Brexit mega thread part 12: David Cameron: Return of the King

[SerendipityJane]

(previous thread)

That's "king" as a suffix not a prefix. Also part of a phrase.

...

@pointythings There are also plenty of UK nationals who think leaving the EU was a really bad idea, and that number is growing.

Where is the evidence which proves this statement is correct?

For clarity, opinion polls based on a sample of 2,000 persons does not count as evidence as evidenced by the polls from 2013 to 2016 which favoured a remain result as detailed on another thread.

@mathanxiety Account for the majority remain vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland then...

The question on the ballot paper was:

Shall the UK remain in the EU?

The UK was a single entity that had an agreement with the EU. So, that the UK is made up of four members is irrelevant regards Article 50.

Where is the evidence which proves this statement is correct?

I suspect that there is no evidence that will reach up to your high bar. It'll be too hot. Too cold. Too left wing. Not left wing enough. Too right wing. Not right wing enough. Not British. Too British. Written by the wrong demographic. Aimed at the wrong demographic. Using the wrong font. Using the right font but with the wrong weight. From someone who has a funny name. From someone who has a perfectly acceptable name,. but a qualification from the wrong University ...

the list carries on over the page in my notebook. An invaluable resource for dealing with the disingenuous.

I have a German surname (many, many generations back ) and shorten my (traditional Scottish) first name to a Germanic sounding one and have an economics degree - does that disqualify me from having a valid opinion, as I'm also a Remainer?

I was born in a Commonwealth country though, where they speak English and I'm white - does that help? And my parents got us British passports as soon as we were eligible

I'm also left-wing and speak French, all signs of a member of the woke literati

@SerendipityJane I suspect that there is no evidence that will reach up to your high bar.

Actual votes are the best evidence. Opinion polls are just that - opinions.

Hence why the two major parties are not campaigning to rejoin the EU in the run up o the next general election as there is no evidence to prove it would be a vote winner.

@prettybird and have an economics degree

That so, can you explain how an EU member who has received more funding from the EU than they have paid into the EU can be considered a net contributor to the EU?

I was responding to asinine remarks from another poster to the effect that it's unBritish to favour remaining in the EU. But whatever.

If you had been paying attention, you would realise that the fact that the UK is made up of four members has actually been quite the thorn in the side of successive British governments ever since 2016.

Can you accommodate the concept of change in a positive direction or is it only backward movement that you are comfortable with?

Ireland received €40billion in funds from the EU between 1973 and 2018, and has been a net contributor since 2013. The money received was spent on infrastructure and other pillars of economjc growth. By 2020 exports to the EU amounted to a value of approximately €30billion to the Irish economy. The question of contributions versus receipts is a little broader than money into a government bank account and money out of that account.

The usual for a Brexshitteer, they know the price of everything and the value of nothing...

No marks for you then GlobeTrotter2000

You should learn to answer the question asked, not the one you revised for and hoped would appear on the paper but didn't.

It would have made more sense for the legislation enabling the Referendum to state that all four countries had to give the same answer for the result to be valid. The 2016 referendum would then have failed. But of course that wouldn't have shut the Faragists and Brexiters up, as Cameron hoped it would.

And before you ask GlobeTrotter2000 about the 1975 Referendum and whether agreement of all four countries was specified, I don't remember, I can't be bothered to look it up, and it's irrelevant anyway, because it didn't shut up those who wanted to Leave the EU. Since then of course we have had devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, which makes it more pertinent that each country should have had its opinions taken into full consideration.

@mathanxiety Ireland received €40billion in funds from the EU between 1973 and 2018, and has been a net contributor since 2013.

From 2013 onwards. Ireland paid more to the EU than they received, but that ignores they paid nothing to the EU from 1973 to 2013, a period of 40 years.

The money received was spent on infrastructure and other pillars of economjc growth. By 2020 exports to the EU amounted to a value of approximately €30billion to the Irish economy.

So, like Poland, Ireland was able to grow by using money they had been given by others as opposed to their own efforts and skills to generate the money in the first place. Spending money provided by others is easy.

Ireland owes the EU 40 billion. The link is:

Ireland set to start repaying EU bailout earlier than expected in 2023 – The Irish Times

@Peregrina It would have made more sense for the legislation enabling the Referendum to state that all four countries had to give the same answer for the result to be valid.

Impossible, as that could have created a scenario whereby 395,075 remain votes in Northern Ireland would have cancelled 17.4 miilion votes to leave across the UK.

That's a ratio of 1:44. Are you suggesting that a vote from someone in Northern Ireland carries 44 times more value than other voters in the UK?

Both Scotland and Wales are entitled to vote for independence from the UK, but they have not.

the book of Brexit benefits, complete and unabridged

So, like Poland, Ireland was able to grow by using money they had been given by others as opposed to their own efforts and skills to generate the money in the first place. Spending money provided by others is easy.

Unlike the British Empire which grew rich on the labour and resources of other countries.

Impossible, as that could have created a scenario whereby 395,075 remain votes in Northern Ireland would have cancelled 17.4 miilion votes to leave across the UK.

Until it happens.

What this would have said is that the time to leave the EU is not now. There would have been nothing stopping those who wanted to leave to continue to agitate to do so.

Democracy is two lions and a sheep debating lunch.

Dear @GlobeTrotter2000 I do not know what name you used in 2016
but if you go back to the Brexit threads from then,
EVERY point you make has already been made by Clavinova or LouiseCollins

We are now in 2024
How does the UK make the best of the decision
FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW

I struggle
but I am sure your algorithm can enlighten us.

I suspect this particular bot wasn't around then. There were plenty of others though, although they generally weren't quite so sophisticated.

I don't bother reading their posts any more, so it's a waste of time of paid time in reaching at least one long-time MNer

The responses from those of you that can be bothered reassure me that I've been right not to waste my time

Yep, it's just repeated irrelevant waffle and obfuscation. Obviously their intention, but that's what Tufton Street/Putin want.

@HannibalHeyes - that's why I always make an effort to respond to those posters who do contribute positively , rather than letting certain posters de-rail the conversation

Hence making the point that (for example) Ireland has now moved on from being a net beneficiary to a net contributor. Mathanxiety gave the figures that I had been looking at, which illustrated the specific point I was making.

Absolutely! The whole point is that EU contributions to build an economy will get that economy up to a point where it becomes a net contributor, and the whole economy of the EU grows as a result.

Only the narrow minded, xenophobic, bigots would fail to see how this is a fantastic benefit to all members.

From 2013 onwards. Ireland paid more to the EU than they received, but that ignores they paid nothing to the EU from 1973 to 2013, a period of 40 years.

"The money received was spent on infrastructure and other pillars of economjc growth. By 2020 exports to the EU amounted to a value of approximately €30billion to the Irish economy."

So, like Poland, Ireland was able to grow by using money they had been given by others...

Yes, this is the basic premise of the EEC and the EU - that money generated by others will enable poorer regions to develop - and in time become net contributors when their economies develop...

...as opposed to their own efforts and skills to generate the money in the first place. Spending money provided by others is easy

Your basic problem here is that you don't understand where money on an investment scale in general comes from, what that money is for/ how it can be put to work, and why it was a fundamental function of the EEC and subsequently the EU to spread the wealth of more prosperous members to the poorer regions. There's a very strange and inexplicable adherence to the "I'm alright Jack" school of anti-economic thought evident in your sniping.

The fact that all the constituent parts of the global economy benefit when as many markets as possible are available for manufactured goods, foods, and financial services seems to have gone completely over your head. Everyone benefits when prosperity is spread around. This is economics 101.

You also sound as if you neither know nor understand anything of the way funds are allocated to different countries under various EU programmes. Do you imagine a case of blank cheques written willy-nilly?

Ireland signed up to a common enterprise from which she has benefited greatly, and is now paying to haul others up from their own circumstances born of oppression - a clearcut case of naked self interest, actually, having seen what goes around come around from 1973 on. It's a pity for the UK that that particular observation was never made and instead, in 2016, classic, shortsighted, short termism reigned, even though there was a time when the UK pushed hard for the absorption of poorer and underdeveloped former Eastern Bloc states who would be net recipients of EU funds - like Poland - into the EU.

How did Ireland manage to become a net contributor? By availing of various EEC / EU funds and targeting investment in telecommunications and transport infrastructure, in agriculture, in food / beverage processing and marketing, and above all in education - primary, secondary, and third level, with the development of the Institutes of Technology in particular facilitating the emergence of graduates equipped for employment and leadership in pharmaceuticals, aerospace engineering, IT, software, etc. In other words, strategically, wisely, and with the wellbeing of Irish society at large foremost in mind. In turn, Ireland's foreign aid budget has grown from £2.5million in 1974 to €776.5million in 2023, in hopes that the rising tide can raise as many boats as possible.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/2017-05-technopolis-role-of-EU-funding-report.PDF
Are you as miffed as you should be that this funding is no longer available to British research? Research is a driver of economic progress after all.