Can someone give me one benefit of Brexit.

[Tulipsroses]

It's going to be 4 years since we withdrew our membership in European Union. Apart from the passport colour (some people might prefer) can anyone name one positive change which happened since then.

Coming in late but I have to harp back to this:

Here is what I consider to the most relevant
Democracy was preserved by @GlobeTrotter2000

I absolutely have to speak out on this one.

It is NOT democracy when one side were found so hugely guilty of lying to get what they want.

It is NOT democracy when the MSM were busy feeding the man in the street a load of crap about what voting one way would result in.

The whole thing should have been scrapped and done again, but this time with both sides being fully held to account for their campaigns and fact checkers being publicised larger than the lies.

Then it could be called democracy.

Hear, hear!

@Zonder

Neither the remain nor the leave campaign were found quilty of lying prior to the 2016 referendum.

The electoral commission spent a year from 1 November 2017 to 1 November 2018 investigating before it was referred to the Metropolitan Police and the National Crime Agency. In September 2019 both concluded that there was insufficient evidence of criminality to warrant charges.

Boris Johnson was taken to court in May 2019 about the 350 million on the red bus, but the case was dismissed in June 2019.

498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 on 29 March 2017 which is before either of the above events commenced. So, the 498 MPs were obviously satisfied there was no foul play.

Regards fact checkers; how would remain or leave be able prove what they were forecasting was correct in advance of the event taking place taking into account there was no hindsight to reference?

Oh yes, because the government would obviously have found themselves guilty!

Well, duh!

Personal experience, and that of every recruiter I know.

I confess that I'm not interested in "a quick Google" as I know the Internet to be filled with disinformation. I used sources that I trust such as the ONS, OBR etc. Hence I feel my figures are more accurate than yours.

Also, since we are looking specifically at Brexit, I was comparing pre Brexit and post Brexit numbers.

Why would I give a shit what the US numbers are? Their economy is incomparable to ours.

I suspect that if "a quick google" comes up with the IEA, it's not google that you're using...

@HappiestSleeping @HannibalHeyes

The figure of -25.3 billion for the UK current account balance comes from the ONS.

@HannibalHeyes Oh yes, because the government would obviously have found themselves guilty!

They did in when some Labour MPs were jailed for expenses fraud when Labour were in power.

@HappiestSleeping there have been a lot more job vacancies since Brexit so I think you are mistaken about that

www.statista.com/statistics/283771/monthly-job-vacancies-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

I don't know if you've noticed but Labour and Conservative are quite different.

Actually scrap that. The previous Labour government and the current Tory government are quite different.

I think one could say that previous Tory governments, even John Major's sleaze infested one and the current Tory (can one call it?) government are quite different.

It seems as though not everyone thinks that British trade with the EU is thriving.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/19/british-exporters-call-on-government-to-ease-post-brexit-trade-frictions-with-eu

Apart from the Government spokesperson.

Not in my industry there haven't been. It is true that some job functions have seen a rise in vacancies, but not in financial services.

@Peregrina It seems as though not everyone thinks that British trade with the EU is thriving.

There seems to be conflicting information on the internet. The poster HappiestSleeping has indicated that OBR and ONS are reliable. The latest release from the ONS is for October 2023. The link is:

UK trade - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

• Main points

• The value of goods imports increased by £3.6 billion (8.2%) in October 2023, with rises in imports from both EU and non-EU countries.

• The rise in imports was mainly the result of greater imports of machinery and transport equipment from both EU and non-EU countries.

• The value of goods exports increased by £0.4 billion (1.2%) because of increased exports to non-EU countries, while exports to the EU decreased.

• The total trade in goods and services deficit narrowed by £2.3 billion to £9.2 billion in the three months to October 2023, the result of a substantial fall in goods imports.

• The trade in goods deficit narrowed by £2.1 billion to £47.3 billion in the three months to October 2023, while the trade in services surplus widened by £0.2 billion to £38.1 billion.

There seems to be differing views on which is better, a deficit or a surplus.

Overall the figures seem to suggest that whilst trade with EU may be declining (as it has done since 1999), trade with non-EU is increasing.

Was that not one of the arguments for Brexit?

The beginning of your post literally proves my point.

The fact that they weren't found guilty in a court is quite a bone of contention, and exactly what my post is about. I think they should have been held to account not just after but during the campaign, and all their lies should have been exposed very publicly so that we could have democracy based on true facts.

Emblazoned on the Vote Leave campaign bus and on the Vote Leave website was a pledge that the UK sends £350 million to the EU each week which could be spent on the NHS. The Institute for Fiscal Studies called the £350 million figure “clearly absurd”, while the House of Commons Treasury Committee said the figure was “highly misleading”.

In respect of the immigration claim, the boldest statement was “TURKEY (population 76 million) IS JOINING THE EU”. The origins of this statement are not contentious. It has been well reported that Turkey has been engaging in discussions on joining the EU.
On a literal reading, this contention can only be correct if Turkey joining the EU is a certainty (after all, the statement says that Turkey ‘is’, rather than ‘might be’ or ‘probably will’). There has been no confirmation from Turkey or the EU to suggest that this is the case, meaning that if it is a certainty, not only have the public have been deceived, but Vote Leave are aware of the deception and refuse to inform the public of the same. There is no reason to believe that this proposition is anything but a farfetched conspiracy.

Did Vote Leave know they were making statements that were inaccurate?
While no one person has claimed ownership over the statements, we do know that Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Gisela Stuart, Matthew Elliott, Dominic Cummings and Ian Davidson were all on the committee of Vote Leave within a ‘core group’. Their role within the group was to “coordinate between campaign committee meetings and meet on a daily basis”. Intelligent, educated and established individuals, they were challenged numerous times on the accuracy of the £350 million figure prior to the referendum. What’s more, since the referendum result several of these members have distanced themselves from these pledges. While Iain Duncan Smith downplayed it as “there was talk about it going to the NHS”, Boris Johnson implied that there may have been a misunderstanding: “we must reach out, we must heal, we must build bridges – because it is clear that some have feelings of dismay, and of loss, and confusion.”[4] Further, Nigel Farage stated: “No, I can’t [guarantee £350 million would go to the NHS]. I would never have made that claim. That was one of the mistakes I think the Leave campaign made. It wasn’t one of my adverts, I can assure you. I think they made a mistake in doing that.”

In light of the above, one can logically arrive at the conclusion that the Vote Leave campaign released statements, which it knew to be incorrect. In other words, Vote Leave may have deliberately misled the public.

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/article/should-vote-leave-be-prosecuted-over-its-referendum-propaganda-an-article-by-anthony-eskander/

Overall the figures seem to suggest that whilst trade with EU may be declining (as it has done since 1999), trade with non-EU is increasing. Was that not one of the arguments for Brexit?

It was a very minor one - more money for the NHS, 'make our own laws' (although we always did) and curb immigration were the big ones. As to whether trading more half way across the world is better than trading with one's neighbours, this is highly debatable.

But you sound more and more like the tame Government spokesperson quoted, who has to trot out the party line, however absurd it might be.

@Zonder The fact that they weren't found guilty in a court is quite a bone of contention, and exactly what my post is about.

Remain argued the EU referendum was advisory. If that was correct, remain should have been aware there was no mechanism to challenge the referendum outcome. Many remain supporters on MN have confirmed this.

Attempting to annul/cancel the result of the referendum through the courts was remain's downfall as it was an acknowledgement the referendum was binding and hence could be challenged.

The link is

Johnson prosecutor revealed vexatious political motives, judges rule | News | Law Gazette

Key points are:

Backing Johnson's claim that the attempted proscution was politically motivated, the judgment lists eight examples of Ball stating his motives in interviews and social media posts between 2016 and March 2019. These include a deleted post on the crowdfunding website that the campaign's goals include preventing Brexit.

With notable understatement, the judges add that 'The problem of false statements in the course of political campaigning is not new and has not been overlooked by parliament.' In both the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1895 and the Representation of the People Act 1983, parliament made a choice 'not to do precisely that which [Marcus Ball] now seeks to achieve.

it is hard to imagine a magistrates’ court ever again permitting a similar case to advance and we can be relieved that the criminal law has quickly and unequivocally distanced itself from the arena of political discourse.

I would add that as Law can't dictate how people should vote, then Law should not be able to ignore a vote.

The wording in the booklet prepared by remain stated:

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide

Use of the word will creates an obligation on The Government.

But you sound more and more like the tame Government spokesperson quoted, who has to trot out the party line, however absurd it might be.

That's exactly what they sound like! The long posts of irrelevant waffle are just like Rish! droning on about "Deliveroo for the British People", or something like that, during interviews so that there isn't time for them to ask any more questions he can't answer, and they don't have a nice twitter sized clip of him failing to answer.

Obviously Clavinova has opened a school...

Am I alone in wondering why those who support Brexit have so far only been able to offer as a benefit, that the French can now work from home?

It does seem a little feeble as a benefit to those of us stuck here on Shit Island...

I can't remember is foreign owned companies being able to pump shit into the rivers and sea a Brexit benefit or not?

It must be a benefit. We can now pump Great British shit into out our Great British waterways. Our loyal Brexit government is delivering for the Great British people by making sure we take full advantage of this wonderful Brexit benefit.

Remain argued the EU referendum was advisory

With reason.

We have been through this. You may like this Full Fact link.

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/