If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

mwpt wrote: »

This all reduces to a question of what you think is the right scale for social distribution to work. London subsidises much of the rest of the UK. Is London the right size to pull out of the UK and become a city state, not subject to the whims of the voters in the rest of the UK, where we can control who we let inside our (London) borders? It works well enough for Singapore.

That could work, but I don't want it to because ultimately this is short term thinking. London benefits from having access to the talent, goods, services etc from the rest of the UK and it is most likely long term beneficial to London to subsidise the rest of the UK.

I believe the same applies to the UK and EU. As money is used to build infrastructure and assist the rest of the EU, particularly the less wealthy states, they will in the long term become consumers and traders with the UK. Having low barrier to trade and free movement of goods and services, in the same way that London does to the rest of UK is an enabler for this.

So, the brexiteers like to say they're on the side of long term thinking but I don't think they are really.

So on the whole, for my own self interest but also in terms of long term benefits and stability, I would vote in.

I am not sure London v UK is comparable to UK v EU

London trades far more with the UK than does the UK with Europe. London owes the rest of the UK some redistribution due to historical reasons like London taking all the service industries (whereas if historically the UK was 12 countries rather than 12 regions each region would have developed it's own own banking media advertising legal etc systems).

If the UK really exported as much to the EU as London does to the Uk then I would agree it would need and justify subsidies but I don't think that is the case.

Also the way it is done with mostly farming subsidies is grating for a smaller nation like England that Doesnt have the land to make use of the subsidizes. If it was some sort of redistribution like all nations pay 0.5% of GDP and get back the sum on a per capita basis I think there would be less resentment. Also as countries in the EU develop the payment would fall for the already developed nations

Or maybe the farming sub's should be changed to factor in land availability. If farmers are to be subed then countries with more arable land should pay more into the pot. I actually have no idea how or what formula is used to take in the sub's and redistribute it night be more fair than I am aware

Generali

cells wrote: »

The industrial revolutions prior to the electricity revolution were very small impact compared to the electricity revolution

Rubbish. The industrial revolution in England had been going on for 200 years by the time of your magic cut-off. It had gone from being an agrarian society to an urban one.

Travel beyond a mile or two became normal, starvation highly unusual and the welfare state had been systematically formalised.

cells wrote: »

The UK was the worlds super power yet some school children went to school without shoes they were that poor. That is 3rd world type poverty. Even if you look at some London photos well after 1900 you can see true 3rd world poverty. If the 200 years of industrial revolutions before electricity were all that fantastic why were there 3rd world conditions in superpower Britain?

In 1750 the poorest went without clothes around the area of modern New Oxford Street.

cells wrote: »

The conditions and wealth of the west only really improved after electricity. Not the first day it was discovered or the first batteries but when there was a reliable robust affordable grid which was sometime in the 1940-1950s period for the USA and western Europe.

Rubbish.

cells wrote: »

You could also ask why was India or turkey so poor when they were capatilist nations why did they only really start developing circa 1990 and 2000?

India and Turkey have largely failed to embrace capitalism. To take India, it was prevented from doing so initially by the British Empire and later crazy policies like the Licence Raj inhibited growth by preventing companies from meeting the huge demand that is possible from the Indian people.

cells wrote: »

You may be the worlds best capatilist businessman but if you don't have electricity to run your factories or offices or other infrastructure like hospitals and schools then it doesnt matter you will be a subsistence farmer or selling fruit by the roadside

Nonsense. Before electricity people used steam power and later the internal combustion engine. The USA, the most successful economy in the world, doesn't have a single grid it has a series of private companies supplying people in their local area with power.

If Britain was a US state then by GDP/head it would be the third poorest.

ruggedtoast

People will always use money. They don't necessarily have to have a money supply based on compound debt that is controlled by 1% of the world's population, who are richer than the other 99% combined.

Why anyone would want this state of affairs to continue is beyond me, but this is what happens when capitalism, an economic system, becomes an ideology.

Otherwise rational people canonise the net recipients of inequality as though they had some divine right to benefit in this way.

Generali

cells wrote: »

If you take 50 year snapshots how much did the lives of the people change and what was the main driver?

So say the year 2000 v 1950. 1950 v 1900. 1850 v 1900 etc

The argument I am trying to put forward to you is that the 1950-2000 period saw more progress and wealth than any other period before it maybe even arguably 5 periods before that. So the progress and wealth gains of 1945-2000 were greater than that of 1700-1950. Would you agree with that? If that is the case then what was it that so massively drove the progress in 1945-2000 in the UK (or USA)?

It's pointless discussing this stuff with you because you make a bunch of stuff up and then change your mind when you get called on it.

The fact is that you're wrong with your basic (former) premise. I can't really be bothered to jump through a bunch of hoops with someone that simply invents the 'facts'.

TrickyTree83

michaels wrote: »

I wonder if this career move was planned from the outset?

Surely you can support out but not join the campaign if you don't like the campaign? Why would the campaign stretching the truth over a 5bn rebate change which way you would vote. 5Bn is a rounding error.

After searching out a report on what she actually said about why she's switching sides I can understand what she's saying now. As usual the media have grabbed the sensationalised headline and portrayed that as the overriding factor in her decision to leave.

As far as I can tell she's saying she believes that the hit the economy would initially take - that I think all reasonable brexit supporters acknowledge - would be a detriment to the NHS. Which is a short term view but one that I personally couldn't argue with.

But on the £350m a week figure I would disagree with her.

It's a simplistic view I know but if an invoice for the membership fee landed on the desk of number 11 it would show the £350m fee, plus a discount (the rebate) and possibly other discounts related to our money that came back to us via the EU (EU investments).

Quoting the gross figure isn't misleading or incorrect, it's damn well spot on as the gross figure. The rebate isn't set in stone and we could lose it should the EU change their mind, neither is inward EU investment.

When we get our council tax bills and it says (for arguments sake) £100 a month. That's the gross figure, you don't sit there deducting services you use to attain the "true cost" to you, you don't deduct street lighting, bin collections, street cleaning, etc...etc... so why do that for the EU membership fee? Your local council could stop or reduce the services they provide in the same way the EU chooses where to put the money we send to them.

Generali

cells wrote: »

Anyway feel free to think what you want to think.

Very gracious of you cells.

cells wrote: »

For me I am sure a modern electricity grid was one of mans most important achievements

I'm sure you do but that doesn't make you right.

If we look at your assertions then you have quite a history of being wrong and then simply moving on to another BS set of assertions.

What about the India thing. How about you re-address that? Do you really still believe that India became a capitalist country almost 50 years prior before independence and 100 years (maybe 116 years) before the end of the Licence Raj?

michaels

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

After searching out a report on what she actually said about why she's switching sides I can understand what she's saying now. As usual the media have grabbed the sensationalised headline and portrayed that as the overriding factor in her decision to leave.

As far as I can tell she's saying she believes that the hit the economy would initially take - that I think all reasonable brexit supporters acknowledge - would be a detriment to the NHS. Which is a short term view but one that I personally couldn't argue with.

But on the £350m a week figure I would disagree with her.

It's a simplistic view I know but if an invoice for the membership fee landed on the desk of number 11 it would show the £350m fee, plus a discount (the rebate) and possibly other discounts related to our money that came back to us via the EU (EU investments).

Quoting the gross figure isn't misleading or incorrect, it's damn well spot on as the gross figure. The rebate isn't set in stone and we could lose it should the EU change their mind, neither is inward EU investment.

When we get our council tax bills and it says (for arguments sake) £100 a month. That's the gross figure, you don't sit there deducting services you use to attain the "true cost" to you, you don't deduct street lighting, bin collections, street cleaning, etc...etc... so why do that for the EU membership fee? Your local council could stop or reduce the services they provide in the same way the EU chooses where to put the money we send to them.

I am happy to count the money the EU spends in the UK on our behalf as being extra money that coudl be spent at the discretion of the chancellor if we wer not members.

However we do currently get the rebate so that money can not be counted as extra discretionary spending that could happen if we were not members.

I can not undestand by brexit want to make such a biggie over this dodgy number - the general public don't know the difference between 350m per week and 280m per week so why run a campaign based on this and leave yourself open to challenge on the figures (although no doubt whatever figure they used it woudl be disputed so perhaps the calculation was to go for the biggest one?)

michaels

Guys - very interesting discussion on whether unfettered capitalism or govt sponsored corperatism are the biggest enablers of growth - but perhaps one for another thread? Or have we got to that point where both sides turn to the wookie defence?

Generali

cells wrote: »

You are nit picking and moving away from the point I was trying to make which was simply that electricity (a reliable cheap grid) improves/improved productivity much more than anything in the industrial revolution perhaps even more so than every improvement in the industrial revolution combined (with regards to manufacturing)

The reason I move on is because I simply can't be bothered arguing with someone who knows a lot less than me on the subject but is so sure of themselves nothing I say will change their mind. I will say once more who's likely to know more about manufacturing and process manufacturing the process engineer or the economists? And yes I feel like I want to delete my posts here and move on as I feel I am being rude now and I don't like that so its not worth continuing something you take as 'lies and moving on'

Whatever cells. As long as you know you're right, that's the main thing.

Back to the topic eh?

TrickyTree83

michaels wrote: »

I am happy to count the money the EU spends in the UK on our behalf as being extra money that coudl be spent at the discretion of the chancellor if we wer not members.

However we do currently get the rebate so that money can not be counted as extra discretionary spending that could happen if we were not members.

I can not undestand by brexit want to make such a biggie over this dodgy number - the general public don't know the difference between 350m per week and 280m per week so why run a campaign based on this and leave yourself open to challenge on the figures (although no doubt whatever figure they used it woudl be disputed so perhaps the calculation was to go for the biggest one?)

Conversely the public may not be aware that the rebate can change and has changed in the past. It's possible that if the Eurozone goes into freefall that the EU may remove the rebate based on the argument that the rest of the EU requires the money. Then we revert back to the gross figure on the invoice, which is what Leave are campaigning on.

Perhaps the Leave campaign should have used something like:

"The UK is liable for £350m per week in fees to the EU."

It would be much clearer what our situation is then and not as easy to sling mud at, which is what's happening.