Massive steaming pile of horseshit. Any “benefits” are outweighed easily by what we’ve lost economically, socially and by way of reputation.
I heard the first couple of minutes of his broadcast yesterday, throwing shade at other presenters for not “giving balance” to brexit “benefits”.
What a deluded, sanctimonious twat.
I don’t care to fact check this, but the fact he lied about the VAT rate on tampons leads me to believe everything else is lies too.
Oooh, a list. I like lists.
> “And I don’t just judge them in economic terms, I have to say.”
He then goes on to try to judge several economic “benefits”.
> He said that “we are now free to make trade deals with countries that the EU has failed to do”.
Whether or not this is a benefit depends on how it turns out. So far, it’s worse than we had before. It’s plausible it might be better. It’s also plausible the EU suddenly cancels every trade deal it’s ever done. Both a similarly likely.
This is a common thing from Brexit apologists, naming a change to the rules and presenting it as a positive. It’s not a benefit purely on the basis it might result in a benefit. That’s like saying buying a lottery ticket makes you rich; the fact it’s possible doesn’t mean you get to claim it’s happened.
> Iain added: “You look at procurement rules. We can now do those ourselves. That’s a benefit.
Similar to the above. Procurement rules are there for fairness. If you want to present their removal as a benefit, you need to explain why.
> “Competition policy and state aid – we can now control that ourselves. That, I think, will be a benefit.
And again, just pointing at a change and claiming it’s a benefit isn’t convincing. Competition policy and state aid are part of what enable us to trade with other countries, and undermining them might well damage our trade. Is that a benefit?
> “We can control VAT rates. We’ve now taken VAT off tampons. We wouldn’t have been able to do that as EU members.
Actually, we could. The EU was in the process of changing the rules to allow for it. That’s now stagnated, because we were the ones pushing for it and we left, but it shows how things can be changed.
Besides, the idea it was worth leaving the EU over is deranged.
> “We’ve banned the live export of animals. Again, we wouldn’t have been able to do that as EU members.”
Interesting how Brexiters bring this up, but never seem to be able to explain why it’s good that we’ve banned live export of animals, but not that you’re still allowed to stuff a truck with them and drive around the country. Is it the channel crossing that’s the problem?
Regardless, this is probably a benefit, albeit another relatively trivial one.
> Iain also said: “And the vaccine rollout, I think that has been a tangible benefit. Yes, we could have stayed within the European Medicines Agency – but we chose not do. I think if we’d still been in the EU, we would have almost certainly had to go along with it.
Now we’re into simple lies. We had the choice to procure vaccines in the same way as any other EU member at the time. What this is saying, effectively, is that we chose to procure independently from the EU for ideological reasons, while the rational choice was to procure with the EU. In other words, our idiot government decided to choose (what looked like at the time) the worse option and got lucky. This is the “benefit” being presented, that ideology can trump rationality.
The other interpretation is the opposite. So the Brexiters are claiming that a non-Brexit government would have chosen the EU way for ideological reasons despite that being the worse option. But as our long history of not just going along with the EU when we didn’t want to proves, that’s just a pathetic bit of projection.
As for the assumption going it alone was better, it’s worth noting that that is based on the fact we got started a couple of weeks earlier. It’s also because we hoarded vaccines instead of sharing them. Since those early days, plenty of EU nations have overtaken the UK by percentage vaccinated. The EU has also donated far more vaccines to other nations that need them.
So no, the vaccine rollout wasn’t a “Brexit benefit” in any meaningful way.
TL;DR: Nothing significant and tangible. Yay Brexit.
For me its not just the bare face lies, whether it is the never ending dispute over misrepresentation of what got us to leave, or these so called “benefits of it
Its the way we’ve left as well. Its unprofessional and quite frankly a collective embarrassment which reflects poorly on everyone of us regardless of our belief system (stay/leave) because they are the people that represent us to the world.
Like how many of us have moved between jobs.. alright I know there are exceptions when the employer is an absolute cunt but more generally you say your goodbyes and part on amicable terms because you never know when you might deal with that business again, or those even working there in other roles
They knew public opinion was going to change when they realised (sadly too late) the extent to which the electorate had been mislead and basically went out of their way to burn any bridges we had to the ground to where the bloc was relieved to be shot of us
Its inconsequential to the politicians because no matter how badly they fuck it all up their minted (mostly)
Something interesting I learned regarding firms exporting goods was that while the added levels of bureaucracy is clearly a problem, its also the delivery system for it.. like in cases where they are still relying on literal “paper work” when we’re supposed to be in a digital age
Another problem is different entry points (ports) can have variations in rules.. and the way goods are sent one one company gave an example where they were having product shipped back to them because a completely unrelated product in the same shipping container had filed the wrong paperwork.
On top of the pressure caused by covid when you look into stuff like this its no wonder we are seeing shipping prices through the roof
If this twunt was anymore detached from reality he’d be orbiting the international space station.
5 comments
Massive steaming pile of horseshit. Any “benefits” are outweighed easily by what we’ve lost economically, socially and by way of reputation.
I heard the first couple of minutes of his broadcast yesterday, throwing shade at other presenters for not “giving balance” to brexit “benefits”.
What a deluded, sanctimonious twat.
I don’t care to fact check this, but the fact he lied about the VAT rate on tampons leads me to believe everything else is lies too.
Oooh, a list. I like lists.
> “And I don’t just judge them in economic terms, I have to say.”
He then goes on to try to judge several economic “benefits”.
> He said that “we are now free to make trade deals with countries that the EU has failed to do”.
Whether or not this is a benefit depends on how it turns out. So far, it’s worse than we had before. It’s plausible it might be better. It’s also plausible the EU suddenly cancels every trade deal it’s ever done. Both a similarly likely.
This is a common thing from Brexit apologists, naming a change to the rules and presenting it as a positive. It’s not a benefit purely on the basis it might result in a benefit. That’s like saying buying a lottery ticket makes you rich; the fact it’s possible doesn’t mean you get to claim it’s happened.
> Iain added: “You look at procurement rules. We can now do those ourselves. That’s a benefit.
Similar to the above. Procurement rules are there for fairness. If you want to present their removal as a benefit, you need to explain why.
> “Competition policy and state aid – we can now control that ourselves. That, I think, will be a benefit.
And again, just pointing at a change and claiming it’s a benefit isn’t convincing. Competition policy and state aid are part of what enable us to trade with other countries, and undermining them might well damage our trade. Is that a benefit?
> “We can control VAT rates. We’ve now taken VAT off tampons. We wouldn’t have been able to do that as EU members.
Actually, we could. The EU was in the process of changing the rules to allow for it. That’s now stagnated, because we were the ones pushing for it and we left, but it shows how things can be changed.
Besides, the idea it was worth leaving the EU over is deranged.
> “We’ve banned the live export of animals. Again, we wouldn’t have been able to do that as EU members.”
Interesting how Brexiters bring this up, but never seem to be able to explain why it’s good that we’ve banned live export of animals, but not that you’re still allowed to stuff a truck with them and drive around the country. Is it the channel crossing that’s the problem?
Regardless, this is probably a benefit, albeit another relatively trivial one.
> Iain also said: “And the vaccine rollout, I think that has been a tangible benefit. Yes, we could have stayed within the European Medicines Agency – but we chose not do. I think if we’d still been in the EU, we would have almost certainly had to go along with it.
Now we’re into simple lies. We had the choice to procure vaccines in the same way as any other EU member at the time. What this is saying, effectively, is that we chose to procure independently from the EU for ideological reasons, while the rational choice was to procure with the EU. In other words, our idiot government decided to choose (what looked like at the time) the worse option and got lucky. This is the “benefit” being presented, that ideology can trump rationality.
The other interpretation is the opposite. So the Brexiters are claiming that a non-Brexit government would have chosen the EU way for ideological reasons despite that being the worse option. But as our long history of not just going along with the EU when we didn’t want to proves, that’s just a pathetic bit of projection.
As for the assumption going it alone was better, it’s worth noting that that is based on the fact we got started a couple of weeks earlier. It’s also because we hoarded vaccines instead of sharing them. Since those early days, plenty of EU nations have overtaken the UK by percentage vaccinated. The EU has also donated far more vaccines to other nations that need them.
So no, the vaccine rollout wasn’t a “Brexit benefit” in any meaningful way.
TL;DR: Nothing significant and tangible. Yay Brexit.
For me its not just the bare face lies, whether it is the never ending dispute over misrepresentation of what got us to leave, or these so called “benefits of it
Its the way we’ve left as well. Its unprofessional and quite frankly a collective embarrassment which reflects poorly on everyone of us regardless of our belief system (stay/leave) because they are the people that represent us to the world.
Like how many of us have moved between jobs.. alright I know there are exceptions when the employer is an absolute cunt but more generally you say your goodbyes and part on amicable terms because you never know when you might deal with that business again, or those even working there in other roles
They knew public opinion was going to change when they realised (sadly too late) the extent to which the electorate had been mislead and basically went out of their way to burn any bridges we had to the ground to where the bloc was relieved to be shot of us
Its inconsequential to the politicians because no matter how badly they fuck it all up their minted (mostly)
Something interesting I learned regarding firms exporting goods was that while the added levels of bureaucracy is clearly a problem, its also the delivery system for it.. like in cases where they are still relying on literal “paper work” when we’re supposed to be in a digital age
Another problem is different entry points (ports) can have variations in rules.. and the way goods are sent one one company gave an example where they were having product shipped back to them because a completely unrelated product in the same shipping container had filed the wrong paperwork.
On top of the pressure caused by covid when you look into stuff like this its no wonder we are seeing shipping prices through the roof
If this twunt was anymore detached from reality he’d be orbiting the international space station.