@saltycat
Would like to hear what the Brexit positives are from those who voted in favour.
A reasonable request I think.
Were you brainwashed or have you thought it through yourselves. It's a genuine question.
Just as remainders can list the negatives, for Brexiteers what are the positives?
The ability to trade freely rather than being subject to the Common External Tariff which is a protectionist racket designed to benefit those with the most expensive lobbyists.
Take oranges for example. Not something which can be widely grown in the UK so we do not benefit at all from the 16% tariff on their import. Remove that tariff and you open up an opportunity for farmers in the developing world to sell us oranges, saving us money and providing employment in developing countries. Both sides win in trade. There are 12,650 other examples available.
On which note, we need to start simplifying things. Complex regulation benefits big corporations because they can absorb the costs through economies of scale and watch their small competitors drown. Look at Regulation 404/93. Now you can debate whether you wish to categorise certain bananas as "sub-standard" or not [note: I haven't at any point suggested that they are 'banned'; they are not] (most people can look at a banana and decide whether they wish to buy it) but to have a 56 page directive on bananas is what Jim Hacker might call "an advanced case of galloping bureaucracy".
The Common Fisheries Policy was deliberately introduced as a raid on the vast Exclusive Economic Zones of Britain and Denmark (who were about to join). Plenty of small fishing communities lost out heavily to Spanish and French vessels, not to mention a Dutch factory ship. Fish stocks have plummeted as a result of the policy. The Total Allowable Catches were calculated based on the amount of fish caught in the area pre-CFP but the UK lost out because most of the UK's fish pre-'76 came from Icelandic waters (before the invention of EEZs) and was not counted. Therefore British fishermen may only land 30% of the catch in British waters (rather than landing 100% and then selling it on or being able to issue permission for foreign vessels if we see fit, as Norway does).
One well publicised regulation concerned a ban on inefficient vacuum cleaners. Energy efficiency does have merit of course but the time spent ensuring that new products are compliant is not efficient at all. Then there was the method for measuring efficiency. This is done with the machine empty. Vacuum cleaners are rarely empty so wouldn't it have been better to measure performance while half-full? Bagged vacuum cleaners start to lose suction at this point. The other issue is that if you ban powerful equipment (vacuums, hair dryers, toasters etc.), the end user may have to use it for longer to achieve the same result, thus consuming more energy.
The European Arrest Warrant has huge problems with human rights.
For why people voted to leave, I ask you to look back to Cameron's negotiations for an improved arrangement. He didn't exactly have a very long list. He came back having agreed even less. One of the issues discussed was Child Benefit. European law means that a child does not have to be resident in a country for their parent to claim child benefit. Why? He also wanted to restrict in-work benefits generally to those who have been resident for four years or more. The overall impression given when Cameron returned from his negotiations was that the EU were arrogantly expecting the British to dutifully come to heel. It certainly was not one of international leaders working together for the common good.