Would we have more control if we leave?

[HivesMind]

Please play nicely, folks.

Over on the AA Gill thread, @SingingLily very eloquently wrote about how they'd researched thoroughly and decided we should Leave the EU as we'd stand more chance of controlling our own government and removing them if needed...and about how the EU is not a true democracy. Apologies, my phone is playing up or I would quote directly but if anybody else can, or can summarise Lily's words better, please do.

The OP questioned whether that's really true, as did I. But the OP had already got backs up plus the original thread - Lily pointed out - was about Remainers' attitudes to Leavers, so it was more appropriate to start a new thread. So I'm asking the question here: would we really have more control, or not?

I know it's probably futile to say, but please try to be respectful to each other and non passive aggressive with answers. I totally get how emotive this is for everybody but I genuinely want to hear opinions and that won't happen if people are defensive or scared to speak. Putting my own cards on the table, I'm a Remainer and yes, I'm scared about the situation purely because of my personal set of circumstances BUT I am a Remainer who believes everybody is entitled to an opinion, that all opinions should be respected and that context is everything to how people choose to vote - no one person can see the world through the eyes of another or tell them what's right for them. And unless we shut up and listen we're even less entitled to try. So back to the original question: More control - in or out, and why?

But how can I vote Remain when the EU is so profligate when our NHS is struggling?

Fuck all to do with the EU.

Do you see German or French NHS struggling to the same extent? They fund theirs with higher taxation and state health insurance.

Wrt profligacy - how much has now been spent on Brexit. Two rounds of No Deal preparations...??

There is a very fundamental question here, though. Is bigger always better? Would a global free trade and free movement economy represent the ideal solution? If not, then why is the EU better than a nation state of close to 70 million people and a huge GDP (still 7th largest in the entire world).

I don’t think the solution is easy. I also don’t think size alone is critical in negotiating trade deals. Look at pitiful N Korea or Iran, able to negotiate trade concessions in return for being less bellicose, it also helps not having external debt. There are a lot of factors. Singapore gets pretty great trade deals and it is tiny.

Personally I liked the EU when it had a lot less nations of broadly similar ideals and GDP/capita and less federal ambition.

I think the EU costs us about £36 per YEAR per person (might be £39?). That's phenomenally good value when you think of what we get back. For example, reciprocal healthcare if we visit or live in other EU countries.
I'll never understand people who think our rebated contribution isn't well worth it.

Yellow - every multinational who chooses to locate in the U.K. for single market access contributes to our economy. The net gain of that is priceless - far in excess of any +/- of contribution sums.

Singapore gets pretty great trade deals and it is tiny.

Because it is deregulated for workers and they get treated like shit and so investors love this so get great deals.

Tories want us to be more like Singapore, and are planning for it.

Again, wake up.

At least the EU spends £100m its on something tangible like moving offices

The UK spent £100m on adverts for an event that was never going to happen

MrPan,

What have workers’ rights got to do with external trade deals?

Have you ever been to Singapore?!

Because exploitative working conditions and wages make countries more attractive. This is known the world over, and at all times.

No I haven't been to Singapore.

did you see the Dispatches program that calculated the NHS drugs bill rising by £27 billion per year as part of a US-UK trade deal?

No, but the figure is arrived at only if the NHS pays US prices for all medicines - which is an extremely unlikely scenario;

"Dr Andrew Hill from Liverpool University told Dispatches that if the NHS were to pay US prices for all medicines, our annual drugs bill would rise from £18bn to £45bn."

Why is the NHS paying US prices for medication an extremely unlikely event, I thought that is what the meetings were about as part of a FTA with US?

Why is the NHS paying US prices for medication an extremely unlikely event

For a start we don't buy all of our medicines from the US, so why would we pay US prices for all medicines?

Clavinova

That was part 2 of the 'cost' - the UK would be prevented from accessing generic versions of drugs with US patents for a longer period than currently. We'd be both forced to pay US prices AND have to buy drugs from US companies for longer. I know you love to spread FUD all over these Brexit threads but it was a well-researched and well put together program.

Would we have more control if we leave? No we would have less.

I’ll try make concise separate posts as I know I am a rambling poster:

Point 1
We will be in a far weaker position trying to negotiate on our own. We were a leading member of the EU for 30 years. In that time we helped obtain trade deals with over 70 countries.It took time to get those.

Starting again gives less control as we are weaker and will be more desperate to agree to whatever, say the US, or India want.
• Australia has already said that more trade comes with freer movement of their workers.
• India has already said that more trade comes with freer movement of their workers.
• USA has already said that more trade comes with paying higher US prices for their pharma.
• USA has already said that more trade comes with putting up with their (lower) FDA food standards.

If by 'control' one means influence, then of course each individual will certainly have less of Brexit is allowed to go agead. I understand why some people bought into that idea of the leave campaign though. Much of the UK population have been treated like shit by those in power for so long.

Would we have more control if we leave? No we would have less.

Point 2

From other countries’ perspectives – we did have control as part of the EU. Other countries envied us. I was talking to DD’s friend -a Dutch politics student who said that other smaller EU countries always wanted to be in the UK’s position in the EU. Being a heavy weight member up there with Germany and France. Helping lead a powerful trading bloc that was listened to internationally.

It was only domestically some UK politicians resented the collegiate aspects. Internationally, we were seen as an English speaking gateway to Europe with all the business and kudos that brought. We were seen as one of the leaders of a market worth $18.8 trillion in a market of 500 million consumers.

HivesMind. I fully appreciate your attempt to have a nice civilised discussion but the unnecessarily aggressive responses, means I just can't be bothered to engage. I've said I'm as undecided now as I was 3 years ago (referendum and election) but I'm getting attacked and sworn at no matter what I say.

Why are Remainers so horribly aggressive? Don't they realise they actually put off ditherers like me?

I'm out I'm afraid.

I just remember Ivan Rogers' fascinating account of the implications of Brexit from last year.

This para from a summary of what he said:

‘Other people have sovereignty too’
The EU will try to maximise its own sovereignty and power where it can, and this will not work to the advantage of the UK. Rogers points out that although not technically bound to follow EU rules after Brexit, even in the event of a hard separation, in reality they will still affect us: “Because in ‘taking back control’ over our laws and leaving the adjudication and enforcement machinery of what used to be our ‘home’ market, we are privileging notional autonomy over law – making over real power to set the rules by which in practice we shall be governed, since departure from norms set by others when we are not in the room will in practice greatly constrain our room for manoeuvre.”

So yes, we will have total control over what we fight for, but we are MUCH less likely to win any fights.

At the moment, for reasons that relate to the ways in which different countries incorporate EU laws into their own national laws, we actually do incredibly well in getting alignment between what WE want, and what the EU goes for.

I don’t know SingingLily but she spoke absolute nonsense.
*
She believes in self determination but failed to grasp how much less power we will have on any version of Leave? Failed to realise how self serving and dumb our politicians are? How did she miss that?*

In the part-quote from my post, TatianaLarina, I said:

To be fair, at the time I cast my vote, I didn't realise what a third-rate self-serving shower of politicians we had. But still. They are about to face their reckoning and not a day too soon.

How did you miss that?

Perhaps you should try reading my original post and then

Oops, pressed too soon!

Perhaps you should read all of my original post. Then you can go ahead and dismiss my views as nonsense.

As you were

I know you love to spread FUD

The only FUD is the scaremongering on here.

www.ifs.org.uk/about/finance

Oops, didn't mean to link.

The UK spent £100m on adverts for an event that was never going to happen.

And a lot of now very melty 50p coins.

(Good call, Saj.)

The UK spent £100m on adverts for an event that was never going to happen.

Didn't mind that too much - I think of it as "Quantitative Easing for Advertisers". More of that money will have found its way into the UK economy than the money injected into the banks, I suspect!

The UK spent £100m on adverts for an event that was never going to happen.

Let's not forget the billions on no deal preparations and contracts awarded to mates ferry companies with no ferries

I feel that part of the 'taking back control' part of leave for me, meant not having to adopt every rule and regulation passed by the EU which will have no relevance to us and our domestic market. So often people quote that we do 40% of our export trade with the EU but that's only about 10% of our GDP, most of our business transactions are done here in the UK - and that's without factoring I the Rotterdam effect. So shouldn't need to be aligned to the EU if never going to be exported.
The idea that the Tories are going to dumb down every rule and regulation as soon as we leave and that they are going to sign away our NHS, make us eat hormone injected beef or chlorine washed chicken is just mad. For a start any such change would have to go through parliament and be scrutinised so it would be very unlikely that such things would get through. Even if a party had a massive majority most of that party are never going to vote for any of these ridiculous suggestions.
I know many people on these boards have got very fundamental delusions about the nasty Tories but let me assure you we really are in the main all pretty normal responsible people with just as much concern for others as anyone else.