|
50% is 50% on your "statistics" which are obviously full of it. |
|
|
Also, I only used the 50% number on one thing? And that sure as hell isn't out of my arse, it's from the UK government.
https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/EU_and_Non-EU_Data.aspx |
|
loxJoin Date: 2006-09-24
Post Count: 1060 |
Heh that's politics for ya, their crap and no gives a dam to change the system. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Directly from that report, just because I think you should read the fine print:
"The proportion of total exports to the EU was 48 per cent in April 2016. Over the past 18 months, this has ranged from 38 per cent to 48 per cent. The proportion of total imports from the EU was 47 per cent in April 2016. Over the same period, this has ranged between 47 per cent and 55 per cent." |
|
|
Tell you government you don't get 50% on more than two topics and legally call it a fact. That's just BS. |
|
BazzzaaJoin Date: 2008-04-03
Post Count: 1589 |
'There's also been discussed potential for Scotland and N.I. to leave the U.K.'
That is the only point I agree with from your thread. Everything else is a pile of rubbish. |
|
|
@Bazzzaa
So true on this thread it's nothing but pathetic "what if" statements. |
|
|
Imperial
Like I said
I only used it on one topic-->international economy.
I don't know where the hell you're getting the "two topic" thing from but it's just not true. I'd like you to point out exactly, EXACTLY where I used it on a second topic, because I'm telling you right now I only used it for the trade point.
@Brazaa
Well, maybe that's because it's the only verifiable event from this argument that's already happened as a result of Brexit. I'll give you that, it's not concrete, it's speculative based on economic and political principle. I can't see the future, you can't see the future, will disagree on it. But past that, I'd like to see why you think it's rubbish. |
|
|
You're entire argument is "what if" and other junk, which will never happen.
Get your biased head out of the gutter sir, Britain is by far better off. |
|
BazzzaaJoin Date: 2008-04-03
Post Count: 1589 |
Yep. People like to abuse the sudden effects of the leave vote winning to make the other side of the argument sound better.
'Value of the GPB has fallen'
>Will rise again within a few week - only dropped because all the stock markets thought the 'remain' campaign was going to win but the 'leave' campaign made a surprising victory.
'UK Trade will now be messed up'
We can make our own trade deals with countries within the EU and not need to follow EU regulations. Furthermore, we can now trade with counties outside of the EU which we could not do while being in the EU<
UK has control of is borders back<
UK does not have to listen or take orders from idiots who were not elected or have even set foot in the UK<
350M that we had to send per week can now be used on more important issues related to the UK, such as the NHS, security, education.
----------------------------------------------------
Yes, UK will have short term effect that are not so good due to the result of the vote but the long term effects will be VERY good for the United Kingdom.
|
|
BazzzaaJoin Date: 2008-04-03
Post Count: 1589 |
ALSO,
SIX other counties have now called a referendum to leave the EU.
The EU is done for. |
|
|
|
'There's also been discussed potential for Scotland and N.I. to leave the U.K.'
That is the only point I agree with from your thread. Everything else is a pile of rubbish. [2]
You have spoken utter crap throughout this thread. The short-term causes might hurt UK a bit like the decline in Pound and the stock market but for long-run UK is set to be excelling. UK will no longer have to pay on average 16 billion(£) every year to fund the EU, before you start on the '350 million(£) each week being used to support EU is bs', it isnt because the British government publicly announced that they paid 19 Billion(350 million each week) to support the EU in 2014. 2015 was possibly even worse because fhe Greek bailout also had to be funded. Another long term advantage is that UK gets its right to control its own borders rather than the EU controlling its borders which is how an independent country like the UK should be doing. |
|
|
|
In terms on economical long term benefits, the UK no longer has to bry the sanctions imposed by the EU which can sometimes be damaging to the economy like: if sanctions on Russia are removed, Britain will be freed from any possibliity of an energy crisis. |
|
|
|
"So true on this thread it's nothing but pathetic "what if" statements."
Sorry, what?
First off, "what if" scenarios are a HUGE part of politics. Especially when it comes to foreign policy, but certainly when evaluating risk, the "What if" of a decision plays a big part in making it. If there's a solid chance that a certain undesirable outcome comes from a decision, it needs to be discussed. That's governments job and it's how politics needs to work. George Bush hopped into a war with Iraq and didn't consider the "what if" of "what if we get stuck there by a combination of sociopolitical elements from our military investment with the new iraqi government?" and we ended up being stuck in Iraq for 10 years, hemorrhaging budgeted money to end a conflict which has repercussions we are still dealing with today(SEE: the IS.) That's exactly what political shortsight does and it's more than enough reason to consider every "what if scenario" in any decision, big or small. When you're running a country, you need to consider all of the outcomes.
That's how it works, not just in general, but when it works best. Brash action in a government seat such as the brexit or entering Iraq, has historically lead to some of the biggest controversies and issues there have ever been by well supported governments.
I built my argument based on what ifs because that's how politics work. And even then, I had more than enough concreteness to it where I pointed out givens, things that don't have to be assumed. In fact, the biggest "what if" I gave during that whole thing was the "what if the EU doesn't collapse and Britain loses investors, bankers, and key companies?" That's the biggest what if I used. It's not a bunch of "pathetic what ifs", it's a series of major, valid setbacks and issues that arise from the brexit that will have serious effects on britain's population.
It's obvious that you have no political inclination or thought process and all you're doing is eating up what UKIP spits at you without thinking about it for a second, and then trying to spit it back at me in hopes that it'll somehow form a valid, coherent argument, which it really hasn't. |
|
loxJoin Date: 2006-09-24
Post Count: 1060 |
King I think it'd be better if you go on r/politics instead, why debate here on a kids site q.q
|
|
BazzzaaJoin Date: 2008-04-03
Post Count: 1589 |
'The 350 million we pay into the EU wouldn't go to the NHS as the leave campaign kept shouting, even Nigel Farage admitted it after the vote'
Please read what has been said. I did not say that it would all go to the NHS - I said that the 350m that we had to send to the EU can now be spent on more important issues relevant to the United Kingdom, SUCH AS the NHS, security, education, etc... |
|
br5dJoin Date: 2010-05-09
Post Count: 4818 |
You taking life this serious is almost comical, chill out |
|
|
@Aguaro
I literally poked holes in all of those arguments with my first post.
The 350 million thing may not be BS but the idea that you're going to avoid paying $$ to the EU is, without benefit mind you. You're still going to have to follow all of their trade regulations to trade any product with them, and you're going to lose all of the benefits that arise from being in the EU, which as I stated, range from immense security benefits(which if you can't recognize at this point, please never go into international security. Please. You will actually get people killed) to immense international influence(which, again, if you can't recognize as necessary at this point, please avoid international politics.)
And as I said before, the UK has a far bigger immigration standing with people who aren't from the EU than from people who are. The EU also handles that for the UK, which means that money which is now being used to vet EU migrants to and from the UK was once actually coming from the collective EU. The UK now has to manage that AND the significantly greater non-EU immigration sector. The UK basically just shelled onto itself a greater monetary commitment while gaining a relatively small amount of control over its border back. That point again:They already controlled between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of their border, and now they have to fund out of pocket the rest when it was already being taken care of by the efforts of 27 other countries.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"In terms on economical long term benefits, the UK no longer has to bry the sanctions imposed by the EU which can sometimes be damaging to the economy like: if sanctions on Russia are removed, Britain will be freed from any possibliity of an energy crisis."
To be fair, this is the only point I've heard from your side of the debate that makes any sense. At the same time though, the UK has always and will always have the unsanctioned trade ally in the U.S., which is currently discovering availability of massive amounts of energy resources(especially natural gas) in the northern great plains region. So it wouldn't necessarily prevent an energy crisis because the crisis would have already had an option to be prevented in the first place, but you're absolutely right that it opens up options to trade with russia.
I won't go in depth on why Russia will screw you over because tbh that should be common knowledge, but you're not wrong that it would at least open the option. |
|
LissitskiJoin Date: 2009-12-19
Post Count: 30369 |
It's a problem for ex-pats like myself because it means I have to deal with more bureaucracy to stay in the country I'm in, and to travel back and forth.
Notice how in the polls, the 58% majority for the "leave" vote was people over the age of 65, whilst 64% I think or 62% of the "stay" vote was people in my generation, between 18-24. |
|
|
"You're still going to have to follow all of their trade regulations to trade any product with them,"
EU's gnna fall withing 10 years, so thay won't be much of a problem. |
|
|
"remain's entire argument is 'what if'"
did you see the Dow or the pound sterling man?
plus a little hypocritical from people who don't have a factual picture of what benefits brexit will bring |
|