If we vote for Brexit what happens

CKhalvashi

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

How can you have such circular logic and run a business? Unless I've misunderstood and you don't run a business?

When 100% of the money we send to the EU goes to the EU and < 100% comes back, you think these regions shouldn't be developed by the government because they voted to leave? Yet you fail to appreciate that the money being spent by the EU was ours to begin with. So why should it not continue as it was, plus a smaller saving on top to the exchequer?

Either its spite or stupidity, I'll let you tell us which made you feel funding should be withdrawn.

However if you're voting against something that you're getting and is confirmed, it shows that you don't want or need it, does it not?

My mind has separated the payments made to the EU to the payments we get back. These are two separate transactions.

We pay for services, and access to the single market.

In exchange we get back development funding from a pot of money that's been created with our payment for services. Some regions and industries benefit from this more than others EU-wide, and Wales and Cornwall gain a large amount of benefit from this while the rest of the UK is at a disadvantage in regional terms.

I've only been to Wales a few times, only been to Cornwall once, so again, looking at this from that point of view (and I do actually agree with the decisions that have been made for these regions and funding, just playing devils advocate) why should I pay more to these regions when I don't use and never have used the facilities that this money has gone to pay for.

My company uses vehicles built in Germany and converted for specific use in Wales. This will continue whatever happens with the EU and whatever happens with Welsh funding, as the company is reasonably priced and offers a good product. Companies like this are a good source of development, and post-Brexit, I'd expect the local economy to pick up based on the private sector rather than reliance on government funding.

This may or may not require investment in infrastructure, however this shouldn't be any more per head than the rest of the UK, taking into account any necessary regional variations, to get everyone to the same level regardless of location. I appreciate that in the first instance Wales and Cornwall will require a higher level of this, but long term see no reason why it should continue like that.

gfplux

davomcdave wrote: »

The EU has already made it clear that is all that's on offer; it's a hard Brexit or Remain. The latter isn't an option for Britain politically which leaves just a hard Brexit.

I think, until next Tuesday Britain has NOT made clear anything on what they would like.
The EU has not said anything other than the "normal" leaks that come out of any negotiations that have not actually started. Just like the leaks that have come from the British Government.

Let us not critisize people who are just doing their job.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However if you're voting against something that you're getting and is confirmed, it shows that you don't want or need it, does it not?

My mind has separated the payments made to the EU to the payments we get back. These are two separate transactions.

which is, of course, EXACTLY what the EU wants
forget about the massive contribution from the UK taxpayer but
be grateful to the EU for a few crumbs.

clearly working a treat

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

basically you are arguing to stay in the EU with maybe a few noble platitudes to 'satisfy' the democratic vote to leave.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that if we're going to do it, we need to do it sensibly, in a way that avoids the UK going off a cliff edge.

Even more specifically, I'm saying that once the UK can sustain significant exports to other parts of the world, which is what you want to see, the single market becomes of less relevance to the UK than now.

That's as close to common ground as you're going to get.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

which is, of course, EXACTLY what the EU wants
forget about the massive contribution from the UK taxpayer but
be grateful to the EU for a few crumbs.

clearly working a treat

That's because it's how it is.

We pay a fiscally proportionate sum of money in, and get a proportionate sum of those funds back based on our needs. There will be some winners and losers in that naturally, but IMO everyone is a winner when looking at the whole picture.

gfplux

Tromking wrote: »

Remainiac 'control freakery' writ large.

Actually Tromking, I don't understand you.
I voted stay. Democracy spoke leave, so leave it is.
What is it about that YOU don't understand.
Sorry for calling you out. I assume you voted leave, and Democracy spoke so leave it is.
So Britain is leaving.
OK perhaps the NEW argument can be how quickly or how slowly Britain leaves the EU.
So I am on the side of a VERY QUICK leaving.
Where do you stand on that.

leveller2911

davomcdave wrote: »

I work in governance and most organisations I speak with want to have better governance but don't know the best way to do it. The EU seems to be trying to get better although I'd agree with anyone that said it has a long way to go.

The EU has needed major reforming for decades so Why did the EU expand Eastwards in 2004 and with every new accession country that joins making reform harder to achieve?.

They are still expanding East with Kosovo,Serbia etc in the pipeline to join.

The common sense approach would be to reform before allowing further countries to join but the EU doesn't do common sense.The problem the EU has is political dogma is seen as being more important than substance and making the lives of its citizens better.

Ask your average German how they feel about the EU after already having to sacrifice much when reunification took priority over their own priorities and then paying towards the EU's Grand Plan for an Eastern Empire.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that if we're going to do it, we need to do it sensibly, in a way that avoids the UK going off a cliff edge.

Even more specifically, I'm saying that once the UK can sustain significant exports to other parts of the world, which is what you want to see, the single market becomes of less relevance to the UK than now.

That's as close to common ground as you're going to get.

there is no cliff edge
you are merely arguing for staying in the EU : I've no problem with that but just be honest about.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

That's because it's how it is.

We pay a fiscally proportionate sum of money in, and get a proportionate sum of those funds back based on our needs. There will be some winners and losers in that naturally, but IMO everyone is a winner when looking at the whole picture.

we pay a disproportionate amount of UK taxpayers money in for a whole range of vanity projects to make the EU look good
and we get a disproportionate mount of our own money back, which is mainly useless vanity projects to make people think the money comes from the EU money tree.

and it works for some people

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is no cliff edge
you are merely arguing for staying in the EU : I've no problem with that but just be honest about.

No Clapton, I'm making a case for why I feel best to remain in the common market, not necessarily permanently, but for now.

I have no problem with the issue being kept under constant review, and am open to changing my mind when the time is right, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

I'm sorry, but I dont think this is the right time, for reasons already mentioned. I'll go over these again if you wish.