When you consider all his controversies and self-inflicted wounds over the past month, combined with how much he's getting outspent on the airwaves in the battleground states, it is actually quite surprising that Trump and Hillary Clinton are so close in the polls. He's holding his own, especially in the Rust Belt.
The British campaign to exit the European Union (known as "Brexit"), like Trump's, was fueled by grievance. Those agitating to cut off formal ties to the continent were less organized and less funded than those who wanted to stay connected, but that deficit didn't matter in the end, because the energy was against the status quo.
"Basically, they took back their country. That's a great thing," Trump told reporters in Scotland, where he is visiting one of his golf courses.
"They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy," he elaborated in a statement. "Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today's rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again."
-- In the short term, the impending fallout from Brexit will make the presumptive Democratic nominee look good. She advocated for Britain remaining in the union; Trump advocated for leaving. The markets are going to tank today, and this vote will set off a tsunami of repercussions that could meaningfully damage the global economy. People's 401(k)'s might take a shellacking, and interest rates may spike. Any long-term benefits from breaking away will not be apparent until after the general election.
British Prime Minister David Cameron resigned overnight, triggering political chaos and a succession battle. Scottish leaders are already saying they will push for a new referendum to secede from the U.K.
-- Looking ahead to the fall, though, loud alarm bells should be going off inside Clinton's Brooklyn headquarters. Globally, there are strong tides of anti-establishment anger, nationalism and populism that bode poorly for the Secretary of State.
"Trump's slogan, 'Make America Great Again,' could easily have been adapted to the messaging of those in the 'leave' campaign," Dan Balz writes from London. "That desire for a return to an earlier time — to make Britain great again — is expressed through the issue of control. Those who have pushed for Britain to leave the E.U. want to reclaim a measure of sovereignty by wresting power from the bureaucrats in Brussels. ... They feel about the E.U. bureaucracy as tea party Republicans do about the federal government."
-- Trump still seems far more likely to lose than win, especially when you think about the Electoral College map. But the results across the pond spotlight five forces that could allow him to score an upset:
1. RESENTMENT OF ELITES
Virtually every serious economist and "expert" warned of calamity if Britain left the E.U. These technocrats used to be respected arbiters whose judgments carried considerable weight. A majority of Brits, though, tuned them out this year.
"People in this country have had enough of experts," Michael Gove, a Conservative Party lawmaker who wanted to leave, said when he was challenged during a TV interview to name a credible economic authority who supported an E.U. exit. "I'm glad these organizations aren't on my side."
Polls show a long-term trend of voters losing faith in experts and institutions. Surveys suggested that the British resented Barack Obama and other foreign leaders who strongly urged them to remain in a union that they did not feel was serving them.
Forced to choose between their heads and their hearts, the Brits went with their hearts.
2. XENOPHOBIA
Scapegoating immigrants worked. Polls show that fear of refugees and immigrants from the E.U.'s open borders was a top issue driving votes to leave.
Here in the U.S. we talk a lot about how Trump has galvanized Latinos who have never voted before. This could cost him and the GOP dearly, but the flip side is that he's activated a lot of angry white voters.
There was a lot of media coverage in the past few days about how the nativist appeals might have gone too far and turned off some moderates in Britain. There were some over-the-top posters and claims about Turks and Syrians flooding the country. But they clearly proved more effective than detrimental:
As a veteran of the George W. Bush White House puts it:
(https://palomaimages.washingtonpost.com/pr2/e286c426c25c1d31ed3a897de52baa1e-540-0-746241382264770561width540embedTypetwitter.jpg)
French Far Right leader Marine Le Pen, a vocal nativist, celebrated Brexit by changing her Twitter picture to the Union Jack:
(https://palomaimages.washingtonpost.com/pr2/a0d380408b950769bb8cf414c06a82bb-540-0-746209726673760262width540embedTypetwitter.jpg)
3. ISOLATIONISM
Trump likes to describe his foreign policy as "America First," even though it has been pointed out to him that this is the same catchphrase Charles Lindbergh used in the late 1930s when he was trying to stop the U.S. from assisting Britain in its war for national survival against the Nazis.
Eyewitnesses said that the man who murdered Jo Cox, a British member of parliament and outspoken supporter of the Remain effort, shouted "Britain First" as he killed her last week.
Trump wants to scale back U.S. support for NATO and has suggested that he sees Eastern Europe as some kind of Russian sphere of influence. This scares the bejesus out of the Baltic States, such as Estonia, which are constantly at risk of being annexed by Vladimir Putin. The NATO alliance, like the EU, has been a bulwark of the post-World War II international system. This now threatens to unravel.
The E.U. is plunging into an existential crisis. The 28-member union will splinter and significantly weaken, Anthony Faiola reports from Berlin and Michael Birnbaum reports from Brussels.
Rick Noack in London looks at six countries that might now be emboldened to leave the E.U.: Sweden, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Hungary and France.
Russian leaders are cheering the news, Andrew Roth reports from Moscow.
4. FLAWED POLLING
The polls showed a neck-and-neck race, and surveys in the past few days showed movement in the direction of "Remain" after Cox's murder. In the end, though, "Leave" prevailed by 4 points.
Perhaps some voters who wanted to "Leave" were afraid to tell pollsters as much after the assassination?
Are live-caller polls in the U.S. similarly underestimating Trump's strength? We've written here about how Trump does better in online and automated phone polls than in those conducted by live human beings. It seems undeniable at this point that there is some number of Trump supporters out there who do not want to admit it in fashionable company.
From the director of polling at the NRSC in the 2014 cycle:
(https://palomaimages.washingtonpost.com/pr2/960ec290807f6c466c335d790a102cb7-540-0-746182694044835843width540embedTypetwitter.jpg)
And the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard:
(https://palomaimages.washingtonpost.com/pr2/acbf38f8229f1b3e2748fc42fdd5b623-540-0-746175238136705025width540embedTypetwitter.jpg)
5. COMPLACENCY
The Remain campaign was burdened by complacency.
Millennials, who overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the E.U., did not turn out at the same rate as older voters, who wanted to leave.
As an esteemed political historian at NYU notes:
(https://palomaimages.washingtonpost.com/pr2/b6b9798e2c850a8efcf43927e81ae362-540-0-746205665266270208width540embedTypetwitter.jpg)
(https://palomaimages.washingtonpost.com/pr2/1ba8e5e1c373b6d316a365778f6f860f-540-0-746171216680091649width540embedTypetwitter.jpg)
"There were massive victory margins for 'remain' in thriving metropolitan centers such as London and equally resounding victories for 'leave' in small towns, rural areas and struggling, post-industrial cities," Griff Witte, Karla Adam and Dan Balz report from London. "The vote split the country along essential lines ... Provincial versus metropolitan. Scotland versus England. Native-born Britons versus immigrants."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/24/daily-202-stop-underestimating-trump-brexit-vote-shows-why-he-can-win/576c89e9981b92a22d2dd3dc/?wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2016, 12:46:04 PM
Very interested to hear Adam White's take on this. He's in London I believe.
Apparently Scotland is going to immediately issue a referendum on leaving the UK and joining the EU.
Northern Ireland is demanding to do the same.
London apparently wants to declare itself an independent city and remain in the EU, according to the internets. Not sure if that would be possible or if its a tongue in cheek thing.
But it looks like the bum they just shagged was their own. The markets are literally in free fall, hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth just got erased, and the rancorous leader of the Brexit announced the day after the vote that the money being sent to the EU would not be spent on Health Care for Britons.
I don't have too much to say. I voted to remain, so needless to say, I'm not too happy. My pension is likely to take a hit - at least in the short term - and my house is projected to decrease in value.
As an Irish national, I am still going to be able to travel around Europe on my passport, so I'm not affected in that way. But it seems like just over half of the voting public (that bothered to vote) just shot us all in the foot on the basis of racism and/or dodgy numbers.
I don't blame the Scots for considering a second independence referendum. I didn't support it the first time, but I think it's only fair this time - the 'better together' campaign used the threat of being excluded from the EU as leverage to help defeat the referendum.
Northern Ireland is a different issue. I seriously doubt they will be entitled to a referendum on unification with Ireland (or independence) and even if they had one, over half of the population would vote to remain in the UK.
London voted overwhelmingly to remain - but I am "lucky" enough to live in one of the Boroughs that voted leave!
Edit: and I'm leaving on holiday tomorrow (to Jax, among other places) and am dead chuffed (as they say) to see my money is worth a lot less.
You always have a chance if you can sell fear of poor people and immigrants. So many people are so eager to buy poor people and immigrants as the powerful manipulators of how a society works.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 24, 2016, 01:40:49 PM
You always have a chance if you can sell fear of poor people and immigrants. So many people are so eager to buy poor people and immigrants as the powerful manipulators of how a society works.
If you walk down Hornchurch high street, you see nothing but white faces and hear nothing but English - yet this is one of the most Eurosceptic areas. My Borough was 69.9% in favour of leaving. During the last election, I had to deal with BNP and UKIP people handing our flyers on a regular basis. It's all about fear and lack of class consciousness.
http://theweek.com/articles/632118/why-brexit-should-scare-antitrump-americans
Why Brexit should scare anti-Trump Americans:
QuoteFTA "The first lesson Brexit has for anti-Trump America is that there's a potential majority out there that is angry, scared, and more than willing to jump into the abyss. Sober analysts and economists warned Britons repeatedly that pulling out of the EU would be an economic and security debacle. "They heard the warnings, listened to experts of every kind tell them that Brexit meant disaster, watched the prime minister as he urged them not to take a terrible risk," says Matthew d'Ancona at The Guardian. "And their answer was: Get stuffed."
It wasn't young people giving the finger to the experts, either. According to a YouGov poll, support for exiting the EU steadily rose with each age bracket, from 75 percent of those aged 18 to 24 wanting to stay, versus 39 percent for those 65 and older. If older Britons are proving less risk-averse than the young, there's no reason to think America's most reliable voters are immune to change fever. In many ways, Hillary Clinton represents a continuation of President Obama's policies, and Donald Trump inarguably represents change."
Not an endorsement from me, lets be clear about that. But this is what I've been trying to tell people since October. The left for years now, esp young millennials, have been absolutely hammering conservatives, white people & basically anyone who doesn't agree with them, blaming all their woes & pretty much all the world's problems solely on them. They've become the knee-jerk scapegoat, and everybody dog-piles on. Just look at Orlando. An Islamic terrorist shooting up people he was told deserved death for their way of life, quickly and right on cue, became all about the right's stance on the 2nd Amendment & how some of them wanted marriage to remain between a man & a woman. The media plays a part in this as well.
Like I've said many times, I don't care what happens in Nov & I think we're screwed either way, but the left can't constantly go on saying things like this: http://sli.mg/Lnvm4d.png, or this one having a mental breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqf_RnEK4uE, and not expect a huge blowback from the people who actually go out & vote in large numbers. And yes, I still believe Trump will win in Nov (poll numbers mean dick this election cycle). Of course when he does, they'll flip their shit (just like with Brexit) & blame every white redneck on the planet Earth. Everyone but themselves.
Quote from: Adam White on June 24, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2016, 12:46:04 PM
Very interested to hear Adam White's take on this. He's in London I believe.
Apparently Scotland is going to immediately issue a referendum on leaving the UK and joining the EU.
Northern Ireland is demanding to do the same.
London apparently wants to declare itself an independent city and remain in the EU, according to the internets. Not sure if that would be possible or if its a tongue in cheek thing.
But it looks like the bum they just shagged was their own. The markets are literally in free fall, hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth just got erased, and the rancorous leader of the Brexit announced the day after the vote that the money being sent to the EU would not be spent on Health Care for Britons.
I don't have too much to say. I voted to remain, so needless to say, I'm not too happy. My pension is likely to take a hit - at least in the short term - and my house is projected to decrease in value.
As an Irish national, I am still going to be able to travel around Europe on my passport, so I'm not affected in that way. But it seems like just over half of the voting public (that bothered to vote) just shot us all in the foot on the basis of racism and/or dodgy numbers.
I don't blame the Scots for considering a second independence referendum. I didn't support it the first time, but I think it's only fair this time - the 'better together' campaign used the threat of being excluded from the EU as leverage to help defeat the referendum.
Northern Ireland is a different issue. I seriously doubt they will be entitled to a referendum on unification with Ireland (or independence) and even if they had one, over half of the population would vote to remain in the UK.
London voted overwhelmingly to remain - but I am "lucky" enough to live in one of the Boroughs that voted leave!
Edit: and I'm leaving on holiday tomorrow (to Jax, among other places) and am dead chuffed (as they say) to see my money is worth a lot less.
If the Scots are smart they will wait a couple years and see how everything goes with the actual EU-UK negotiations. If EU access is what they want, they better attempt to make sure of that ahead of time. Otherwise, they will end up an insignificant poor area with very little economic viability. Scotland will be a less economically viable version of Ireland who currently has an unemployment rate that is double that of Scotland. Although, Ireland is one of my favorite places to visit!
Quote from: Adam White on June 24, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
As an Irish national, I am still going to be able to travel around Europe on my passport, so I'm not affected in that way.
But will you be affected in the opposite way, i.e. will your ability to live in the UK as an EU citizen be an issue?
Quote from: finehoe on June 24, 2016, 04:06:03 PM
Quote from: Adam White on June 24, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
As an Irish national, I am still going to be able to travel around Europe on my passport, so I'm not affected in that way.
But will you be affected in the opposite way, i.e. will your ability to live in the UK as an EU citizen be an issue?
Irish settlement in the UK is originally a function of the common travel area and shouldn't be affected if the UK leaves the EU. For example, my mother and her family moved to London in the 1960s. Irish people have a different relationship with the UK than other EU nationals - for instance, we have the full franchise and can therefore vote in all elections, referendums, etc. EU nationals can only vote in local elections (and maybe European Parliament elections - I can't remember). The exception to that rule are nationals from Cyprus and Malta, as they are Commonwealth citizens and can vote after they have settled in the UK (I can't remember how long they have to be there - two or five years or something). Irish nationals aren't Commonwealth citizens, but are considered settled as soon as they start living in the UK.
In the hours following the vote to leave the EU Britains are googling what is the EU and what is Brexit. Retiries who were scared of immigrants are shocked to see investments tanking.
Quote2. XENOPHOBIA
Scapegoating immigrants worked.
Yep, the Leave crowd scared the hell out of all the people in Rural Great Britain into voting for this. They all say on the BBC, they want to get England's Sovereignty back. They want to go back to the times before immigration into the country. They really want to be isolated from the rest of the world.
Guess what, they are going to get their chance! Those 27 other countries are going to pound the bum of GB until its what it was 43 years ago, a poorer country.
I do not believe it will happen here, although the Conservatives won this vote, we need immigrants in the US to do the jobs than no one else will do. The hotels, restaurants, unskilled trades would lose all of their employed. Great Britain pulled the plug on Billions of economic wealth over 330,000 immigrants.
Morons!
Quotelol dont be too proud Mtrain, we obviously have our share of them here.
Stephen - It does take all KINDS of people to make the world go 'round, for sure! ::)
demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.
At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them. They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies. I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.
QuoteThe UK definitely needs the EU economically more than the EU needs them.
Yep!
Not trying to be a stickler for symantics......but I would split England out now, The United Kingdom is a representation of all of the countries/islands off the west coast of Europe.
With Scotland and Ireland looking to leave England, which was known as Great Britain, for the EU, it may be wise to effectively look at England on its own. And an England on its own needs the EU more than the EU needs England, for sure.
This may help us a bit.....http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/uk.htm (http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/uk.htm) It is a bit confusing otherwise, trying to keep it all together.
One thing is for sure, this is NOT a UNITED KINGDOM! ;D
Quote from: stephendare on June 26, 2016, 02:02:17 PM
Quote from: fsquid on June 26, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.
At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them. They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies. I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.
Actually thats not true.
The UK has its own trading system called the Commonwealth, which is working on a free trade agreement almost exactly like the EU, but it encompasses the former global empire.
The market for a large portion of the goods of the Commonwealth was to the EU, whose trading policy was favorable to them (India, Canada, Australia, NZ) because of UK membership in the EU.
That was the basis of the UK keeping the Pound, incidentally. Sterling is loosely the basis of the various currencies of the 53 nations of the commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
France abandoned its position with its former colonies of de facto currency backer with the introduction of the Euro. The UK did not.
The UK definitely needs the EU economically more than the EU needs them.
Politically however, its going to be harder on the EU, because of fears of other nationalist seccessionist movements.
I guess we will see in about 5 years or so.
Quote from: fsquid on June 26, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.
At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them. They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies. I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.
That's what many of the Brexiteers think, as well, but quite frankly I do not think so.
Yes, the UK was a valuable member of the EU in - spite of them often acting like a Trojan horse and being blockers - due to their population, economy etc. Also, they were a good counter weight to France, which made finding a position between the two extremes easier. Still, this does not mean that the EU *depends* on them and the UK could not care less the other way.
Quote from: Gunnar on June 27, 2016, 04:24:36 AM
Quote from: fsquid on June 26, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.
At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them. They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies. I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.
That's what many of the Brexiteers think, as well, but quite frankly I do not think so.
Yes, the UK was a valuable member of the EU in - spite of them often acting like a Trojan horse and being blockers - due to their population, economy etc. Also, they were a good counter weight to France, which made finding a position between the two extremes easier. Still, this does not mean that the EU *depends* on them and the UK could not care less the other way.
I agree. The UK was highly dependent on the EU. Crossrail was completed with EU funding, for example. And if you follow the news in the UK, there are reports that Cornwall has asked for guarantees of central government funding to cover the 60m per year funding they received from the EU. Some of the councils in Yorkshire have done the same. Of course, all those people voted to leave.
Quote from: Adam White on June 27, 2016, 10:23:05 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on June 27, 2016, 04:24:36 AM
Quote from: fsquid on June 26, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.
At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them. They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies. I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.
That's what many of the Brexiteers think, as well, but quite frankly I do not think so.
Yes, the UK was a valuable member of the EU in - spite of them often acting like a Trojan horse and being blockers - due to their population, economy etc. Also, they were a good counter weight to France, which made finding a position between the two extremes easier. Still, this does not mean that the EU *depends* on them and the UK could not care less the other way.
I agree. The UK was highly dependent on the EU. Crossrail was completed with EU funding, for example. And if you follow the news in the UK, there are reports that Cornwall has asked for guarantees of central government funding to cover the 60m per year funding they received from the EU. Some of the councils in Yorkshire have done the same. Of course, all those people voted to leave.
Where did the EU money originally come from? Do the member countries pay an "EU Tax" or something? I have no idea how it all works but curious how the EU is funded and how the EU determines where the funds are distributed.
Quote from: acme54321 on June 27, 2016, 10:50:26 AM
Quote from: Adam White on June 27, 2016, 10:23:05 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on June 27, 2016, 04:24:36 AM
Quote from: fsquid on June 26, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
demographics are completely different so this really shows America nothing except being used as sound bites for people on TV.
At the end of the day, the EU needs to UK more than the UK needs them. They already kept the pound and also had their own border policies. I would image that the Eurocrats will work out something for the Brits that looks almost like what they have now.
That's what many of the Brexiteers think, as well, but quite frankly I do not think so.
Yes, the UK was a valuable member of the EU in - spite of them often acting like a Trojan horse and being blockers - due to their population, economy etc. Also, they were a good counter weight to France, which made finding a position between the two extremes easier. Still, this does not mean that the EU *depends* on them and the UK could not care less the other way.
I agree. The UK was highly dependent on the EU. Crossrail was completed with EU funding, for example. And if you follow the news in the UK, there are reports that Cornwall has asked for guarantees of central government funding to cover the 60m per year funding they received from the EU. Some of the councils in Yorkshire have done the same. Of course, all those people voted to leave.
Where did the EU money originally come from? Do the member countries pay an "EU Tax" or something? I have no idea how it all works but curious how the EU is funded and how the EU determines where the funds are distributed.
How is the EU funded ? http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/money/revenue-income/index_en.htm (http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/money/revenue-income/index_en.htm)
There is no "EU Tax" per se, although a small part of the VAT does to the EU budget. The EU is funded via import duties and by the member countries (i.e. money comes from their budgets). The money is then spent on the EU institutions / administration and distributed back to member countries through various programs:
In the end, this leaves some countries as in a net payer position (e.g. UK, Germany, Netherlands...) and others as net recipients. Part of the idea is also to use funds from high GDP countries to improve living conditions in low GDP / less developed member countries (or areas) through regional development funds.
-> This would even include rural areas in say the UK that lagged behind the EU average. One example would be the EU helping finance broadband internet or a University campus in Cornwall: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9b881406-1b46-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz4CnR2pbuE (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9b881406-1b46-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz4CnR2pbuE)
The UK under Thatcher managed to secure a rebate on their payments based on the then definitely valid point that most of the EU budget at that time was spent on agriculture and that the UK benefited less from this than most of the other EU member countries.
So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back? Breaking even?
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2016, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on June 27, 2016, 09:51:28 PM
So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back? Breaking even?
no, quite the opposite.
Not according to this:. https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2016, 11:22:13 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on June 27, 2016, 11:16:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2016, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on June 27, 2016, 09:51:28 PM
So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back? Breaking even?
no, quite the opposite.
Not according to this:. https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
Yes, according to that.
QuoteA membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit
Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more?
We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it's far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits. "There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK's EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal", as the House of Commons Library says.
If my membership means that I pay 18 dollars, but get 10 back in rebates and It lets me have a booth at the flea market that lets me sell duty free items for a profit of 430 dollars, then I am getting back way more from my membership than I am putting in.
because: obviously.
Here is the page that you apparently missed:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ask-full-fact-our-eu-membership-fee-and-economy/
Excellent point - that is really at the heart of the question: Does the UK get their money's worth, or not? The majority of the voters seem to think otherwise.
Now, the direct payments are not the only factor here - there are EU rules to adhere to which can also cost money / opportunities (e.g. environmental protection, workers' rights etc...). Again, Brexit proponents seem to believe that many of the rules are holding the UK back.
The funny thing is that some Brexit supporters are trying to say that they will be able to negotiate the same rights that the UK has now (full access to the common market and complete freedom of movement for UK citizens in the EU...), without having to pay into the EU, without a reciprocal freedom of movement for EU citizens in the UK and without having to adhere to any EU rules.
I would be
very suprised if the EU were to agree to it (and each member country needs to agree afaik). If you e.g. look at Norway, which is not a EU member but has full access to the common market, this is exactly what they needed to do - offer reciprocal freedom of movement, adhere to many EU rules and pay into EU funds.
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2016, 11:22:13 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on June 27, 2016, 11:16:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 27, 2016, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on June 27, 2016, 09:51:28 PM
So was the UK sending the EU more money than they were getting back? Breaking even?
no, quite the opposite.
Not according to this:. https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
Yes, according to that.
QuoteA membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit
Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more?
We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it's far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits. "There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK's EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal", as the House of Commons Library says.
If my membership means that I pay 18 dollars, but get 10 back in rebates and It lets me have a booth at the flea market that lets me sell duty free items for a profit of 430 dollars, then I am getting back way more from my membership than I am putting in.
because: obviously.
Here is the page that you apparently missed:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ask-full-fact-our-eu-membership-fee-and-economy/
I don't know if you get off on attempting to belittle people with your snarky, condescending posts, but it gets old and looks poorly on you (and this site that you run).
I'm just trying to understand all of this. Out of the "obvious" info you posted the only thing obvious to me is that no one really knows what the impact of all of this is going to be.