BREXIT!

comrade dave wrote:

I think this thread has pretty much died out. nevertheless I shall continue to anyone who wishes to read this.

I voted out for several reasons which can be easily broken down into 3 points.

1. Immigration.

now this is a shaky issue and many will vilify me and label me racist, but then again that's modern liberalism for you, I considered this a main reason for my decision - and many others will have done so to- because immigration causes more trouble than it's worth, easily defined in three ways. Houses are required to accommodate these people and some will know that we have a housing crisis already, another reason is that is costs ME money to pay for their benefits because not every single one of them are going to be university grads and speak English, a large amount of them will be uneducated and poor and with that, inevitably comes conflict which can lower the social standard and cause division amongst the country. I also used this as one of my reasons because of how Germany, or more specifically Merkel, have tried to force "Quotas of migrants" upon countries once they realised they had let too many come to Europe and couldn't handle it themselves.

2. The bureaucratisation of the EU

I voted out also because of how the EU is akin to a dictatorship. With any old roger being appointed key roles such as the position Junckner has, I was also opposed to the idea of an "EU armed forces" as it would eventually lead to one nation controlling everything, even the defence of someone's country, and that nation would probably have been Germany given their standing in the EU. It is also likely that the EU would have controlled our nuclear deterrent as well as France's.

3. Money being wasted frivolously.

Search for "EU gravy train" and all shall be explained.

agree or disagree with me, that is why I voted out.

Though I would not necessarily put these in your order, for me its roughly the same I would not be disappointed if my country left the EU

Some examples:

- An agreement is in the making (or already done?) to have the EU have influence on our national pensions. Aka pot of gold, there are few countries (if any) with a larger pension pot in the world

- Our country recently had a referendum too. It is being ignored by our (pro EU, though he said some...other stuff during elections) prime minister.

- Whats up with that Brussels/Strassbourg thing? I never understood it why this is still happening. So I am confirming your point 3 (my main gripe) by using this example (of many) in regard to wasting money...

- Our country is the largest % contributor to the EU, and probably in absolutes too. And for what? Rich farmers in France? Useless windmill projects that become abandoned (mind you, Im a fan of green energy, but think the market will solve it without EU/government).

- Somebody thought it was a good idea to have our country take in a very high % of refugees. What, why? We already have the densest populated country in Europe, and in the top 5 of the world. Place them in central France, Poland, whatever, plenty of room.

Sure this rant seems like the EU might not be the problem - but for me its a combination of things. 10-15 years ago you could find few more pro-EU people then I was, but it devolved faster then the Galactic Republic in Starwars. Impressive.........most impressive

Ill let you all guess what country Im from. Some know, some not. And few people here are happy with the EU, though I consider it unlikely we leave (there is a law preventing a referendum whether we stay or leave), unless our only anti-EU party gets an absolute majority next elections - and it wont (never happened, never will, nor do I hope it)

As far as I am concerned, the EEG (think 1973) was fine, political union...clearly doesnt work. Not like this anyway.

miech wrote:

Ill let you all guess what country Im from. Some know, some not.

Germany provides the most to the EU budget so from there?

comrade dave wrote:

Germany provides the most to the EU budget so from there?

nemuritor98_ wrote:

comrade dave wrote:

Germany provides the most to the EU budget so from there?

From Wikipedia

Pablo22510 wrote:

nemuritor98_ wrote:

comrade dave wrote:

Germany provides the most to the EU budget so from there?

From Wikipedia

Yeah, curiously enough Spain is waaaaaaaaaaay more at the top than Romania.

nemuritor98_ wrote:

Nothing curious there but something obvious.

Oh my, I do stand corrected here. Last time I checked (been a while), it was the Netherlands (where I am from). This list is from 2013 though, so my guess is as good as yours what the %s are now. Denmark and Belgium even slightly above us, but Belgium doesnt count - Brussels as EU capital provides so much economic boosting I could argue it should be far more.

@nemuritor98_. What I am interested in now, is the other part of the balance - how much is subsidized in each country? Because this graph only shows the contributions (each country has to), but what does each country recieve? Should I interpret the average net contribution in that way? I feel that may not show the entire picture, but I may be wrong (again).

Regardless of my hasty conclusion - my points still stand. I have issues that I keep sponsoring weak states rife with corruption (while Greece is the usual suspect, there are others of course). I dont even blame the Greek citizens, they are just following the system that their elite has implemented.

And what does the EU next? Oh, how nice, we are inviting even weaker states, be it on economy (Ukraine & Co), or human rights (Turkey, I have faith in you, but not with Erdogan at the helm).

Maybe Netherlands wont quit the EU, maybe they will, but I can assure you the citizens of many northern countries are quite fed up with what is happening. I wouldnt be surprised to see a NEU (Northern union) arise from the ashes at some point in the not so far future. A union with UK/NL/Germany/Scandinavians+Finland/Luxembourg/maybe Belgium would be a powerhouse on the international theatre. And all those countries have a similar (Germanic/Viking/Anglosaksian) culture, so more likely to get to healthy agreements.

Back on topic: I would be surprised if many of the 'leavers' would be against something like this, as long as its not too much of a political union, but first and foremost an economic one.

And to end with something 'pro EU': I wished they would do tax rates based on the EU average as it is now.....

miech wrote:

@nemuritor98_. What I am interested in now, is the other part of the balance - how much is subsidized in each country? Because this graph only shows the contributions (each country has to), but what does each country recieve? Should I interpret the average net contribution in that way? I feel that may not show the entire picture, but I may be wrong (again).

check the pdf

also check this one, more updated http://community.openspending.org/resources/eu/funds/

As stated, the United Kingdom, who's very name is beginning to sound a bit sarcastic

needs a second vote.....

A second vote is a terrible idea, it throws away the principles of democracy- that the majority counts-, it means that those self-centred and bigoted cunts crying about brexit in London will get their way meaning if something happens and they don't like it they'll do the same again!

comrade dave wrote:

A second vote is a terrible idea, it throws away the principles of democracy- that the majority counts-, it means that those self-centred and bigoted cunts crying about brexit in London will get their way meaning if something happens and they don't like it they'll do the same again!

Lets send our NHS 350million extra a week, that was a load of BS

There are a lot of people that have changed their mind, they realized that leaving is a mistake. They need to stay and reform...

The real reason, people voted to leave was immigration, and I just want to add that

nemuritor98_ wrote:

miech wrote:

@nemuritor98_. What I am interested in now, is the other part of the balance - how much is subsidized in each country? Because this graph only shows the contributions (each country has to), but what does each country recieve? Should I interpret the average net contribution in that way? I feel that may not show the entire picture, but I may be wrong (again).

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/26/eu-budget-european-union-spending

check the pdf

also check this one, more updated http://community.openspending.org/resources/eu/funds/

I do see though, that some strange, skewed numbers are there for each nation. What I understand is that poverty/rich comes into play. What I do NOT understand, is that some countries have way off numbers (Belgium for instance) compared to how rich that country is supposed to be (or poor, its not that Poland is that poor).

The GDP % seem fairly random as well, and dont seem logical or consistent. I say this out of general perception, not necessarily logic or deep knowledge.

An amateur analist like me could say 'ok, why arent the numbers more lineair in terms of recieving or giving? They seem so arbitrary now

So many questions...

Another thing I am wondering, from a more inquisitive, theoretical approach.

Why bother pumping around all that money in richer countries? Its just bureaucracy. An example from that spreadsheet is France - It recieves and gives roughly the same amount (for all those rich farmers ). Why cant it go in a more direct way. Aka, not through the EU, but via regular means (aka: the own government). Its just so inefficient and illogical. Sure there is probably some political ground for all of this, but why really gains here (aside politicians)?

I may show my orange colors here as that stereotype Dutchman that is cost conscious, but heck, I wish more people did that

I'm from Manchester. No-one cares about us anyway.

and so was the remain camp, people are regretting their vote because of 1. People expected something to happen overnight, it is not the case, as many have noticed to view the successes and benefits of brexit you need to look long term not short term and that is where the remain side preyed, 2. Sensationalist, doom and gloom media companies, the BBC and many other news outlets have highlighted only the "Negative" effects of brexit even though none have occurred and are most likely never to occur even that arse George Soros changed his mind.

comrade dave wrote:

and so was the remain camp, people are regretting their vote because of 1. People expected something to happen overnight, it is not the case, as many have noticed to view the successes and benefits of brexit you need to look long term not short term and that is where the remain side preyed, 2. Sensationalist, doom and gloom media companies, the BBC and many other news outlets have highlighted only the "Negative" effects of brexit even though none have occurred and are most likely never to occur even that arse George Soros changed his mind.

comrade dave wrote:

and so was the remain camp, people are regretting their vote because of 1. People expected something to happen overnight, it is not the case, as many have noticed to view the successes and benefits of brexit you need to look long term not short term and that is where the remain side preyed, 2. Sensationalist, doom and gloom media companies, the BBC and many other news outlets have highlighted only the "Negative" effects of brexit even though none have occurred and are most likely never to occur even that arse George Soros changed his mind.

Pablo22510 wrote:

You do know many people have changed their vote because they've been lied to by that coward Farage? The 350 Million Pounds was bullshit, and so was the 'anti-immigration policy'. This is because everyone agrees that the only way for the UK to survive is a single market, and single markets are based on immigration.