I need some positives

[Vegeetas]

Quick preface, I have always believed that two people can think differently about a thing and remain friends. I am not asking this to throw stones at anyone or pick a fight, I am genuinely in need of something to be optimistic about.

My question is two fold. Why did you vote for brexit and what actual benefit do you think it will bring? Everyone I have spoken to that admitted to voting for brexit and Boris haven't been able to suggest even one thing that is positive that we couldn't already do.

Help!

I’m at the giving up stage now with this thread.

I’ll let you believe in your rose tinted spectacled view that all our over 70s and our CEV citizens would have all been vaccinated by Feb 21 if we were in the EU vaccine procurement system.

Here’s🍷to a positive spring/summer for the U.K.

I am totally pro-EU, but I guess it's likely that Brexit will mean:

• labour shortages in some sectors (eg. care) will probably push up wages
• fewer food imports will mean we will eat more UK produce which is better for farmers and the environment
• more difficulty in buying products from the mainland will mean we'll end up buying more UK products

Of course all of the above will probably mean increased costs for the consumer but could have benefits for companies and employees.

@BaileysforBreakfast

A lot of Remainers have spent four years saying they want actual facts and tangible benefits of being out of the EU. I have given one. Except you haven't. See above.

The fact that you believe that article captures the long and short of it just shows how utterly naive and blind you are about how things work at the EU. The drivel on these threads would be really worrying if it weren't for the fact that you have already lost. Technically we could have, as per the article. Practically, member states (let's not call them countries) couldn't, because they were subject to political pressure to toe the line. Given UK was already leaving, it had far greater political liberty, didn't have to "demonstrate unity", therefore was able to move far more quickly without dragging 27 other countries along with us. So technically there was no law to stop it happening, but there would have been huge political pressure to stop it. It is the OP's responsibility to find her positivity in this situation if that's what she wants, but that's not going to happen by frequenting a board dominated by a handful of diehard refuseniks.

But remember how Farage never shut up? How the Brexiters have destroyed at least three PMs - namely Major, Cameron (own goal admittedly) and May, then why should Remainers shut up? The best you can do is a vaccine roll out for something which didn't exist five years ago as a success of Brexit!

These are rather slender results for a group of people who declared that we held all the cards and that they would be the easiest deals in history. But we might get care home staff paid better, we might buy more British food. We might also see Civil War break out again in N Ireland. I'd be happy with the first set of mights, I most definitely don't want to see the last one.

I didn't tell you to shut up. I just suggested the OP was not going to find her positivity, as she claims to want to (although I doubt it), by frequenting these boards.
It was about being nimble which most certainly did exist years ago as a known benefit. And we were able to because we were immune to the political pressure the other member states were subject to.

Practically, member states (let's not call them countries) couldn't, because they were subject to political pressure to toe the line.

That's pure speculation on your part. The U.K. had a long history of opting out of EU initiatives (and this one was voluntary) and was certainly a big enough player to do so if it wished. You can't simply chalk that one up to Brexit I'm afraid. It is not a given that had we still been a member state we would have gone with the EU procurement.

Incidentally a member state is also a country.

It's not speculation. There was an alliance of three countries organising their own purchase (German and I think Belgium/Netherlands/Italy? Can't remember exactly which). They were told to shelve it and go with the joint EU purchase. Which they did, and it delayed the purchase by several months. Widely reported in EU press.

Very much agree with Bramshott.

I think my account was hacked, I never wrote those posts.

Oh sorry it was baileysforbrealfast

I suppose right now the only "benefits" that we can actually see as being linked to the original referendum vote are legal and institutional. They are in no way social or economic benefits. Our courts are now the ultimate arbiter in the UK. Our parliament is now not subject to EU legislation and as such is free to legislate solely for the benefit of the UK (or Tory cronies?). As a nation we are no longer linked to the EU which is notoriously undemocratic, complex and unaccountable. Whether or not these "benefits" actually amount to benefits for the UK will become apparent as time goes on. After law school and having studied EU law I was pretty horrified and felt that legally and constitutionally we'd be better out, but when it came to voting many years later the social, economic and fundamentally our outward facing, inclusive European identity outweighed the legal and constitutional reservations I had so I voted remain.

@Toptotoeunicolour

It's not speculation. There was an alliance of three countries organising their own purchase (German and I think Belgium/Netherlands/Italy? Can't remember exactly which). They were told to shelve it and go with the joint EU purchase. Which they did, and it delayed the purchase by several months. Widely reported in EU press.

So you can't imagine that if those 4 countries were 5 and included the UK, they'd not have been able to resist the EU's pressure?

I guess it's likely that Brexit will mean:

- labour shortages in some sectors (eg. care) will probably push up wages
We've had labour shortages in care for many years, around 100k atm, has never led to wage rises.

- fewer food imports will mean we will eat more UK produce which is better for farmers and the environment

We don't produce the food we need, never have, UK is one of the least hospitable countries for wildlife in europe, more land turned over for food will be very bad for the environment.

- more difficulty in buying products from the mainland will mean we'll end up buying more UK products

We don't make many finished goods, what we made in the 60s and 70s was crap and expensive.
Its not even a matter of "just" manufacturing things, they need to designed in different ways to avoid patent infringements, which is very expensive and will take years before the products are actually any good.
If it were that easy, we'd have done years ago.

What actually happened is that we were quick because we went alone. If we'd been working with 4/5 some other speculative number, we may have been less quick, and but probably it would still have been seen as bad form to go it alone. As indeed it is seen as very bad form at the moment that unity is dissolving on the vaccine issue, and only possible because the situation is so disastrous. Ex ante I think it would have been very unlikely but we'll never know.
Loving your use of the word "imagine".

When the EU are already in a vaccine hole they keep on digging.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56279202

Of course it could be all above board(!!) but the optics don't look good at the moment.

It's not speculation. There was an alliance of three countries organising their own purchase (German and I think Belgium/Netherlands/Italy? Can't remember exactly which). They were told to shelve it and go with the joint EU purchase. Which they did, and it delayed the purchase by several months. Widely reported in EU press.

There's a good analysis of this here: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/amp/

The 4 countries (sorry, member states) were persuaded rather than 'told to' go with the EU option and indeed it probably looked the better plan at the time. Better buying power, better optics. Subsequently of course negotiations with pharma companies got mired in liability and price discussions etc etc and I'm not disputing that the EU 27 did a bad job overall. BUT you still can't say the member states didn't have a choice. Quoting from the article:

"Today, the Alliance’s members say they always saw the logic of extending their four-member club to the full 27. The Commission’s ability to talk “with private companies with the power of acting on behalf of 500 million citizens … gives much more power of negotiation,” said Walter Ricciardi, a professor of public health at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and adviser to the Italian health ministry who was involved with the Alliance’s talks. "

Look, you and I can argue about the politics of going it alone as an EU member state BUT the fact remains there is absolutely nothing about the Brexit agreement that allowed the U.K. to do something regarding vaccines that it couldn't legally do as a member.

@jasjas1973 Totally agree with your comments on the economic impact. We aren't suddenly going to become a manufacturing, agricultural economy - we're just going to pay more for our food and goods.

there is absolutely nothing about the Brexit agreement that allowed the U.K. to do something regarding vaccines that it couldn't legally do as a member
As said above, agreed. Legally, as you say. Political pressure, totally different thing. As proven by the fact that they actually did have to do it together, whilst starting out preferring to go their own way. You can quibble all you like but that is what happened.

@Toptotoeunicolour

I didn't tell you to shut up. I just suggested the OP was not going to find her positivity, as she claims to want to (although I doubt it), by frequenting these boards. It was about being nimble which most certainly did exist years ago as a known benefit. And we were able to because we were immune to the political pressure the other member states were subject to.

I promise you this was never a troll post. If I wanted to troll via a post you would know it lol

I cited to remain so can’t strictly speaking answer your original question.
I’m very, very glad that we’re not part of the EU vaccine protocol now though. I think the Commission’s petulant behaviour a couple of week’s ago was astonishing.

@Toptotoeunicolour

As proven by the fact that they actually did have to do it together, whilst starting out preferring to go their own way.

You have not proven that they 'had to do it together' - they made a choice. Politics was part of it but it was not compelled. Don't forget we have the benefit of hindsight in knowing that the EU vaccine procurement was flawed. At the time it was a compelling argument to use the buying power of 27+10. And indeed they paid a lot less for their vaccines, although again with hindsight we can see that probably shouldn't have been such an important consideration.

Also, the U.K. opted out of far more important EU collaborations. Schengen? The euro? And yet you're telling me that a EU-bashing Tory government would have been too timid to dissent from an optional initiative. I'm not buying it, sorry. Germany and France were always rather more team players in the EU project and so I would guess more amenable to the arguments the Commission was making. But they could not be compelled. And neither could the U.K.

I think we agree that legally they could, but "politics was a part of it" as you say. It's a bit desperate to suggest that if things had been different, things would have turned out, well, different when we've agreed those first two points.
I am very swayed by the German media which was clear that Merkel forced the independents to hand over control to her buddy UvdL to give her an opportunity to look competent and build a unifying story post Brexit. Hard to imagine how anything could have backfired more spectacularly than that.

I am very swayed by the German media which was clear that Merkel forced the independents to hand over control to her buddy UvdL to give her an opportunity to look competent and build a unifying story post Brexit

Hang on, you said Germany was one of the independents who sought vaccine?
So Germany initially went ahead without Merkels knowledge?

Of course.

One positive of Brexit (for brexitiers) is the destruction of EU/UK relations.
People like Gove Raab and Patel want the UK to be a rival to the UK, with little cooperation.

I think we agree that legally they could, but "politics was a part of it" as you say. It's a bit desperate to suggest that if things had been different, things would have turned out, well, different when we've agreed those first two points.

Eh?? Politics played a part in those 4 countries' decision to join the EU vaccine scheme BUT the politics of the U.K. within Europe has always been vastly different to that of France and Germany. It is not a given that the UK would have done the same, nor that the 4 countries concerned had no choice in the matter.

The FACT is that you cannot categorically say we would not have been able to do our own thing regarding vaccines in the U.K. because 4 other countries with a totally different attitude and history in the EU happened to make a different decision. Different circumstances, different politics, different outcomes.

The OP asked for actual positives of Brexit. Do you happen to have one? My case is that this one is dubious at best.

On the other hand, the negatives are real and abundant!

@DGRossetti

OP seems a tad impatient. Come back in 10 years. We'll know then.

Not so quick young Hobbit, Rees Mogg said 50...