One crazy trick to avoid extension

[BeElBeeBub]

Strangely no one has managed to come up with the benefits the EU solely bring.

The reduction of trade friction between members resulting in greater economic activity for all is an unarguable benefit.



You may complain that the benefits of the greater economic activity are not worth the trade offs required but that doesn't mean it isn't a benefit.



The Single market and Customs union go beyond any other trade agreement in existence and you could not replicate it's benefits without a similar level of trade off.

[Nick]

I'd disagree, but the point is this : you are advocating leaving it because you do not like it, but are unable to demonstrate how in precise terms it materially benefits British people to leave.  This has always been the massive deficiency at the heart of Euroscepticism, and Brexit has exposed it ruthlessly — it simply isn't enough to say that you don't like the EU.  It's a valid opinion sure, but to turn it into policy you need clear plans, a clear vision of outcome, tangible and feasible proposals.  The formula for making a convincing argument for Leave requires two parts: (1) that the EU sucks and (2) that the alternative is better.



If leaving is going to be a fantastic and much better alternative than staying in the EU, why doesn't Javid commission and release the impact assessments which will show everyone that there will merely be a short term hit but the assessments prove a long term gain? I mean, for Christ's sake, if a pro-Brexit government with all its resources can't even demonstrate the benefits of Brexit in empirical form  . . . .

I don't need to demonstrate how it is detrimental to the British people, they can do their own bidding. All I need to do is put an X in a box based on my own views and business  philosophy. I don't want to be part of the EU and being out will not affect my business a single jot.

[Conchúr]

I am sorry Conor.



I have a plate of chips in front of me. Surely there is some way you could turn that into a reference to the potato famine?

Good to see you back at your station. Enjoy your wee chippies and let the adults talk — there's a good fella.

[Conchúr]

Everything you outlined was happening or possible under the EEC/Common Market. Don't need the political monster that came to stay.

I'd disagree, but the point is this : you are advocating leaving it because you do not like it, but are unable to demonstrate how in precise terms it materially benefits British people to leave.  This has always been the massive deficiency at the heart of Euroscepticism, and Brexit has exposed it ruthlessly — it simply isn't enough to say that you don't like the EU.  It's a valid opinion sure, but to turn it into policy you need clear plans, a clear vision of outcome, tangible and feasible proposals.  The formula for making a convincing argument for Leave requires two parts: (1) that the EU sucks and (2) that the alternative is better.



If leaving is going to be a fantastic and much better alternative than staying in the EU, why doesn't Javid commission and release the impact assessments which will show everyone that there will merely be a short term hit but the assessments prove a long term gain? I mean, for Christ's sake, if a pro-Brexit government with all its resources can't even demonstrate the benefits of Brexit in empirical form  . . . .

[Sheepy]

On the bright side Beelbeeb is still rabbiting about Boris in a ditch,he seems to have missed,we told him neither things would happen,constantly.

[Borchester]

Borchester, I could probably formulate better arguments for leaving the EU than you could. It seems you're just another guy who reads any post defending the EU as being "EU is paradise / leaving is Armageddon".  It's a real pity that in one rare example of replies to my comments where you don't include some stupid unfunny jibe about Irish people . . .you still manage to contribute absolutely nothing of value.  Fair play.

I am sorry Conor.



I have a plate of chips in front of me. Surely there is some way you could turn that into a reference to the potato famine?

[Nick]

It has been covered many times in these threads, and all of the leave advocates here have proven many times that they don't care about any advantages of the EU and will just always claim that we would get all that without being in the EU (in spite of the obvious fact that Boris Johnson's deal gives much less advantagieous access to EU markets than we had within the EU.



There are hundreds of advantages of being in the EU, but if you just want to deny that they exist or claim that we could have them without the EU existing, it's pointless going over it all again.  I'd rather spend my time trying to convince someone who is listening and at least has a crack of an open mind.



You are also leaving aside the question of why all the EU countries would set up the EU in the first place, given that you claim it has no benefits at all and is a complete waste of money.  This means that all of the countless leaders, experts, influential people, throughout the last decades were all deliberately throwing money away for no reason, so we could also ask, why would they do that for something that is so obviously a waste of money?

If it's been covered you should easily be able to tell me an EU benefit not available from the EEC/Common Market.

[Nick]

I'd disagree with your first point. The EU Peace Fund and Regional Policy Funding has provided a lot of capital for projects in Northern Ireland that Westminster had never shown much direct interest in.



Calling the accession of the Eastern bloc to the EU an example of "socialism" is quite demonstrably wrong, as accession to the EU has pulled Eastern Europe away from the far left. In any case, EU funding for these countries is not of socialist nature either, because the idea is one of investment and not one of handouts. The EU can be seen as investing in Eastern Europe.  Take a more extreme example by means of demonstrating how this isn't "socialism" at all.  Wasn't the Marshall Plan a form of capitalism?  This wasn't a socialist "handout" — it was the investment by the United States in reigniting the devastated post-war European economies to aid their recovery as vibrant economies.



Finally, it would be extremely difficult for the 28 member states to keep the same level of free-flowing trade enjoyed within the single market and customs union without the EU framework. That's because the EU provides the political platform upon which these countries balance out their interests and remain aligned.  Without that, you have 28 diverging economies and if you are a business in the U.K., that would mean having the expertise and resources to comply with 28 legal and regulatory frameworks — whereas under the EU this is distilled into complying with the single set of rules the member states have meted out at the EU level. Now, 60 years ago that might not have seemed like such a big issue, but the world has changed and grown more complex, not only have new markets emerged within Europe, but the European countries now have to contend with the Far East, India, Latin America and some resurgent Arab economies. The EU framework gives the members the collective clout to not only compete, but to assert their interests.

Everything you outlined was happening or possible under the EEC/Common Market. Don't need the political monster that came to stay.

[Conchúr]

If it were not for the EU the sun would not rise in the morning and the UK would be headed for a nuclear winter by sunset.



Frankly, I wonder if you even bother to read Conor's posts.

Borchester, I could probably formulate better arguments for leaving the EU than you could. It seems you're just another guy who reads any post defending the EU as being "EU is paradise / leaving is Armageddon".  It's a real pity that in one rare example of replies to my comments where you don't include some stupid unfunny jibe about Irish people . . .you still manage to contribute absolutely nothing of value.  Fair play.

[Sheepy]

If it were not for the EU the sun would not rise in the morning and the UK would be headed for a nuclear winter by sunset.



Frankly, I wonder if you even bother to read Conor's posts.

Dunno,but sometimes I read some of the hogwash written on behalf of the EU,I think if you are not being paid by them for such lies,you should be.

[Conchúr]

For a start, NI is part of the UK and as a net contributor they are purely getting their own money back and therefore benefitting from no EU money.



Secondly all the things mentioned above are socialist traits and not associated with capitalism. How are the Eastern Europe countries benefiting from Capitalism unless they are creating their own wealth?



Finally, nothing from above is only possible through the EU, everything could be achieved as 28 single entities.



So I ask again for some benefit only available through the EU?

I'd disagree with your first point. The EU Peace Fund and Regional Policy Funding has provided a lot of capital for projects in Northern Ireland that Westminster had never shown much direct interest in.



Calling the accession of the Eastern bloc to the EU an example of "socialism" is quite demonstrably wrong, as accession to the EU has pulled Eastern Europe away from the far left. In any case, EU funding for these countries is not of socialist nature either, because the idea is one of investment and not one of handouts. The EU can be seen as investing in Eastern Europe.  Take a more extreme example by means of demonstrating how this isn't "socialism" at all.  Wasn't the Marshall Plan a form of capitalism?  This wasn't a socialist "handout" — it was the investment by the United States in reigniting the devastated post-war European economies to aid their recovery as vibrant economies.



Finally, it would be extremely difficult for the 28 member states to keep the same level of free-flowing trade enjoyed within the single market and customs union without the EU framework. That's because the EU provides the political platform upon which these countries balance out their interests and remain aligned.  Without that, you have 28 diverging economies and if you are a business in the U.K., that would mean having the expertise and resources to comply with 28 legal and regulatory frameworks — whereas under the EU this is distilled into complying with the single set of rules the member states have meted out at the EU level. Now, 60 years ago that might not have seemed like such a big issue, but the world has changed and grown more complex, not only have new markets emerged within Europe, but the European countries now have to contend with the Far East, India, Latin America and some resurgent Arab economies. The EU framework gives the members the collective clout to not only compete, but to assert their interests.

[Javert]

Strangely no one has managed to come up with the benefits the EU solely bring.

It has been covered many times in these threads, and all of the leave advocates here have proven many times that they don't care about any advantages of the EU and will just always claim that we would get all that without being in the EU (in spite of the obvious fact that Boris Johnson's deal gives much less advantagieous access to EU markets than we had within the EU.



There are hundreds of advantages of being in the EU, but if you just want to deny that they exist or claim that we could have them without the EU existing, it's pointless going over it all again.  I'd rather spend my time trying to convince someone who is listening and at least has a crack of an open mind.



You are also leaving aside the question of why all the EU countries would set up the EU in the first place, given that you claim it has no benefits at all and is a complete waste of money.  This means that all of the countless leaders, experts, influential people, throughout the last decades were all deliberately throwing money away for no reason, so we could also ask, why would they do that for something that is so obviously a waste of money?

[Nick]

Well, Ireland is now a net contributor but it's true, membership has been extremely beneficial for Ireland. And when I say Ireland, I am referring to the whole island as the EU funded many projects in Northern Ireland.  



But let's consider your 'leeching' argument for a second, because again I am left scratching my head at the apparent incongruities in your political and economic beliefs. You profess yourself to not only be a conservative, but a capitalist. So if EU membership has helped Ireland, isn't that a good thing for the U.K. as it has helped to create a vibrant and open free market right beside the U.K.?



Or let's take the Eastern bloc countries — I mean, this is arguably one of capitalism's most historic victories. By bringing that bloc into the fold, those countries markets were opened up to Western Europe to do business and trade with. They have a way to go yet, and are net recipients of EU capital, but working with them to develop their economies means a bigger market for the UK on its own doorstep.

For a start, NI is part of the UK and as a net contributor they are purely getting their own money back and therefore benefitting from no EU money.



Secondly all the things mentioned above are socialist traits and not associated with capitalism. How are the Eastern Europe countries benefiting from Capitalism unless they are creating their own wealth?



Finally, nothing from above is only possible through the EU, everything could be achieved as 28 single entities.



So I ask again for some benefit only available through the EU?

[Conchúr]

The debate hasn't been had, no one has ever said what the EU brings that cannot be had by the 28 single countries.



The point is we're paying ten's of billions of pounds for nothing. It's ok for Ireland, they are part of the Tapeworm, feeding of the hosts so it's no wonder you're lording them.



Besides the money, the EU takes backhanders from lobbyists and brings in rules we have no control over. Try and buy a 100w bulb. For the vast majority of leavers the points you raise above mean nothing, we want autonomy pure and simple.

Well, Ireland is now a net contributor but it's true, membership has been extremely beneficial for Ireland. And when I say Ireland, I am referring to the whole island as the EU funded many projects in Northern Ireland.  



But let's consider your 'leeching' argument for a second, because again I am left scratching my head at the apparent incongruities in your political and economic beliefs. You profess yourself to not only be a conservative, but a capitalist. So if EU membership has helped Ireland, isn't that a good thing for the U.K. as it has helped to create a vibrant and open free market right beside the U.K.?



Or let's take the Eastern bloc countries — I mean, this is arguably one of capitalism's most historic victories. By bringing that bloc into the fold, those countries markets were opened up to Western Europe to do business and trade with. They have a way to go yet, and are net recipients of EU capital, but working with them to develop their economies means a bigger market for the UK on its own doorstep.

[Nick]

The debate has been had a thousand times. The point is that you have lauded the achievements of Conservative government while the U.K. remains a member of the EU.



If the status quo works as well as it does, then the burden of proof really falls on you to demonstrate why massive radical constitutional and economic change is necessary.  It doesn't matter whether you think things were achieved in spite of the EU, what matters is how you demonstrate that things will materially be better outside of the EU.  Brexiteers have not demonstrated this, in fact they openly avoid being asked to demonstrate it. Sajid Javid won't even have impact assessments performed or released.



So.....if you are advocating radical economic and political change, without a solid conceptualised basis as to what the change will actually bring or even whether it will be successful, then I'm sorry to tell you that you aren't a conservative at all.

The debate hasn't been had, no one has ever said what the EU brings that cannot be had by the 28 single countries.



The point is we're paying ten's of billions of pounds for nothing. It's ok for Ireland, they are part of the Tapeworm, feeding of the hosts so it's no wonder you're lording them.



Besides the money, the EU takes backhanders from lobbyists and brings in rules we have no control over. Try and buy a 100w bulb. For the vast majority of leavers the points you raise above mean nothing, we want autonomy pure and simple.