UK forum members, BREXIT?

[grumpydoc]

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?  Why take money from UK taxpayers and donate it to non-producers?

Subsidize is possibly the wrong word - I did say support but the essential reason is that we exist in a closed system thus what goes around tends to come around. Keeping people economically active improves their standard of living and ultimately benefits us in return.

Why be forced to accept uncontrolled immigration?  Especially from groups who want to retain 7th century ideas and have no intention of assimilating?  France is swamped by this issue.

Broadly speaking immigration is good for an economy because it brings young, fit, frequently well qualified workers who actually want to work and improve their lot. Movement of people/labour has been historically important in Europe for the last 3000 years and, lets face it pretty much everyone living in the USA is an immigrant as Homo Sapiens is an "old world" species.

It does backfire, of course, but the evidence is that immigrants to the UK currently contribute to the economy more than they take back. Also I think IDS has been on about the forecast of 150-250, 000 net influx out to 2030 or so. That's perhaps about the same number of workers that we need to bring into the UK over the same time period so I'm not sure it's entirely a bad thing.

Yes, we need to build houses and schools but it is not the EU's fault that we have not been doing that fast enough but successive governments who have encouraged everyone to go to 5th rate educational institutions to earn a 7th rate piss pot degree rather than running decent training schemes to equip us with the workforce that we need.

The voters of the UK are the people whose opinions count.  Do they think the UK gains more from membership than they lose?  The opinions of members of government are bought and paid for.  It's up to the voters to decide.

It is, I just don't think that watching a bunch of self-serving politicians calling each other names is going to qualify them to make the decision.

In a way, BREXIT is a disrupter in the same way Trump is a disrupter.  Things won't be the same if Trump gets elected and it will be up to history to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing.  Same for BREXIT.  Taking the disrupter path guarantees a change!

I can agree with that statement. It might even be if we manage it properly (see previous comments on British management) we will ultimately come out on top but the short term pain could well be intense and I am not sure I believe that things will be as rosy long term as the Leave campaign claim.

The UK is 4% of GDP, the EU closer to 40 - who do you think the US and China will want to negotiate favourable terms with?

[rolycat]

I agree that healthcare in the US is an abomination but it isn't anywhere near as bad as NHS.

It is truly astounding how many Americans parrot this nonsense as if it were an imperishable fact.

I can often get an appointment with my primary care provider in a matter of hours, not weeks.  If I am less concerned about seeing my individual PCP, I can get an appointment in less than an hour.  For urgent care I can go to any hospital.

And all of this is typically also the case in the UK. Where are you getting your information?

A recent study by a US-based organisation rated the healthcare provision of New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Britain and the US.

The NHS was rated as the best, and the US came last.

All such ranking exercises have an element of subjectivity, and the NHS certainly has its flaws, but try asking British people how they feel about the NHS, rather than relying on the distortions peddled by the US media.

[grumpydoc]

Nice cartoon at Zerohedge. 

  

[Wuerstchenhund]

"If the qualified politicians, economists etc. elected to run the country full-time can't agree on what's best, then how am I supposed to decide objectively in my spare-time using soundbite propaganda uttered by both sides and delivered through biased media?

Doesn't sound you have a lot of confidence in  your own ability to decide for yourself.

To me it sounds like a proper reflection of his own limitations, which is actually commendable, but unfortunately very rare.

There are a lot of research to suggest that the "uneducated" mass is pretty good at finding a good outcome for themselves without the "elites".

Not really. In fact, there's quite a bit of research showing that masses tend to get more stupid than the average individuum in that crowd, and that in large groups humans pretty much behave like cattle:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plus2sd/200809/the-stupidity-crowds

People vote against their interest all the time. Hitler was elected, Mussolini, too. For a more recent example, just look at the 2015 general elections in the UK, or the fellowship of Trump.

Considering how many Brits I meet every day that want "out" but know jack shit about the EU and how it works, I have complete confidence that the "great British public" will again vote against their best interest 

[FrankD]

Throw these brits out. They hardly have a relevant industry left. Have a leeching financial section that will sink after the brexit.
Somehow they are delusional in thinking that they are still an important world 'power'.

[rch]

As a "stronger" economy the UK should be supporting others in Europe - it benefits us all in the long term. Remember our gross contribution to Europe is only about 1% of GDP so it is not costing us a lot in relative terms.

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?  Why take money from UK taxpayers and donate it to non-producers?

Why be forced to accept uncontrolled immigration?  Especially from groups who want to retain 7th century ideas and have no intention of assimilating?  France is swamped by this issue.

There is a lot of confusion (some deliberate) about this.  The EU agreement says we have to accept citizens of other EU countries coming  here, under some circumstances, mainly if they work or support themselves.  Very few of these are Muslims or recent immigrants, because the latter aren't EU citizens until they've been there years.   The EU is *not* making us take refugees (although other EU countries with land borders may be sharing each other's refugee burden), and very few indeed of our Muslim immigrants, or indeed long standing Muslim population, are here from or because of the EU. 

[chris_leyson]

What I disagree with is when the EU starts interfering with things which have nothing to do with trade, such as the colours of the wires used in fixed electrical installations.

It happened for a good reason, years ago my dad had a work colleauge who had red/green colour blindness and couldn't wire a mains plug, it would have been 50/50 chance of getting it right.

Years later, myself and a fellow student got a six month industrial placement as part of a degree course, day one was paperwork and medical. They kicked him out there and then for being colour blind and he didn't even know he was colour blind. So, two examples of why they change the colour code.

From an EE point of view, don't forget how the EC have have harmonized standards, EMC, LVD, RTTE and RoHS, there's medical, chemical, mechanical, metrology and loads more that I'm not familiar with. Back in the day you would have had to have done EMC testing to several standards depending on the destination country and the standard in force. Fimko, Semko, Nemko, Demko, VDE,WTF.

From an EE point of view I would vote for staying.

[wraper]

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?

And such thinking is the reason why US has completely screwed up healthcare. It's not about health but about money it can suck out of you.

I agree that healthcare in the US is an abomination but it isn't anywhere near as bad as NHS.  I can often get an appointment with my primary care provider in a matter of hours, not weeks.  If I am less concerned about seeing my individual PCP, I can get an appointment in less than an hour.  For urgent care I can go to any hospital.  Right now!  I have had non-governmental healthcare for nearly 50 years, most often as an employee benefit.  In other words, I worked for it!

But if you are ill with something serious, you are screwed. Those healthcare plans also have so many exceptions that it is just ridiculous. With NHS it's otherwise, you won't get free simple treatment blazing fast, but if you have something serious, you will have a decent treatment. In US, you'll die if you are out of money.

I don't see the correlation between US healthcare and the UK subsidizing Europe.  Isn't there something better to do with 8bn pounds?  But it's up to the voters of the UK.  I'm just a bystander and waiting anxiously to see how it comes out!  Other than the US election, BREXIT is the best show in town.

Those 8 bn are a joke actually. By exiting EU, immediate losses will outweigh those savings 10s of years forward. UK net contribution to EU is 0.5% of GDP. Don't think about those 8 bn as if the are gone nowhere. They develop markets where UK goods will be sold afterwards. Actually a lot of that money returns as ability to sell goods while it would not be possible otherwise.

[Marco]

It does backfire, of course, but the evidence is that immigrants to the UK currently contribute to the economy more than they take back.

Evidence based on massive Eastern European immigration, groups with often lower unemployment than the native population.

If all the immigrants had been gypsies it wouldn't have turned out the same. I suspect muslim refugees will have an economic contribution closer to that of gypsies than Poles ... although I'd still rather have gypsies than muslim refugees. Gadjos are to be taken advantage of, Kafirs are to be taken advantage of and eventually need to submit or be destroyed.

The EU is *not* making us take refugees (although other EU countries with land borders may be sharing each other's refugee burden)

Sharing, that's a nice euphemism for being forced to take refugees or be fined. How long will the UK be allowed not to share?

[wraper]

"If the qualified politicians, economists etc. elected to run the country full-time can't agree on what's best, then how am I supposed to decide objectively in my spare-time using soundbite propaganda uttered by both sides and delivered through biased media?

Doesn't sound you have a lot of confidence in  your own ability to decide for yourself.

To me it sounds like a proper reflection of his own limitations, which is actually commendable, but unfortunately very rare.

There are a lot of research to suggest that the "uneducated" mass is pretty good at finding a good outcome for themselves without the "elites".

Not really. In fact, there's quite a bit of research showing that masses tend to get more stupid than the average individuum in that crowd, and that in large groups humans pretty much behave like cattle:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/plus2sd/200809/the-stupidity-crowds

People vote against their interest all the time. Hitler was elected, Mussolini, too. For a more recent example, just look at the 2015 general elections in the UK, or the fellowship of Trump.

Considering how many Brits I meet every day that want "out" but know jack shit about the EU and how it works, I have complete confidence that the "great British public" will again vote against their best interest 

Soviet study about how easy it is to impact individual if the majority have some general consensus, Even if it is completely ludicrous. They even managed to make adult man calling white being black just because majority said so. Also it shows some examples of how reliable human brain is at estimating things. Very good movie actually. Stuff about deliberately impacting opinion starts at 10th minute.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I agree that healthcare in the US is an abomination but it isn't anywhere near as bad as NHS.

It is truly astounding how many Americans parrot this nonsense as if it were an imperishable fact.

Well as non-American who has experience with both healthcare systems (plus the Canadian and German systems) I can assure you it's not nonsense. The NHS wins hands-down on costs, no questions, but not on availability and quality of care.

The biggest issue with the US system is access, i.e. you have to be able to afford treatment.

I can often get an appointment with my primary care provider in a matter of hours, not weeks.  If I am less concerned about seeing my individual PCP, I can get an appointment in less than an hour.  For urgent care I can go to any hospital.

And all of this is typically also the case in the UK. Where are you getting your information?

Here up north I can usually get an emergency appointment with my GP the next day or, if I'm very lucky, maybe even the same day, but normal appointments usually take one or two weeks, sometimes more. And apparently I should consider myself lucky, because of the huge shortage of doctors in the UK it's a lot worse in many other areas. Doctors btw which right now are for large part "pesky foreigners", i.e. the kind of people many Brits would like to get rid of rather sooner than later, which is one reason why we have this silly Brexit mess in the first place. The thing is, should the foreigners leave then the NHS would stop to function.

Oh, and A&E (the British equivalent to the ER) in many hospitals is totally overrun due to the GP shortage, often with waiting times exceeding 6 hours. And that's nothing new, this has been going on for years.

Dental care in the UK is probably the worst I've ever encountered in any first world country, a lot worse than in Germany and even more so than in the US. And not exactly cheap, either. You can get better treatment via private health insurance, but even there the standard is, in my experience, far below other countries including the US.

A recent study by a US-based organisation rated the healthcare provision of New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Britain and the US.

The NHS was rated as the best, and the US came last.

Yes, based on costs. In terms of outcomes, the picture is less rosy, for example the UK is pretty far down when it comes to treating cancer and various other illnesses.

All such ranking exercises have an element of subjectivity, and the NHS certainly has its flaws, but try asking British people how they feel about the NHS, rather than relying on the distortions peddled by the US media.

The thing with asking a Brit about the NHS is that the answer quite often is tainted by an inappropriate amount of national pride, usually resulting in the "envy of the world" BS reply. Ask someone who actually has been treated under different healtcare systems, and you'll more likely get a more realistic assessment.

Worth a read:
http://www.sochealth.co.uk/2015/01/18/international-comparisons-say-nhs/

"In summary, little evidence seems to exist to prove the belief that the NHS is the “envy of the world”, at least if we are talking about the developed world. The UK’s health service surely provides adequate and often excellent care, but many questions remain about whether that care is as good as the standards of our cultural and physical neighbors in Europe and the rest of the world. [...]"

[zapta]

Nice cartoon at Zerohedge. 

A picture worth a thousand words.

[nctnico]

As a "stronger" economy the UK should be supporting others in Europe - it benefits us all in the long term. Remember our gross contribution to Europe is only about 1% of GDP so it is not costing us a lot in relative terms.

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?  Why take money from UK taxpayers and donate it to non-producers?

Google 'Marshall plan'.

[rstofer]

But if you are ill with something serious, you are screwed. Those healthcare plans also have so many exceptions that it is just ridiculous. With NHS it's otherwise, you won't get free simple treatment blazing fast, but if you have something serious, you will have a decent treatment. In US, you'll die if you are out of money.

Well, I can't speak for Obamacare or VA benefits because I belong to an HMO.  I have had two episodes of having stents placed in arteries and both were handled immediately.  I have nothing but good things to say about my health plan.  If there's any doubt, they have the facilities to check things out.  Right now!  If there's a problem, they handle it.  Right now!

I do worry about the donut hole in Medicare prescription plans such as Senior Advantage but I doubt very much that I'll ever be using those benefits.

At the moment, I have no concerns about US healthcare but I am delighted that we don't have a one-size-fits-all government financed plan like NHS.  Unfortunately, I suspect we are headed in that direction.

[nctnico]

Nice cartoon at Zerohedge. 

If you look at the economic growth rates then the EU as a whole (including Greece) is doing better than the UK before and after the crisis:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-annual-growth-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

Even before the crisis the EU has outperformed the UK when it comes to economic growth.

[rstofer]

As a "stronger" economy the UK should be supporting others in Europe - it benefits us all in the long term. Remember our gross contribution to Europe is only about 1% of GDP so it is not costing us a lot in relative terms.

I'm from out of town and my opinion is irrelevant but why should the UK subsidize other countries?  Why take money from UK taxpayers and donate it to non-producers?

Google 'Marshall plan'.

I read about it once.  It was a great help in stabilizing Europe after WW-II.  It didn't start until 3 years after the end of WW-II and lasted just 4 years.  It wasn't an unending flow of taxpayer cash.  It amounted to quite a bit of money but it was cheaper than WW-III, the likely alternative.  But we're not talking about countries ravaged by war, at least not the major players in the EU.  But we are talking about countries with rather liberal retirement plans and other motivations to reward non-performance.

Just last week I was reading about a country that wanted to provide every citizen with a stipend whether they worked or not.  A basic amount for living expenses.  Of course, if a person worked, the stipend was reduced.  Now that's a huge incentive to stay home and watch Oprah reruns.  Let's see, I get money for not going to work or less money if I do go to work.  Which to choose...  What a stupid idea!  Fortunately, it seems like the proposal crashed and burned.  They wanted to take more money from those who produce and give it to those who don't.  Terrific!

[rolycat]

I agree that healthcare in the US is an abomination but it isn't anywhere near as bad as NHS.

It is truly astounding how many Americans parrot this nonsense as if it were an imperishable fact.

Well as non-American who has experience with both healthcare systems plus the German one I can tell you it's not nonsense.

You can tell me anything you like; doesn't make it true.

My family also has experience of healthcare on both sides of the pond, (my aunt and uncle are US citizens) and their experiences in the USA healthcare system have frequently been appalling.

Yes, the NHS has many failings, as does the healthcare of any other country, but that doesn't make it incomparably worse than what rstofer acknowledges to be "an abomination".

Dental care in the UK is probably the worst I've ever encountered in any first world country, a lot worse than in Germany and even more so than in the US.

Really? So how does the UK manage to share the crown for the healthiest teeth of any country in the world with Germany?

The thing with asking a Brit about the NHS is that the answer quite often is tainted by an inappropriate amount of national pride, usually resulting in the "envy of the world" BS reply. Ask someone who actually has been treated under different healtcare systems, and you'll more likely get a more realistic assessment.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed the NHS was "the envy of the world" I just get upset when Americans assume it to be some kind of third-world hellhole.

And Brits are the only nation given to "inappropriate amounts of national pride", are they?

[tggzzz]

For me, sovereignty is extremely important. 

How important is sovereignty when we can't defend ourselves - we already borrow ASW aircraft from Canada when there's a Russian sub near Faslane, and if the Argies invade the Falklands we will have to beg the French to lend us their aircraft carrier.

How important is sovereignty when the lights go out (and they will go out) in a few years because the Chinese won't lend us enough money to get the French to build Hinkley Point.

There are too many other similar examples

[chris_leyson]

Aneurin Beven spearheaded the founding of the national health service and there is a statue of him at the end of Queen St in Cardiff. But they put his statue under a tree and he's always covered in bird shit. To me that is somewhat disrespectful. If he could see his statue he would probably say "Cardiff, pretty shitty city". cf Twin Town, "Swansea...pretty shitty city". No one seems to give a shit apart from the birds. It's perhaps an indicator of how much society really cares about their past or future. Rant over.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1938771

[zapta]

... the lights go out (and they will go out) in a few years ...

Wow! 

[continuo]

Together we stand, divided we fall... It's never a good thing to lose influence... Not for the EU and not for you Brits. 

 

[wraper]

For me, sovereignty is extremely important. 

How important is sovereignty when we can't defend ourselves - we already borrow ASW aircraft from Canada when there's a Russian sub near Faslane, and if the Argies invade the Falklands we will have to beg the French to lend us their aircraft carrier.

Likely the same which Sweden hunted 2 years ago. Last week Swedish minister of defense admitted it was BS. but it did the job, it helped to push through increase of military expenses.
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6451552

[rch]

The EU is *not* making us take refugees (although other EU countries with land borders may be sharing each other's refugee burden)

Sharing, that's a nice euphemism for being forced to take refugees or be fined. How long will the UK be allowed not to share?

We were never in Schengen and there is no basis for forcing us to take refugees.   As a civilised country, we have chosen to accept a number of Syrian war refugees.  You may think that unwise, but it is nothing to do with the EU.

[Koen]

Multiple times in this thread : "I don't care what you think. Now, let me tell you what I think". Well done lads, great discussion.

[tggzzz]

... the lights go out (and they will go out) in a few years ...

Wow!

Yes   Several "notices of insufficiency" have already been formally issued, but I believe not enacted. (An NoI is a warning to industrial customers that they may have their power cut)

We currently have about 3% excess generating capacity. All it takes is a couple of unscheduled outages.Many large nukes are reaching their end of life and/or having their peak capacity reduced for safety reasons. And we're closing the coal stations. And we are trying to get other countries to finance new gas generating plant.

But of course, the market wisdom is sufficient to solve all problems. Not.