Brexit

Investment? So we'd be making ourselves richer by giving away even more money to the EU to redistribute? Why not double or triple the budget if it's that effective?

We could even print the money instead of borrowing it, what could possibly go wrong?

Grumpy David wrote:Investment? So we'd be making ourselves richer by giving away even more money to the EU to redistribute? Why not double or triple the budget if it's that effective?

We could even print the money instead of borrowing it, what could possibly go wrong?

There is only so much money that one entity can deal with at once. The idea is to maximise growth of other countries so they build trading links and create large markets for the other countries to do business with.

It's part of the reason investors don't just pump all their money into one company as at some point they'll just be banking the money and holding in reserve like Apple were doing which doesn't make the investors any money at all.

Grumpy David wrote:Investment? So we'd be making ourselves richer by giving away even more money to the EU to redistribute? Why not double or triple the budget if it's that effective?

We could even print the money instead of borrowing it, what could possibly go wrong?

Nobody suggested "giving away" double or triple the amount.

As things stand, we do very well out of our EU membership.

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:But you don't live in a poorer nation...so that statement basically means nought. In the context you actually live in, it is incredibly selfish.

That makes no sense. That's like saying I'm selfish if I get a Tory tax cut even though I voted for Labour. The benefit you see me as getting had no influence on my decision.

But you are getting the benefit. By making your decision you deny the money elsewhere.

Its selfish.

If I lived in Poland and voted to leave the EU, would you consider me financially selfish then?

If you say yes -- I don't even know how you could argue this, tbh.

If you say no -- It's the same belief. It doesn't suddenly become selfish or unselfish depending on the location.

If you lived in Poland, voted to leave and then were saying you resent your tax money going to Romania, then yes you would be selfish.

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:But you don't live in a poorer nation...so that statement basically means nought. In the context you actually live in, it is incredibly selfish.

That makes no sense. That's like saying I'm selfish if I get a Tory tax cut even though I voted for Labour. The benefit you see me as getting had no influence on my decision.

But you are getting the benefit. By making your decision you deny the money elsewhere.

Its selfish.

If I lived in Poland and voted to leave the EU, would you consider me financially selfish then?

If you say yes -- I don't even know how you could argue this, tbh.

If you say no -- It's the same belief. It doesn't suddenly become selfish or unselfish depending on the location.

The Poland argument is pointless. You dont live in Poland, its utterly hypothetical.

You live in the UK. Therefore its selfish.

You may say you'd do the same elsewhere but that isn't the situation so I can only judge you on actions, not words. I find it incredibly selfish.

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:If you lived in Poland, voted to leave and then were saying you resent your tax money going to Romania, then yes you would be selfish.

Wouldn't be the case considering both receive more money than they put in. Also completely ignores the massive drainage of funds I'd be voting for.

I have no idea of the figures but if Poland pay more and receive less than Romania then the analogy absolutely works.

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:If you lived in Poland, voted to leave and then were saying you resent your tax money going to Romania, then yes you would be selfish.

Wouldn't be the case considering both receive more money than they put in. Also completely ignores the massive drainage of funds I'd be voting for.

I have no idea of the figures but if Poland pay more and receive less than Romania then the analogy absolutely works.

They both receive money, so I'd have to "resent" Romania getting more (if that's the case) of other nations' taxes, which I wouldn't.

The UK receives money.

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:The UK receives money.

Don't be a knob.

I said directly above that the other two countries receive more than they put in.

So?

"The UK gives more than it receives" is a ridiculously reductionist argument -- economics isn't a zero-sum game.

Giving money to another country can be an investment that pays off in future trade; membership of an organisation can pay you in growth more than your membership fee costs.

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:The UK receives money.

Don't be a knob.

I said directly above that the other two countries receive more than they put in.

So?

So your analogy doesn't work? I already said why. You can't live in an EU country that receives more money than it gives, and also complain your taxes are going to another country (Romania in your analogy).

Of course you can moan about that.

I bet right now in Warsaw there's a bloke called Lucienski bitching and moaning about Romania getting money.

Lucien wrote:

Errkal wrote:As Laga says it is investment, as they grow they become bigger consumers increasing imports etc. and we benefit. We also get the to take advantage of people wanting to move here giving us workers to fuel the economy. Suggesting they are freeloaders and are subsidised is very shortsighted and very showing of the selfishness that is taking over peoples views of late.

It's not selfishness I promise you; I'd vote Leave no matter what EU country I lived in. But granted for a lot of others it will be selfishness.

This is an utterly bizarre and ultimately meaningless post. If you lived in Poland (or were from there, which you'd have to be to vote in such a referendum) you have no idea how you'd vote because your life would be totally different.

In this hypothetical you either have to be polish or have lived there for many, many years and now be a citizen. It's like saying if i became a Chinese citizen I'd be for making Hong Kong a less autonomous state - I have absolutely no idea if this is true because I'm not Chinese, don't see the world as a Chinese citizen and appreciate that your cultural surroundings change the way you see the world.

Photek wrote:

Meep wrote:We benefit from the EU investment in other countries though. Think of how much business the UK does with Ireland (one of the largest markets for the UK), now think of how much the Irish economy and consumer demand has improved and increased since it has benefited from EU investment. Aside from the demand for UK goods and services, there is also the extra strength this lends to the EU as a whole internationally. It does not take a genius to realise that when one poorer EU country improves all the other EU countries benefit as well. EU development funds are an intelligent use of money and allow a relatively small contribution each individual member state to have a very significant impact compared with what each individual state alone could achieve within its own borders, in the same way we gain from pooling our influence and negotiating power.

We did benefit from EU investment but being one of the worlds leading technological and pharmaceutical hubs has had nothing to do with Europe at all. Our tax and educational system achieved this status. You make us out to be Bolivia or something!

Brexit looks like even more jobs coming over here.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0629/886445-project/

The vast majority of project managers here expect an increase in the number of projects coming to Ireland as a direct result of Brexit, according to a survey of members of the Project Management Institute. 80% of respondents saw a pick up in international work in the near future, largely thanks to Britain's vote to leave the European Union.

If only Ireland didn't have a comparatively gooseberry fool healthcare system and an incredibly backwards view on issues like abortion I'd consider hopping the ocean.

Lucien wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Errkal wrote:As Laga says it is investment, as they grow they become bigger consumers increasing imports etc. and we benefit. We also get the to take advantage of people wanting to move here giving us workers to fuel the economy. Suggesting they are freeloaders and are subsidised is very shortsighted and very showing of the selfishness that is taking over peoples views of late.

It's not selfishness I promise you; I'd vote Leave no matter what EU country I lived in. But granted for a lot of others it will be selfishness.

This is an utterly bizarre and ultimately meaningless post. If you lived in Poland (or were from there, which you'd have to be to vote in such a referendum) you have no idea how you'd vote because your life would be totally different.

In this hypothetical you either have to be polish or have lived there for many, many years and now be a citizen. It's like saying if i became a Chinese citizen I'd be for making Hong Kong a less autonomous state - I have absolutely no idea if this is true because I'm not Chinese, don't see the world as a Chinese citizen and appreciate that your cultural surroundings change the way you see the world.

I know I would vote to leave the EU. Unless Poland has some Fable 3-like secret, like the EU is holding back the forces of darkness and nobody knows, there's nothing that would change my mind.

But you wouldn't be the same you if you were polish.

Lucien wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:But you wouldn't be the same you if you were polish.

If I grew up in Poland and had a completely different life, then maybe I would be pro-EU, obviously.

If I moved to Poland or lived there right now I'd be anti-EU and stay anti-EU until the institution was different. All my friends in the UK voted Remain, so the culture around me doesn't affect me in this case.

But if the only change was you living in Poland as a British citizen and were somehow magically allowed to vote there's no point in the previous two pages - because of course you'd vote the same, it makes no difference to you if Poland is going to get poorer or not because you'll be working in an English speaking environment where you can leave if it gets too economically challenging. The whole premise of this conversation is just stupid.

Karl wrote:"The UK gives more than it receives" is a ridiculously reductionist argument -- economics isn't a zero-sum game.

Giving money to another country can be an investment that pays off in future trade; membership of an organisation can pay you in growth more than your membership fee costs.

This is just an argument to spend more money? Assuming the ratio of wisely spent money to waste of money is on the side of net gain for wisely spent, then you might as well massively increase the amount transferred. It's a big assumption too since big institutional bodies don't generally have a good track record with this sort of thing.

If the UK government is to redistribute taxpayer money, it should be to try and eliminate the North South divide where presumably the money has a better chance of being more effectively spent. Our kindest act is to have tariff free entry to the UK market to the world economy even if these aren't reciprocal.

Eastern Europe isn't poor by global standards, yet we impose tariffs on many much poorer countries (and inefficiently give them aid instead of free trade).

EDIT: typo

But you don't know that because you haven't lived it!

Also only the extremely privileged can say money isn't a concern to them (and yes, basically, if not 100% of people who posted on here are very privileged). You'd be damned concerned about money if you were on the breadline, only had pennies to spend on food and were almost unable to pay bills, where an extremely depressed economy (which Poland would undoubtedly suffer were they to leave) would push you on to the street.

I'm done with this because I know you'll come back and claim that actually leaving the eu is still worth that risk to you but there's no way you can possibly know that's how you feel were you in such a situation in a country with no real safety net. But keep thinking that way, whatever.

Rocsteady wrote:If only Ireland didn't have a comparatively gooseberry fool healthcare system and an incredibly backwards view on issues like abortion I'd consider hopping the ocean.

For what little it's worth I just thought I'd mention that there's going to be a referendum on the abortion issue next year.
The exact changes haven't been nailed down yet but they are expected to be based on the findings of the recent Citizens Assembly.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/citizens-assembly-backs-abortion-rights-in-wide-range-of-circumstances-1.3058170

Government spending on healthcare compares relatively well with most countries but the return on that investment simply isn't good enough.

Grumpy David wrote:

Karl wrote:"The UK gives more than it receives" is a ridiculously reductionist argument -- economics isn't a zero-sum game.

Giving money to another country can be an investment that pays off in future trade; membership of an organisation can pay you in growth more than your membership fee costs.

This is just an argument to spend more money? Assuming the ratio of wisely spent money to waste of money is on the side of net gain for wisely spent, then you might as well massively increase the amount transferred. It's a big assumption too since big institutional bodies don't generally have a goodnight track record with this sort of thing.

Again, this is needlessly reductionist. I'm not saying giving money to all poorer countries is a wise investment (I said it 'can be'), and I'm not saying buying entry to any hypothetical international organisation would be a good idea. But is being part of the European trading bloc as it exists good for growth to the extent that it covers the entry cost? Yes. Is subsidising the development of other, slightly poorer members of the same bloc, such as Poland, a wise investment for the bloc as a whole? I would say 'probably' (based on the fact that smarter people than me did it & that I'm not an economist myself).

bear wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:If only Ireland didn't have a comparatively gooseberry fool healthcare system and an incredibly backwards view on issues like abortion I'd consider hopping the ocean.

For what little it's worth I just thought I'd mention that there's going to be a referendum on the abortion issue next year.
The exact changes haven't been nailed down yet but they are expected to be based on the findings of the recent Citizens Assembly.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/citizens-assembly-backs-abortion-rights-in-wide-range-of-circumstances-1.3058170

Government spending on healthcare compares relatively well with most countries but the return on that investment simply isn't good enough.

This time next year Ireland will finally repeal the 8th amendment (abortion) and once again, just like with Gay marriage, Northern Ireland will be stuck in the past.

Took us time to get there but after the state told the church to strawberry float off years ago we've become a very progressive nation. Our Prime minister headed the pride parade on Saturday, it's an excellent turn around.

I was surprised we do spend as much on the Health Service, goes to show how wasteful the HSE are. Rurally it's tragic to be honest, in Dublin and surrounding counties it's actually not too bad, new maternity Hospital will boost things also but we need a hospital in the south/south east.

I'm proud of how far we've come in my lifetime, simply unrecognisable even 20years ago. Take a walk around Dublins grand canal docks these days, it's like being in a sci fi scene, the architecture is astounding.

It's been a couple of weeks since the email confirmation but my foreign birth certificate arrived from the Irish embassy this morning. I'm officially Irish and have the paperwork to prove it!