OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

Swale, I am anti EU with a vengeance. It is inefficient, incompetent, an unwieldy institution, a monolith that needs taking down.

You can only do that from within. Unless the hope is that without the UK's approximate £180M a week of net payments to the EU, the other 2 major net contributors, Germany and the Netherlands, might start to disintegrate financially under the extra weight only they can carry.......... that's £9,360,000,000 a year.

Been saying that you can only ‘bring about change from within’ for years MA so I agree with that bit completely.
The EU needs to change but essentially is, imo, more a force for good than harm. You can’t keep describing the Netherlands as one of the two or three major contributors though.
You’re arguably right on a per capita basis but Holland is only the sixth biggest contributor with Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Spain all combining to provide more than half its income.

[ramAnag]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/european-union-eu-budget-share-of-contributions/

Actually, you might be seventh!

[Andy_Faber]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...contributions/

Actually, you might be seventh!

But it’s the per capita bit that matters to many people who are basically interested in ‘what’s in it for me’. It the Netherlands actually get a sh*t deal, not sure if MA shares that view

[ramAnag]

But it’s the per capita bit that matters to many people who are basically interested in ‘what’s in it for me’. It the Netherlands actually get a sh*t deal, not sure if MA shares that view

May well be the per capita bit that matters to individual Dutchmen but it’s a tad misleading to imply that the Dutch are amongst the leading contributors as far as the EU is concerned. They’re sixth or seventh which is about right given the size of their economy isn’t it? They’re eighteenth, compared with our fifth, in the world GDP league table btw.

What’s happened to MoP? I know we disagree over Brexit but he’s a good contributor...disappeared without trace it seems.

[Andy_Faber]

Both are right depending on the context

Edit: which relates back to a point I made (badly I think) about thirty pages ago, that immigration increases ukgdp (the wealth of the country) but decreases ukgdp per capita (the average wealth of individuals), increasingly through time

[MadAmster]

Been saying that you can only ‘bring about change from within’ for years MA so I agree with that bit completely.
The EU needs to change but essentially is, imo, more a force for good than harm. You can’t keep describing the Netherlands as one of the two or three major contributors though.
You’re arguably right on a per capita basis but Holland is only the sixth biggest contributor with Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Spain all combining to provide more than half its income.

This very conversation took place many, many pages ago. Yes, there are countries that contribute more in absolute terms of currency units. However, I contend that if a country of 100 million people has a weekly EU bill of €100M and a country of 17 million people has one of €50M then the effect on the individual in the latter is 3 times as large as that in the former. EU contributions come from taxes on individuals so, IMO, the per capita contribution is far more relevant than the total number of currency units.

The EU commission is very fond of using bar bills as an example. 20 people out drinking will/should split the bill 20 equal ways. That is not the case with EU contributions.

In the case of the EU, the NL gets to pay more per capita because it's a well run country that puts the whole in front of the individual. For instance, some 30 years ago, a left leaning government decided they didn't have enough money to carry out its wishes. They then decided that the PRIVATE Civil Servants Pension Fund had "too much money". They took (read stole) some €15Bn from the fund. Today, despite inflation, ABP pensions haven't increased in almost a decade. They also warn that, unless things improve, they might have to lower pensions. A Law change about 5 years ago states that pensions can only increase when the Fund has 110% or more asset value to cover their current liabilities. Last year that % was 92%. Put that €15Bn back in and we are a step closer to the ABP (Yes, the one that pays my pension) being able to compensate somewhat for inflation. Another wonderful Law the NL has is one that states that Pension Funds pay tax on a fictitious yield of 4% or the actual yield if that is higher...... for years the yield has been less than 2%. The Fund, and other Funds, is paying income tax on income it hasn't had which helps reduce the value of assets even more. That is, IMO, a form of robbery.

[ramAnag]

This very conversation took place many, many pages ago. Yes, there are countries that contribute more in absolute terms of currency units. However, I contend that if a country of 100 million people has a weekly EU bill of €100M and a country of 17 million people has one of €50M then the effect on the individual in the latter is 3 times as large as that in the former. EU contributions come from taxes on individuals so, IMO, the per capita contribution is far more relevant than the total number of currency units.

The EU commission is very fond of using bar bills as an example. 20 people out drinking will/should split the bill 20 equal ways. That is not the case with EU contributions.

In the case of the EU, the NL gets to pay more per capita because it's a well run country that puts the whole in front of the individual. For instance, some 30 years ago, a left leaning government decided they didn't have enough money to carry out its wishes. They then decided that the PRIVATE Civil Servants Pension Fund had "too much money". They took (read stole) some €15Bn from the fund. Today, despite inflation, ABP pensions haven't increased in almost a decade. They also warn that, unless things improve, they might have to lower pensions. A Law change about 5 years ago states that pensions can only increase when the Fund has 110% or more asset value to cover their current liabilities. Last year that % was 92%. Put that €15Bn back in and we are a step closer to the ABP (Yes, the one that pays my pension) being able to compensate somewhat for inflation. Another wonderful Law the NL has is one that states that Pension Funds pay tax on a fictitious yield of 4% or the actual yield if that is higher...... for years the yield has been less than 2%. The Fund, and other Funds, is paying income tax on income it hasn't had which helps reduce the value of assets even more. That is, IMO, a form of robbery.

You have my absolute sympathy on the pensions issue MA but that is surely an internal Dutch issue not an EU one.

As regards the matter of EU contributions nothing changes the fact that the Dutch provide slightly less than 4% of EU income via member state contribution.

I’m not sure about the bar bill analogy...you’re surely not suggesting that Malta should be paying the same as the Germans who contribute almost 20% of EU income?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'm not going out for a meal with you MA, you will probably have a more expensive starter than me and extra dessert. Why should I pay for that? So should I have the most expensive main course on the menu (even if I don't like it) just so I can get value for money? And don't get me started about the wine...

Anyway, any nation that has inflicted tasteless vile red waxed edam cheese on the world deserves to be punished, and as for heineken "beer", herring ice cream, salted liquorice, mayo on chips and sugar on toast for breakfast.....no, Holland deserves everything it gets

[Geoff Parkstone]

Really? Mm 17% reduction in economic activity in Uk since the vote, its already happening - thousands of jobs migrating to europe - I know I've been involved in a number of relocations of HQ's and company operations in the past two years and we dont even know the deal yet!

Of course life wills till go on - in Zimbadwe it still goes on despite economic melt down but anyway Rees Mogg has come up with the answer

Jacob Rees-Mogg says most people in the uk will be able to offset any adverse negative brexit effects with their savings, shares, bonds, inheritance and work expenses.

Simple init?

And Ress-Mogg, Johnson and Farage say its the "elites" (in their eyes people who have worked hard to get where they are, rather than inheriting their wealth!) who oppose Brexit which is "the will of (37%) of the people! FFS!

37%? Are you serious? Is that the amount of people who voted for Brexit. Well bugger me, I never realised that. So 63% of the electorate voted remain, yet Mayhem is still leading us into the unknown? I wonder how many other people have not realised that the nation is being rooked. Its just not democratic that a minority are bulldozing their views through, despite a clear majority wanting remain.

Sorry, oh, less than 37% voted to remain, So what's everyone bitching about, or are they just reacting like spoiled kids and throwing their toys out of the pram? Ah but of course those ones who voted remain are the intelligensia, the thinking people, not the bigots who are ignorant and know nothing and who voted to leave.

Its all the fault of the way the referendum was set up. it should have been done on a single transferrable vote basis! That way when no clear overall decision was made, the second choice of those who voted should have been taken into account, and then if a tie resulted, of course those who voted to remain, being so much more informed than those that didn't, should get an extra vote. or they could keep making up new rules and new referenda until they get the result they want

but 37%, wow, they kept that one out of the news

[MadAmster]

I’m not sure about the bar bill analogy...you’re surely not suggesting that Malta should be paying the same as the Germans who contribute almost 20% of EU income?

No, I am not planning on bankrupting Malta. There are far more Germans than Maltese so Germany should pay more. Yes, gross NL payments to the EU are, indeed, around 4% when they have just over 3% of the population. The NL is one of the EU members who get less back than they pay in. Their net contribution per capita is the highest in the EU (Euro per capita paid in minus Euro per capita received back). Unfortunately, this isn't reflected in "the amount of say" the NL gets in deciding how that money is used........ They are outvoted by all the bigger nations.

Germany is the largest net contributor in Euros, paying roughly 2.5 times the NL net contribution. Thee population of Germany is 5 times that of the Netherlands.

The French net contribution is 20% higher than the Dutch yet they have 4 time the population.

The UK net contribution is 20% lower than the Dutch yet they have 4 time the population.

The Italian net contribution is 35% lower than the Dutch yet they have 3.5 time the population.

Only the French and the Germans pay more in net monetary terms than the Dutch but, per capita, they pay less.

Must admit rA I went off on a tangent on the pensions thing..... it happens occasionally.

[MadAmster]

I'm not going out for a meal with you MA, you will probably have a more expensive starter than me and extra dessert. Why should I pay for that? So should I have the most expensive main course on the menu (even if I don't like it) just so I can get value for money? And don't get me started about the wine...

In the main, go out for a meal with Cloggies and they will each pay their exact share of the bill, right down to the last cent. In my various circles of friends in various places, we always just split the bill equally. One day you pay more than you "used", next day less.... swings and roundabouts. A method I always try to push on the Clogs when eating out with them. It happens my preferred way 75% of the time as well. Not a bad success rate.

Before I left the UK one lad stopped wanting to go out for a beer with us as he was on the dole and couldn't afford to. We would take him out anyway and explained that, if we were short, he'd bung us a beer so we were merely doing what he would do if the boot was on the other foot. This laissez faire attitude may well be why none of us are rich, monetarily. On the other hand, if I walked into my old local, destitute, there is no doubt in my mind that I would be given a reasonable amount of ale, simply on the back of what we always did for each other.

There, another tangent from me, must learn to stick on topic................. just no idea when

[ramAnag]

37%? Are you serious? Is that the amount of people who voted for Brexit. Well bugger me, I never realised that. So 63% of the electorate voted remain, yet Mayhem is still leading us into the unknown? I wonder how many other people have not realised that the nation is being rooked. Its just not democratic that a minority are bulldozing their views through, despite a clear majority wanting remain.

Sorry, oh, less than 37% voted to remain, So what's everyone bitching about, or are they just reacting like spoiled kids and throwing their toys out of the pram? Ah but of course those ones who voted remain are the intelligensia, the thinking people, not the bigots who are ignorant and know nothing and who voted to leave.

Its all the fault of the way the referendum was set up. it should have been done on a single transferrable vote basis! That way when no clear overall decision was made, the second choice of those who voted should have been taken into account, and then if a tie resulted, of course those who voted to remain, being so much more informed than those that didn't, should get an extra vote. or they could keep making up new rules and new referenda until they get the result they want

but 37%, wow, they kept that one out of the news

You’re right GP...we’ve heard the 37% argument ad nauseum for the last twenty eight months and I’m sick to the back teeth of it...but unfortunately that shouldn’t devalue it’s validity.
Had there been three or more choices in the Referendum then 37% would have been a valid majority, but in a two horse race...it clearly isn’t.
More to the point...what price democracy when the truth wasn’t told and electoral law was broken by the ‘winning’ side?

Forty years or more ago many regularly argued that Apartheid was wrong and Nelson Mandela should be freed...others had the attitude of...’oh God not that again, it’s at the other end of the World, nothing to do with us’...but eventually common sense and decency prevailed.
History is littered with such examples, so until I hear a better argument that convinces me that it’s alright for a minority of the electorate to lead our nation down a dangerous and damaging path on the evidence of lies put about by rule breakers I’ll happily accept - and repeat - the argument. It has never been answered!

[MadAmster]

67%...... (winks)

In all honesty, most way you look at it, Leave won the vote.

50% +1 of the votes cast..... as we all understood it to be
% that didn't vote to remain


The only one that says remain is the 63% (aka 37%) take on things.

Even then, Leave wins by 2 - 1.

Also, I am still not yet convinced it will happen.

[Geoff Parkstone]

You’re right GP...we’ve heard the 37% argument ad nauseum for the last twenty eight months and I’m sick to the back teeth of it...but unfortunately that shouldn’t devalue it’s validity.
Had there been three or more choices in the Referendum then 37% would have been a valid majority, but in a two horse race...it clearly isn’t.
More to the point...what price democracy when the truth wasn’t told and electoral law was broken by the ‘winning’ side?

Forty years or more ago many regularly argued that Apartheid was wrong and Nelson Mandela should be freed...others had the attitude of...’oh God not that again, it’s at the other end of the World, nothing to do with us’...but eventually common sense and decency prevailed.
History is littered with such examples, so until I hear a better argument that convinces me that it’s alright for a minority of the electorate to lead our nation down a dangerous and damaging path on the evidence of lies put about by rule breakers I’ll happily accept - and repeat - the argument. It has never been answered!

Whereas being lead down a dangerous and damaging path by even less than 37%, as you advocate, is perfectly acceptable, because in your view those lovely honest remainers didn't handle the truth loosely, whereas those naughty leavers did? Argue as much as you like about who lied the most, (but no-one came to justice with clean hands) but you cannot claim that "your side's" even smaller proportion of the public vote justifies their way forward being accepted.

[ramAnag]

Whereas being lead down a dangerous and damaging path by even less than 37%, as you advocate, is perfectly acceptable, because in your view those lovely honest remainers didn't handle the truth loosely, whereas those naughty leavers did? Argue as much as you like about who lied the most, (but no-one came to justice with clean hands) but you cannot claim that "your side's" even smaller proportion of the public vote justifies their way forward being accepted.

Actually I could argue precisely that, via the argument that...in order to bring about such a drastic change of direction there needed to be a majority of at least 51% of the electorate.

That aside...I’m sure the Remainers exaggerated in the way campaigners do. There can be little doubt however that those running the Leave campaign - Johnson, Gove, Farage, Rees Mogg and their invisible backer, Aaron Banks - were responsible for the most spectacular and memorable lies.

We may also choose to remember what Farage said about in the event of there being a close vote and the fact that ‘my side’ as you describe it, was also your side back in June 2016.

Be honest GP...do you accept that the electorate is now more knowledgeable about the likely consequences of Brexit? I think it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
Do you believe that a second Referendum would be taken much more seriously than the original one where ultimately complacency and ‘protest’ won the day. Again I don’t think you can really argue otherwise...so what’s wrong with a second referendum now people know so much more?