Can someone please list a few of the actual benefits the UK has enjoyed from Brexit? And the trade deals agreed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tyk

LE
Seeing as a large number of Leave voters are so delighted.

Just a few will be fine for starters.

Easiest trade deals ever, I gather, but I'm not sure how many have been agreed since 2016.

We're out on in a couple of weeks so obviously it's all wrapped up.
It's pissed you off and spawned so many dumb posts from you that you secured SPOTY 2019 off your own prodigious efforts, you've come out as a full blown troll with no talent other than to be astoundingly dull. What's not to like about Brexit?
 
It's pissed you off and spawned so many dumb posts from you that you secured SPOTY 2019 off your own prodigious efforts, you've come out as a full blown troll with no talent other than to be astoundingly dull. What's not to like about Brexit?
And where are the trade benefits of Brexit, which I think is the bigger point here?

I accept that Brexit is happening; it was the democratic choice but where are the trade benefits...bearing in mind that we trade more with Belgium than we do with China!
 
The fact is the UK, sadly, has no trade treaties ready for ratification (which is permissible under current EU rules). You do know what ratification is, don't you?
According to a number of reliable news reports the UK trade treaty with Canada has been ready to sign for over a year. However, it has been sitting in limbo while Canada waited to see which direction the UK was going to go in. There was some question about when, whether, and to what degree the UK would leave the EU, and what sort of government Canada would be dealing with after a UK election. This was discussed on other related threads more than once.

At this point I suspect that Canada will want some indication of the general parameters of what the UK-EU trade relationship will be before going forward, as that will have a direct effect on what sort of trade relationships the UK will be able to engage in with Canada.

I can't speak on what other treaties the UK may have in the works with other countries, but that is the situation with Canada.

P.S. We have your prince. If you wish to ever see him again then you must accede to our demands and eliminate tariffs on maple syrup and beaver pelts.
 
And you know this how ? Are you a integral member of the Antony Phillipson's Trade team ?




Plenty of Trade deals have been rolled over and the ink is dry.

Now dry your eyes princess
Ratification is a parliamentary process, but youd know this...so it is a matter of public record what treaties await ratification.
 
Happily, right after a remainer gives the benefits (real, not made up) of staying in the EU, as has been asked many times but seems elusive.
No, its been answered many, many times.

The fact that you (inter alia) pretend otherwise is interesting.
 
Brexit was, for me, mainly about freedom and democracy. Having freedom, and a democracy where you can decide who governs, is therefore the main benefit of Brexit. Whilst we are in the EU, we don't have that, because the key EU office-holders are unelected.
If anyone is the type of person who places their personal convenience above ideals like democracy, Brexit will likely never be good enough for you. In the past, many empires or supra-national bodies, have offered that exchange - 'don't worry about democracy; focus on ease of living'.
When we are self-governing, we will be able to work towards solving problems, without barriers imposed by the EU.
 
None, as Brexit has happened yet, you moronic imbecile.



Plenty. If you are too stupid and lazy to find the information for yourself, don't expect others to do it for you.

Bravo_Bravo, making belters and half wits look good since the day he / she / it was born / spawned / created in a test tube.
So you can't show any benefits, but get angry when people ask...
You're quite an angry homonculus, aren't you?

giphy (1).gif
 
Ratification is a parliamentary process, but youd know this...so it is a matter of public record what treaties await ratification.
I will let you dig out HoC Briefing paper No 8509. dated 29 July 2019. It explains where Parliamentary ratification of treaties will not / does not need to take place

Read, digest and then come back and apologise for talking horse manure.
 
Brexit was, for me, mainly about freedom and democracy. Having freedom, and a democracy where you can decide who governs, is therefore the main benefit of Brexit. Whilst we are in the EU, we don't have that, because the key EU office-holders are unelected.
If anyone is the type of person who places their personal convenience above ideals like democracy, Brexit will likely never be good enough for you. In the past, many empires or supra-national bodies, have offered that exchange - 'don't worry about democracy; focus on ease of living'.
When we are self-governing, we will be able to work towards solving problems, without barriers imposed by the EU.
Just to point out that we don’t elect:

Prime Minister
Any other ministers
Senior civil servants
Head of State

We elect an MP for our constituency, who may or may not be part of an informal grouping of other MPs who agree to vote with each other.

Whilst I don’t like the ‘ever closer union’ and hope that this does see a new form of ‘Europe Light’ appear, I do think the debate had too much rhetoric (on both sides). Including this discussion about ‘democracy’.

There’s very little difference in the voting systems in both, as far as the average bod is concerned. Except that the EU - for all its faults - does actually have a written constitution. As much as we don’t like what may be in that constitution, it’s unlikely that we’d have seen the same arguments about the limits of power of the speaker or about proroguing parliament if we’d had one of those.
 
Just to point out that we don’t elect:

Prime Minister
Any other ministers
Senior civil servants
Head of State

We elect an MP for our constituency, who may or may not be part of an informal grouping of other MPs who agree to vote with each other.

Whilst I don’t like the ‘ever closer union’ and hope that this does see a new form of ‘Europe Light’ appear, I do think the debate had too much rhetoric (on both sides). Including this discussion about ‘democracy’.

There’s very little difference in the voting systems in both, as far as the average bod is concerned. Except that the EU - for all its faults - does actually have a written constitution. As much as we don’t like what may be in that constitution, it’s unlikely that we’d have seen the same arguments about the limits of power of the speaker or about proroguing parliament if we’d had one of those.
Divide and conquer. Or was that concur? Or con the curs?
 
Just to point out that we don’t elect:

Prime Minister
Any other ministers
Senior civil servants
Head of State

We elect an MP for our constituency, who may or may not be part of an informal grouping of other MPs who agree to vote with each other.

Whilst I don’t like the ‘ever closer union’ and hope that this does see a new form of ‘Europe Light’ appear, I do think the debate had too much rhetoric (on both sides). Including this discussion about ‘democracy’.

There’s very little difference in the voting systems in both, as far as the average bod is concerned. Except that the EU - for all its faults - does actually have a written constitution. As much as we don’t like what may be in that constitution, it’s unlikely that we’d have seen the same arguments about the limits of power of the speaker or about proroguing parliament if we’d had one of those.
Those are fair points, in theory. In practice, the PM is elected. A general election is mainly an expression of support for a party, and a vote of confidence in the prospective PM.

How many people when voting in the EU elections had even heard of Ursula von der Leyden (sic)? Who knew when voting in EU elections that they were voting for Verhofstadt, or Barnier? In the UK, there are fewer layers of complexity - people understand who they are voting for.

For me, it genuinely was about democracy. Being a member of a super state where the UK never won a vote, where the opinions of our MEPs counted for naught, despite paying more taxes than all but one member, is not democracy.
 
Those are fair points, in theory. In practice, the PM is elected. A general election is mainly an expression of support for a party, and a vote of confidence in the prospective PM.

How many people when voting in the EU elections had even heard of Ursula von der Leyden (sic)? Who knew when voting in EU elections that they were voting for Verhofstadt, or Barnier? In the UK, there are fewer layers of complexity - people understand who they are voting for.

For me, it genuinely was about democracy. Being a member of a super state where the UK never won a vote, where the opinions of our MEPs counted for naught, despite paying more taxes than all but one member, is not democracy.
That’s a reasonable position and a reasoned discussion.

I’d say that there are lots of things that could be improved in both areas, but I think that ‘democratic’ is to broad an adjective to describe this, and it leaves us vulnerable to the rhetoric.

Part of the problem (and just one part) is that we’ve never really educated voters on what the EU elections meant. Without getting on to the ‘service means citizenship’ soap box, I do think the country would benefit from some compulsory ‘civics’ education in schools, and I also think that the Australian idea of compulsory voting is worth thinking about.
 
I think this question is a bit premature. How can anyone give any concrete evidence of benefits, before Brexit has actually happened?

Expect some slight economic instability during the initial period of adjustment, before things get back on an even keel.

As such, it would probably be best to ask again in two or three years, then you'll be more likely to get useful answers, rather than "I think this, or that is going to happen"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top