Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

The Brexit Consequences Thread

1618435653348.png
:
As a TEFL teacher of many years’ standing my wife posed this question to her Italian and Swiss French students, ages 14 - 20+, and levels B1 to C1, cold and with no prior discussion of the subject.
Does the statement on the side of the bus mean:
A. The UK pays the EU £350 million per week. If the UK leaves the EU all that money will be redistributed to the National Health Service;
B. The UK pays the EU £350 million per week. If the UK leaves the EU that money is saved and the National Health Service could benefit from part of it in extra funding;
Without exception, all of her students chose B.
Bear in mind none of them were of English mother tongue.
 
...no, the UK was required to fund £260 million of EU spending, much of it inside the UK.

Put another way, the net cost of the EU to the British voter was about £60 per person, per year. Not bad, when you compare it to a Netflix subscription.

Now who is playing with figures?

Thats on average, some people would pay more some would pay less.

From your link

Changing the way these things are worked out could reduce the cost of EU membership to the UK to around £60 per person.

To put this in perspective, it has to be remembered that Britain is still a net contributor, no matter how you crunch the numbers.

Could, not would.

And the UK was a net contributor no matter what.

Also there could be other ways being in the UK costs its citizens money other than direct payments.
 
...no, the UK was required to fund £260 million of EU spending, much of it inside the UK.

Put another way, the net cost of the EU to the British voter was about £60 per person, per year. Not bad, when you compare it to a Netflix subscription.
You’re wrong. But I doubt you’ll back down, so I’ll just highlight your admission that we put in more than we got out.

Thanks for confirming the UK can now invest more in UK public services as a result of leaving the EU. Which was the point the bus was making.

Oh, and as £60 a year is about 2% of my annual income, I’d rather keep hold of it than use it to pay for some Eurocrat’s half bottle of lunchtime wine.
 
I voted leave as I think/thought it would be best for my country. You seem to have voted remain because it would be best for you.
I am willing to take the small hits to myself for the better of the country ergo its inhabitants.

Two can play that game. Another way of saying "best for the country ergo its inhabitants" is: I thought I knew what was best for everyone else. Personally, I try not to tell other people what is good for them, and let them make their own decisions. I'm sure it sounds nice in your head, but not such a great attitude in practice. I'm willing to bet that you just love it when opinionated people on the BBC or Twitter tell you what's best for you, so why behave that way yourself?

Perhaps - and I'm just throwing this out there - voting for what you think everyone else should want is a terrible idea because none of us have psychic powers, and everybody individually voting for what they want is exactly the point of voting. So congratulations. Most likely you just fractionally muddied the water by voting for what you thought was best for everyone, instead of just letting us all each say what was best for us.
 
Two can play that game. Another way of saying "best for the country ergo its inhabitants" is: I thought I knew what was best for everyone else. Personally, I try not to tell other people what is good for them, and let them make their own decisions. I'm sure it sounds nice in your head, but not such a great attitude in practice. I'm willing to bet that you just love it when opinionated people on the BBC or Twitter tell you what's best for you, so why behave that way yourself?

Perhaps - and I'm just throwing this out there - voting for what you think everyone else should want is a terrible idea because none of us have psychic powers, and everybody individually voting for what they want is exactly the point of voting. So congratulations. Most likely you just fractionally muddied the water by voting for what you thought was best for everyone, instead of just letting us all each say what was best for us.
I said best for the country in my opinion. Not me individually or anyone else individually. Sorry for thinking on a higher level than if it's going to cost me more on exchange rates or tax
 
That's sort of a fair point.

I counter that I only do this because, in many areas, I see what seems to be denial, slavish acceptance or self-justification of obviously negative outcomes. Frankly, ARRSE seems to be awash with that kind of thinking, and has been for some time. But it's a big place and I've been on less, so I may be missing the subtleties.

My purpose is to make some attempt at insisting that people revisit and account for their decisions with hindsight, not just to complain for the sake of it. Again, think the first post demonstrates that purpose from day one, about 5 years ago. That is, imo, valuable because otherwise there is zero chance of ever learning from history.

But I see how the two could be mistaken. Try and give the benefit of the doubt until someone blatantly proves otherwise, perhaps. There is very definitely a trend of people here to play to the worst stereotypes of anyone who disagrees with them, which is a dick move under any circumstances.

As for selling how good the EU is, why? You made your decisions, I made mine. I'm not trying to say you were wrong or tell you what to do. I just don't agree with history being washed, whatever colour it's in.
Enjoy ignore FELLA
 
That £350 million a week added to the NHS must be making a difference, then?

The NHS is drowning in money. I own a "financing" business that structures complex debt deals for the NHS and syndicates to banks (don't worry, the NHS wins), and all deals are on hold as NHS Trust CFOs have a largely unlimited supply of capital for backlog O&M, which runs into the tens of billions.

Anyone suggesting the NHS is short of cash, or not in a way better position now vs 2016, is either lying, stupid or pulling your leg.

Yours,
The Coalface.
 
Conversely, Scotland will be swimming in money after independence, because the oil price will of course be $140/barrel, the economy will be financially viable, and the remaining UK will be only too happy to build its warships on the Clyde! Sunlit uplands! How dare you suggest that the SNP is lying its tiny little head off!


Off course he Scots have to prove it's their Oil before they can rake in the funds
Currently it sits in British Water not Scottish water.
IRC from the last referendum the Outer Islands told the SNP if Scotland went independent from the UK they wanted independence in their own right.
A lot of the fishing and oil is then in their waters.

Hard to deny some one independence when it's all you've been banging on about for years
 

New posts

Top