4 ms·

> The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN > on shorting the pound. As I stated, £3.3 billion is very small compared to its other ongoing ex

by bArray 7y ago

> The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN > on shorting the pound. As I stated, £3.3 billion is very small compared to its other ongoing expenses. Factually pointing out the cost of membership is neither an argument for leave or remain. > By mentioning only the costs of remaining in the EU, not > the ongoing benefits, you're being pretty disingenuous Please read the Full Fact reference [1]. From the £17.4 billion membership fee I negated the rebate amounts. The only major thing not taken into consideration is the financial sector investments and the philanthropic nature of the EU. [1] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...

smcl 7y ago
You've given three examples, two of which are specifically chosen to highlight EU-related expenses and have qualified them with comments intended to provoke a reaction ("to be a minority voting block", "paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway"). You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get into it with someone here on Brexit :-)
- bArray 7y ago
  > You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get > into it with someone here on Brexit :-) The original intent was just to show that £3.3 billion is really nothing compared to our other expenses, but clearly I kicked the hornets nest.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Traster 7y ago
You cannot compare a loss to a transaction. The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments, infrastructure projects. If black wednesday didn't happen you would just have an extra £3.3Bn. If we weren't members of the EU we would have £17.4Bn more, and our farmers would have lost their subsidies, rural development projects would be cancelled, we'd have no body to regulate all sorts of industries etc. etc. etc. As well as this your other EU example is spurious too - since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's the agreed remaining financial obligations that the UK had previously committed to. In fact It's things like MEPs pensions which was agreed long before the UK decided to leave the union. So the divorce bill is essentially net 0 - the UK is paying nothing to the EU beyond the money that the UK and EU had already agreed to spend. It's like saying losing a £50 note should be put in perspective by comparing it to my salary. My salary is much larger than £50, but that's not relevant, because for me to get £50 of disposable income I need to exclude all my living costs. It may be that my salary in fact perfectly matches my living costs - in which case whilst £50 might be tiny in that perspective, it's huge because it could be literally all of my disposable income.
- bArray 7y ago
  > The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that > provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments, > infrastructure projects. Not £17.4 billion's worth of transactions. > As well as this your other EU example is spurious too - > since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's > the agreed remaining financial obligations [..] A divorce settlement could also be called "fulfilling agreed financial obligations", but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to swallow. I also somehow don't believe it's £30+ billion in pensions. I believe it'll mostly be investment into projects we'll never see the fruits of, I hardly believe they'll say "well, seeming as you invested into this, it's only fair you eat from the tree".

by bArray 7y ago

smcl 7y ago

You've given three examples, two of which are specifically chosen to highlight EU-related expenses and have qualified them with comments intended to provoke a reaction ("to be a minority voting block", "paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway"). You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get into it with someone here on Brexit :-)

bArray 7y ago
> You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get > into it with someone here on Brexit :-) The original intent was just to show that £3.3 billion is really nothing compared to our other expenses, but clearly I kicked the hornets nest.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Traster 7y ago

You cannot compare a loss to a transaction. The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments, infrastructure projects. If black wednesday didn't happen you would just have an extra £3.3Bn. If we weren't members of the EU we would have £17.4Bn more, and our farmers would have lost their subsidies, rural development projects would be cancelled, we'd have no body to regulate all sorts of industries etc. etc. etc. As well as this your other EU example is spurious too - since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's the agreed remaining financial obligations that the UK had previously committed to. In fact It's things like MEPs pensions which was agreed long before the UK decided to leave the union. So the divorce bill is essentially net 0 - the UK is paying nothing to the EU beyond the money that the UK and EU had already agreed to spend. It's like saying losing a £50 note should be put in perspective by comparing it to my salary. My salary is much larger than £50, but that's not relevant, because for me to get £50 of disposable income I need to exclude all my living costs. It may be that my salary in fact perfectly matches my living costs - in which case whilst £50 might be tiny in that perspective, it's huge because it could be literally all of my disposable income.

bArray 7y ago
> The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that > provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments, > infrastructure projects. Not £17.4 billion's worth of transactions. > As well as this your other EU example is spurious too - > since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's > the agreed remaining financial obligations [..] A divorce settlement could also be called "fulfilling agreed financial obligations", but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to swallow. I also somehow don't believe it's £30+ billion in pensions. I believe it'll mostly be investment into projects we'll never see the fruits of, I hardly believe they'll say "well, seeming as you invested into this, it's only fair you eat from the tree".