clear enough, let me please try again. From what I read in the news the recent trade deals were much more beneficial for the other side than for the UK. Was it in AUS where they actually laughed in a TV show about the FTA?

Personally I would not call an FTA with some 0.08% GDP growth effect within 10 years a huge benefit. My point is: let us wait whose FTA will be better for the UK or the EU, the UK-INDIA or the EU-INDIA deal. Then I think it can be said wether it is a huge benefit to be able to do the FTA on their own.

That’s nice but at the rate that people are coming into this country it won’t be enough

No, thats not true at all regarding the benefits of the UK-AUS FTA. That trade deal benefits the UK far greater than it does Australia in the short to medium term, while the trading relationship matures. For example, Australia has no tariffs on most UK goods imports (except cheese and some steel products which will continue for about 6 years) whereas the UK have protected their internal markets by maintaining external goods tariffs for up to 15 years, protecting internal UK markets, farming and agriculture.

The UK has massive export markets in machinery, pharmaceuticals, defence, shipping etc which account for a huge amount of our exports in total (around 50%). Australia is a huge market for us as we saw with the AUKUS agreement for supplying the Australian nuclear submarine fleet. Australia is a member of 5 Eyes, a Commonwealth member, speaks English natively and has shares our Monarchy. Our countries have an enormous amount in common (as do other countries such as the USA, New Zealand, India and the rest of the Commonwealth). Having FTAs with them is pragmatic and practical.

I don’t know what those TV presenters were laughing at, but I suspect they hadn’t read the actual trade deal and what it means for both Australia and the UK.

Thanks for sharing this, although it was better reported elsewhere. The trouble with the GF fanzine (not anywhere close to a real reporting) is that it misinforms and much as it tells you anything. The actual statement from the housebuilders federation was that there were about 120,000 houses held up in planning approval stage with delays related to issues about the water pollution from construction. This is not a promise that all these houses will be built, or if other planning issues need to be resolved, or when these houses might be built. It might take years and years. So you could view it as a help but a minor one given the need is for something like 250,000 houses a year. You always need to double check GF.
But that is not why I’m thanking you for sharing this story. I love this action by Gove as it confirms that Brexit fans really hate our rivers, streams and waterways. Really want to see them as dead, sterile sewers. It is not enough that Brexit has allowed raw sewerage to be pumped straight into rivers - now we will get slurry from building sites. I didn’t remember that being a campaigning message back in 2016 but it is clear that it should have read “lets get rid of red tape so we can shaft our rivers, its what we simply cannot do whilst in the awful EU”. Or maybe the hope is that building site off-flow will dilute the poo.

1 Like

It was the EU that prevented us from dredging rivers that cause the problems of them becoming flooded, stagnating and reducing flowrate in the first place. It is this which contributes towards stagnation. It’s the Brexiteers that are solving the problem, not retaining it by clinging onto EU rules. It has also been illegal to pump untreated waste into a river, the consequences are severe. Nutrient pollution is to be tackled at source instead under a new initiative with £280m of funding, much better than banning houses being built so their occupants don’t pollute the water table with negligible amounts of nitrogen etc. It’s nothing to do with building site off-flow as the majority of nitrogen pollution is from agriculture and slurry run-off contaminating rivers. One solution is to provide grants for new, modernised slurry infrastructure which would reduce nutrient pollution way more than building houses ever would. House building has a negligible impact compared to agriculture. This isn’t shafting our rivers at all, it is actually the opposite and an idea brought in originally by Liz Truss (no surprise slippery Gove tries to take the credit).

Also, if water companies didn’t relieve the overflow (dredging would have helped !!!) then effluent would end up in your house. I’m sure you wouldn’t want that ?

1 Like

Australia is a free trade country, it has few tariffs on anything anyway except the GST/VAT. The only restrictions on imports are the bio-security regulations

That, matey, is utter codswallop. All of it. Like the stuff the water companies put in the rivers.
Show me the EU legislation that prevents dredging. I’ll show you the environmental agency’s policy on dredging - which it continues to do.
Face facts. Brexit means dirty rivers. Classy and real example of the sort of de-regulation that the Brexiteers want. That and freeing up the banks to stoke another financial collapse. (Banks, rivers, there’s a joke in there somewhere. Ah yes, the joke is that this is not what people thought they were voting for.)

I’ve got a good idea let’s open our borders to any European who wishes to come over here and add to our housing problems.

Hi

Wendeey, immigration has gone up since Brexit.

We are far fewer EU Workers coming now and this has led to shortages in some areas, such as hospitality.

The effect of this is very simple, instead of them arriving at peak season to earn some money and then going home, we have migrants arriving with totally didderent cultures and who have no intention of leaving.

Different cultures, many very different to ours, especially when it comes to females.

I am a scientist, ex Public Employee

I also voted for Brexit, still would, in spite of the mess our idiot Politicians have made of it.

I have also been arguing for tagging of illegal immigrants for years.

Dredging waterways fas no effect on flooding, that is simple maths.

1 Like

You were quicker than me as I wanted to ask the same question. I do not imply that I know better but I am curious which legislation was meant. Although I have noch checked I have read and heard often that the UK was one of the major parties to decide on EU legislation. Therefore I cannot accept the term “EU legislation” when the UK very well helped creating it and was part and not enemy of the EU.

Depending on the specific bill of course.

2 Likes