ChatterBank2 mins ago
Leavers - Reasons For Leaving
39 Answers
I very rarely enter into the world of politics but I am sick to death of this mess that I believe is tearing the country apart. (Dramatic words I know, but hey ho).
What exactly will we gain from leaving the EU apart from independence and saving whatever billions Britain contributes each year? How will the Britain benefit from leaving? Whats in it for the average Joe and where will we stand on the global economic map?
Sorry if these questions have already been debated on here but I haven't viewed the posts and would like to know why its so important to leave, as I gather from what I have seen, most of you are leavers.
As a 'traitorous remainer' as one ABer has put it, viewings of my hanging, drawing and quartering will take place later!
What exactly will we gain from leaving the EU apart from independence and saving whatever billions Britain contributes each year? How will the Britain benefit from leaving? Whats in it for the average Joe and where will we stand on the global economic map?
Sorry if these questions have already been debated on here but I haven't viewed the posts and would like to know why its so important to leave, as I gather from what I have seen, most of you are leavers.
As a 'traitorous remainer' as one ABer has put it, viewings of my hanging, drawing and quartering will take place later!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tiggerblue10. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are 4 basic reasons influencing people who favour leaving the EU:
1. Avoiding at worst a so-called EU "super state" (sovereignty)
2. Cutting immigration (from the EU)
3. Leaving the single market (where goods and services are shared on a tariff-free basis)
4. Leaving the customs union (which is like the single market but relates to trade and does not include "open borders" for labour)
The last two relate to a vision of Europe as a "free trading nation" on a world stage as the current arrangement with the EU prevents free trade deals with other countries. However arguably now world trade is dominated by large trading blocs or countries, and it will be very hard for the UK to do deals which are in our interests more than the interests of those more powerful players.
Staying in the customs union while not actually being in the EU is generally seen as a bad thing. There are three in this position and the only sizable one that counts, Turkey, does very badly out of it indeed.
This is a useful link:
https:/
1. Avoiding at worst a so-called EU "super state" (sovereignty)
2. Cutting immigration (from the EU)
3. Leaving the single market (where goods and services are shared on a tariff-free basis)
4. Leaving the customs union (which is like the single market but relates to trade and does not include "open borders" for labour)
The last two relate to a vision of Europe as a "free trading nation" on a world stage as the current arrangement with the EU prevents free trade deals with other countries. However arguably now world trade is dominated by large trading blocs or countries, and it will be very hard for the UK to do deals which are in our interests more than the interests of those more powerful players.
Staying in the customs union while not actually being in the EU is generally seen as a bad thing. There are three in this position and the only sizable one that counts, Turkey, does very badly out of it indeed.
This is a useful link:
https:/
Put simply, leaving the EU will enable the UK to make its own decisions based on its own best interests. It has not been able to do that for forty years and the decisions it cannot take are becoming more numerous. Out trade with the EU is declining and that with the ret of the world (where more than 92% of the world's population lives) is growing. Were the EU a simple trading bloc membership might be worthwhile. But it isn't. It is an inward looking protectionist organisation which seeks to protect its own members from what it sees as unfair competition. Its protects its members providing they trade with each other solely but doesn't do much for those who would like to trade elsewhere on terms that suit them alone.
But let's not get too bogged down with the arguments that have been done to death. Because of the complete failure of our politicians to do what is best for the country it looks likely we will either not leave at all or if we do it will be in name only and we will be bound by a dogs' breakfast of an alternative membership.
But let's not get too bogged down with the arguments that have been done to death. Because of the complete failure of our politicians to do what is best for the country it looks likely we will either not leave at all or if we do it will be in name only and we will be bound by a dogs' breakfast of an alternative membership.
One of the reasons given by Leavers is the opportunity it would give to control immigration from other EU countries. However in the most recent figures, only about 75,000 came from EU countries, while over 250,000 - that's right, a quarter of a million - came from outside the EU. That's in one year. Why on earth are we letting such numbers in to our country, when, ostensibly, we have control? Just what criteria are they meeting that they are allowed in?
No wonder my village has had over 200 houses built in the last 2 years; and all surrounding villages have had boring cul-de-sacs of boring boxy 'Barratt homes' tacked on to them. Oh, and let's not forget the 2,000 houses they're due to start soon on the nearby airfield.
It seems leaving the EU (if we ever do) will have negligible impact on immigration.
No wonder my village has had over 200 houses built in the last 2 years; and all surrounding villages have had boring cul-de-sacs of boring boxy 'Barratt homes' tacked on to them. Oh, and let's not forget the 2,000 houses they're due to start soon on the nearby airfield.
It seems leaving the EU (if we ever do) will have negligible impact on immigration.
The money we pay for membership is balanced by the speed and simplicity of free trade with our neighbours. If we want to do anything at all about climate change, importing butter and lamb from New Zealand makes little sense. Most of our trade is with the EU, and the US have been very clear that they will insist we drop our food hygiene standards as part of any deal. Of course, any strong country or organisation sets the rules for trade with weaker ones, but we are deliberately making ourselves weaker than any partner worth trading with.
So many lies have been told about the EU that one would have to question the motivation. Even if a tenth of the horror stories were true, they would still be lost in the muddle of rubbish. Who would do that? We know that Russia and the US want us out of the EU. Both are large, powerful countries threatened by much smaller countries joining together.
The individual personalities are also telling. Jacob Rees-Mogg tells us it will be fifty years before the common man feels any benefit. The figure is irrelevant: he is telling us it is in our interests, but without having to take responsibility for anything. He will be gone before the 50 years is up. What he has done, though, is protected his hedge fund by basing it in the EU. This is a gamble that only wins if we lose, or he would have kept it here. Michael Gove, joint leader of the Leave campaign, is urging colleagues to back Theresa May's deal. Not even remainers think the deal is leaving the EU in meaningful terms, thus demonstrating that he had no real conviction but was treating it as a stage in his political advancement. Boris Johnson, the other leader of that campaign, was already known to have decided very late which side to support. He is now protecting paedophile sex offenders to deflect from his role in the devastation he has wrought. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.
Nigel Farage, surely the biggest hypocrite in history, draws a handsome income from the EU while slagging it off. His exploits are legendary: running in to make a condemnation of something irrelevant to the business of the day before leaving again, posting the clip on YouTube and heading for the pub. He so despises Johnny Foreigner getting jobs here that his most senior staff member is German. His BFF Arron Banks has jumped into bed with Putin just as Farage did with Trump, buying a fake diamond mine in Lesotho to help disguise the source of his funding.
The leavers would not have shut up and gone home if the result had been reversed, whatever they tell you. It is right to keep challenging. The Leave campaign was riddled with corruption, lies and misuse of personal data. Rejoining at a future date would not return us to our current position as we would no longer have the opt-outs and rebates we currently do.
On to point of all that is the investment the EU makes here. While the government plays favourites with funding, keeping London wealthy and the regions poor, the EU sponsors programmes in deprived areas. The irony is that the areas that voted most strongly to leave will lose most if we do.
So many lies have been told about the EU that one would have to question the motivation. Even if a tenth of the horror stories were true, they would still be lost in the muddle of rubbish. Who would do that? We know that Russia and the US want us out of the EU. Both are large, powerful countries threatened by much smaller countries joining together.
The individual personalities are also telling. Jacob Rees-Mogg tells us it will be fifty years before the common man feels any benefit. The figure is irrelevant: he is telling us it is in our interests, but without having to take responsibility for anything. He will be gone before the 50 years is up. What he has done, though, is protected his hedge fund by basing it in the EU. This is a gamble that only wins if we lose, or he would have kept it here. Michael Gove, joint leader of the Leave campaign, is urging colleagues to back Theresa May's deal. Not even remainers think the deal is leaving the EU in meaningful terms, thus demonstrating that he had no real conviction but was treating it as a stage in his political advancement. Boris Johnson, the other leader of that campaign, was already known to have decided very late which side to support. He is now protecting paedophile sex offenders to deflect from his role in the devastation he has wrought. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.
Nigel Farage, surely the biggest hypocrite in history, draws a handsome income from the EU while slagging it off. His exploits are legendary: running in to make a condemnation of something irrelevant to the business of the day before leaving again, posting the clip on YouTube and heading for the pub. He so despises Johnny Foreigner getting jobs here that his most senior staff member is German. His BFF Arron Banks has jumped into bed with Putin just as Farage did with Trump, buying a fake diamond mine in Lesotho to help disguise the source of his funding.
The leavers would not have shut up and gone home if the result had been reversed, whatever they tell you. It is right to keep challenging. The Leave campaign was riddled with corruption, lies and misuse of personal data. Rejoining at a future date would not return us to our current position as we would no longer have the opt-outs and rebates we currently do.
On to point of all that is the investment the EU makes here. While the government plays favourites with funding, keeping London wealthy and the regions poor, the EU sponsors programmes in deprived areas. The irony is that the areas that voted most strongly to leave will lose most if we do.
I was trying to be as objective as I could: I honestly cannot see a single UK-wide (it’s an ill wind of course ...) benefit to leaving the EU. I do quite like the idea of blue passports, but then that’s another myth. Croatia still has them for one thing. Maybe that’s the answer: keep the blue passports idea but stay in.
The obvious and necessary reason to leave is to regain control of our own nation which previous PMs have joyfully given away. Most, possibly all, other reasons stem from that.
If one hasn't control of one's own nation one hasn't a nation worthy of the title. If one wants an outside power group to be in control then one is unpatriotic and seriously letting down one's fellow citizens and one's country. But this is obvious to all and in all honesty, really need not have been asked for nor stated.
If one hasn't control of one's own nation one hasn't a nation worthy of the title. If one wants an outside power group to be in control then one is unpatriotic and seriously letting down one's fellow citizens and one's country. But this is obvious to all and in all honesty, really need not have been asked for nor stated.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.