Mitch Johnson Mitch, you've skilfully failed to address any of the points he's raised here. Insulting a person is no substitute for answering the argument.
sophrapsune Before I answer you, I need to understand who you think I was insulting. Was is Lloyd? I was insulting Gaddaffi because he insulted the last person with the comment "U must be from edenham cause u act clever but ur fucking dumb pusyclaat". Then the person he insulted said "Oh no! I've been insulted by someone on the internet." I merely added it wasn't just "someone" but an "illtereate someone," as evidenced by the sentence. If you already know that and you are saying that Gaddaffi made some good points, can you point me to those good points?
Farage officially led UKIP from 2006 and had been a prominent member and anti-EU campaigner for many years previously. The Tory party has been in schism about EU membership for decades. Lindy's video was somewhat later to this game.
Really though, I got the boer concentration camp video, then "let's laugh at minorities", followed by "let the children smoke". It almost looks like youtube is trying to drive people away from lindy's channel
@@lord_hemp Indeed. I only discovered this channel about a month ago and enjoyed a lot of his videos but in the past week I've witnessed some of his older videos where he comes across as an absolute tit. Of course, everyone's entitled to their own political views but the whole idea of asking a question in such a rhetorical manner is the kind of thing I associate with bigots. Anyone with a genuine interest in why the UK joined the EU could simply Google it and read the answers. There are no doubt a multitude of logical reasons. Of course he might disagree with those reasons, and I'd respect his opinion, but asking an open question when it's obvious he doesn't really want to hear the answer is... Well, I expected better.
Same, at this point I've seen him talk about the EU, free speech, hate speech, global warming, religion, and the holocaust. Until I started getting these recommendations, I'd basically always thought of him as a basic history/weapons RUclipsr, without a controversial bone in his body.
@@perperson199 we were free all along, albeit subject to an inherited monarchy, unelected House of Lords, governments without popular mandates and media 80% owned by 5 non-dom billionaires. Even immigration controls were largely in our own hands, but we failed to implement them or even to employ the necessary staff. We opposed very few EU regulations, were key proposers of many more, and had a massive say in most. We're now still de facto subject to most EU regulation, but with zero influence. However, because we now need our own systems, we're creating tens of thousands of needless new British bureacrats to track trade, regulation and law. As to the notoriously incorrect £350M PA basic membership, our entire bill has already been eclipsed by Brexit costs. It's our biggest own goal since WW2 which even its most eloquent exponent admits will have no discernable benefits for 50 years unless you're a non-dom billionaire looking for a new tax haven.
@@britishnerd3919 well a lot of people don't seem to realize that Britain GOT things from the money they spent, that's how spending works, having more money isn't a good thing if it means you're not getting anything, governments are SUPPOSED to spend money. Britain got a free trade system, work visas, and an entire inspection agency for safety and the like while barely paying for any of it in the first place!
@@connerh492 We still used our own health and safety agency, the HSE, we used our own standards, the BSI, we can still apply for work visas. Community centres are good as long as they are used, and governments haven't stopped funding them, despite people using them less and less these days. We aren't subject to economic manipulations like the EU storing tonnes of perishable product in warehouses to keep markets steady and we aren't propping up nations like Spain and Greece. Oh, and we also have an elected leader instead of the unelected presidents on the EU.
That's for YOU to make sure with YOUR politician .. why delegate THIS responsibility to EU ? Why are you so sure that EU can think for UK more better than EU leaders( being chosen by people out of UK) who have no skin in the decision making ? Just being logical .. I don't have dog in the fight ..
I'm from Switzerland, the true heart of Europe (geographically speaking). We are not in the EU, as you probably know, and guess what? We still end up adopting all the EU laws and trade standards, simply because if we wouldn't, nobody in the EU would deal with us anymore. Only difference is, we have no saying in the making of the rules. Now, Britain is a much bigger market than Switzerland, so probably more products would be made specifically for Britain, but still you would feel the same pressure to adopt to EU standards. You don't just go to an Ambassador and sign a contract in an afternoon. These negotiations with the EU are time- and cost-consuming and if they don't work out, you have to start negotiating with individual countries. Also, it sucks to stand in line at airports.
I very much agree, I also would like to add that if/when Britain leaves the EU allot of EU countries would see that Britain contributes a significant amount of money so could decide to not make a deal with Britain and therefore force it into staying or else Britain would receive massive blowback due to high trade costs.
I'm not holding my breath. May has already promised Nicola Sturgeon she won't move forward with Brexit until it becomes clear what will happen to Scotland afterwards. It seems increasingly likely that Brexit means break up of the UK. This is such a politically toxic thing that no politician will touch it unless forced to. It will destroy the career of any politician who tries to untangle it. The government is walking an impossible tightrope: they have to appear to be moving forwards, without actually doing anything. Let's see how long May can keep it up for...
***** I don't think what the polls say today matters overly, it's what they say once the terms of Brexit and their impact on Scotland becomes clear that will determine whether Sturgeon calls another Indy Ref. She's putting everything in place, just in case, and I don't blame her in the slightest.
Hi @@keokihiga8462, greetings from the UK! Brexit was a very divisive issue in the UK and so the deal was never going to please everyone. It will potentially make life more difficult for those who businesses and individuals who deal with continental Europe frequently. However, the aim was to bring more domestic control over British affairs. We had thought we'd know some effects of Brexit (positive or negative) by now... but all we've seen is the effect of the pandemic! So we still don't really know the impact of Brexit and I'm not sure we ever will be able to unpick the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic. A recent Brexit success was how the UK was able to individually negotiate for vaccine stocks ahead of mainland Europe. You can read a summary of the deal here: www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/brexit-deal-what-trade-fishing-summary/
@@nottsxander This is a lie "A recent Brexit success was how the UK was able to individually negotiate for vaccine stocks ahead of mainland Europe" We were in transition (so still in the EU) when these arrangements were made. I we hadn't been so stupid as to leave, we could still have made the same arrangements as we did.
@@keokihiga8462 Fishing is dead. Car manufacturing is leaving. Food exports are almost impossible, and Northern Ireland is on fire. Apart from that, quite bad.
@@AlexFoobar104 I voted to remain in the EU myself. I was just trying to be balanced and fair in my assessment of Brexit's impact. Any graphs we see of international trade or national GDP will be affected by both Brexit and the pandemic - surely it will be hard to unpick the impact of one from the other?
It would be interesting to see if or how Lindy's views have shifted in eleven years. He was very dismissive of things like free trade etc (to be fair to him, none of us Brits really understood or cared what our membership of the Customs Union and Single Market meant eleven years ago). Would be interested in a follow up video.
@@phylwx You seem to have a very self-righteous and (possibly) arrogant worldview. You also have no idea what his view would be now, and whether or not it would have shifted into alignment with yours.
@@sadvenom7826 Funny, that's pretty much the accusation presented against Vote Leave, which by its own admission won by an emotional plea, rather than facts or rational argument, most of which supported Remain and still do. The Tory Covid shambles arrived just in time to provide the smokescreen: one cock-up to hide another. Genius!
@@ld8341 Hear hear. The majority of attempts to draw a rational or logical argument for leaving the EU from a proponent of the ideology of the UK leaving the EU typically result in an objection to any such argument put to them and will eventually arrive at something along the lines of them not liking 'others' telling them what to do. It's not economics (for it was never about the economy), nor is it immigration (for it was never about the immigrants) or even the right for the nation to steer its own course (for the UK will still be under the influence of other nations) - so what logic is it then that convinces one to support this apparently mad campaign? Snake oil sold by demagogues, I'm afraid. I do genuinely hope I'm wrong, but "I told you so" has become the new mantra of the "remainer", and for good reason.
I'm pretty sure that Lloyd wasn't the first to ask the question (see his other video about how only the first matters). I don't agree with him but he makes some good points.
+Lindybeige To quote sir humphrey Appleby: "Yes Minister: The Writing on the Wall (#1.5)" (1980) Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. James Hacker: Surely we're all committed to the European ideal. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister. [laughs] James Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes. James Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister. It seems remarkably accurate.... in light of events, don't you think? :P
Indeed it is remarkably accurate. Mind you though that as there is now a need of continuous negotiation on every detail of the relationship, there is still a lot of opportunity to sow diversion even from the outside...
Well, now Northern Irishmen and Scotts are starting to seriously ask themselves: "Why are we part of the UK?" Seems like these kind of things go both ways, and leaving the EU sparked separatism accross a substantial part of the UK so... in a not so distant future, the UK might be reduced to England + Wales? Yay?...
Net financial contributors can leave a union and go their own way in the world. Net financial recipients cannot. England can leave the UK, then the other constuent parts can break up the union. But none of the other parts of the UK can jump the gun and leave before hand, without a very rich sugar daddy. All this present day separatism is political smoke and mirrors, and financial graft.
@@metalmark9276 indeed, especially in Scotland's case, for which independence would be a headache in many, many ways. For their sake, I sincerely hope they do not leave the Union. Northern Ireland is a different case though, since it would go for a reunification with the Republic of Ireland, one with which it shares an open border, culture, strong economic ties, etc... and which is a country as rich as the UK (relatively speaking of course, the United Kingdom's population, and thus its economy dwarf Ireland's).
@@jierdareisa4313 even N. Ireland no chance. Their share of national debt. Accrued regional debt through a forever deficit. Share of state pension liability, present and accrued. The list goes on. Plus all the private sector contracts licences. Electricity, gas, mobile phone , fixed phone line . All of them retail and infrastructure. Covered by UK acts of parliament. Retail banking and insurance. Also an issue. All are UK coverage. That only make money in England, but have a national coverage because that is part of their licence to operate. Independance also means from the licences, and I can assure you the companies operating them, will have no problem walking away from a money pit.
And I haven't even called you up on the unification with the Republic. The Republic talks a good united Ireland. But only while it is never a reality. That would change. Then there is the EU. There is an understanding that Spain would veto any succesionist country from an EU member, including former members , from joining the EU. Also the EU is not interested in countries that are anything other than net contributors from joining the EU. This situation would affect Irelands place as a net contributor, again not an option for the EU. Then you have the security/civil unrest scenario, once more, a situation the EU will not under any circumstances be any part of. As I say , all smoke and mirrors. Never, in truth, will it be anything else.
@@metalmark9276 oh, I did not realise what I was saying was misleading. I am neither in favor of Scottish indepedence or Irish reunification, but was rather noting that the Brexit referendum had reinforced pro-independence parties' positions, to the point that any of these two territories might leave the UK in the decade to come. As for whether it would be a good thing economically speaking... Indepedence raises some serious, if not nightmarish issues : Which currency to use? What would the border look like in terms of trade (both of goods and services)? What about the rules and standards currently followed by companies? What about the oil fields? And the fishing areas? And the financial sytem? (be it in terms of investment, banking or insurances)... And what about the armed forces? And the relationship with the EU? And diplomacy? And the NHS? Many, many more issues than what the UK had to face when leaving the EU, with the added pressure of being smaller entities with less leverage when negociating and facing devastating consequences in case of a "no deal". The message I was trying to convey regarding Northern Ireland was that it was less vulnerable to those than Scotland is, primarly because it would not be going independent per se but because it would be integrated in the Republic of Ireland. This would allow for easier integration within the EU and the euro zone, while also benefitting from the Irish economy to absorb part of the economic backlash resulting from independence, though no miracle should be expected. The reunification of Germany shows a good example of such things happening, and the situation was much worse in that case than with Ireland. On that note, two small precisions concerning the EU, which do not change my PoV regarding the incredible risks of independence : Spain actually changed its position regarding vetoing seceding territories from entering the EU a couple years ago (it was against it during the Scottish referendum, as you rightly underlined, but then came around when the left came to power). Also being a net creditor never was part of the conditions to join the EU, several countries joined while being net debtors, the latest of which being Croatia in 2013 (or 2011 if we're talking about the signing of the treaty). Additionally, given that Ireland's net external debt is -380% of its GDP, I'd say it has some margin in that regard, as it is better than every other EU country's bar Luxembourg.
"And we get saddled with an awful lot of really stupid troublesome laws as well." Not saying that's wrong, but would've been good to name at least _one_ given your derision of vague arguments in favour of the EU.
Just 72 out of 34,105 new laws have been forced on the UK. Many of those had support from other parts of the UK and even parts of the ruling parties. Very few of the "really stupid" laws were remotely guilty of what was claimed. Indeed, from Churchill's founding input to the European project and to the idea of Human Rights, then throughout its membership, Britain has more often been at the driving heart of Europe and its legal framework. www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/rationalist-destroys-leavers-with-list-of-all-eu-laws-that-have-been-forced-on-us-against-our-will/22/01/
There are so many possible answers to your question that I'm surprised you've apparently 'never had a good one'. They range from the highly complex and mathematical (you can, using economics and maths, show exactly how much the UK benefits from being in the EU via lower tariffs, access to wider pools of 'factors of production' - mostly, labour but also entrepreneurs, capital and land, to a lesser extent*), through to the political (if that's your bag) - an example of which might be: Europe hasn't had a major war in more than 70 years, which is historically abnormal**. Or, that the EU has demonstrably helped stabilise countries that until recently had dictatorships, and the more gravitas the membership has, the greater that stabilising effect; these countries include Greece, Spain, Portugal, though also those of East Europe. You can quibble more about the political side of things than the economics, so let's take a look at the economics. One of the main sources of wealth creation for countries has been focusing on their comparative advantage. Specialising in goods and services where countries have a lower opportunity cost, leads to an increase in economic welfare for all countries (everybody gains). Again, if we wanted to get geeky, there are real numbers we could look up for this. This sort of thing works more efficiently when there is free trade. The EU is, at its heart, a giant free trade zone (Don't yawn and bleat about EFTA or the EEC, we'll get to that). That doesn't just mean tariffs are non existent between members (though that's a big part). It also means our laws and regulations are the same (Not necessarily the case with EFTA or the EEC - which you are misplacing here as the EEC was, in some ways, a process... one that evolved as a natural part of its progression into the EU). A pot of jam in Germany is the same as one in Sweden and one in the UK. The same regulations cover all of them. So, if you're a UK jam maker, by being in the EU, with no extra cost to you of retooling your machinery or printing new labels or tweaking the ingredients, you can sell to more than 350 million customers rather than just 60 million. Jam may seem a silly example but the UK has a very real and well known comparative advantage in finance. The City of London (not just shares and the London Stock Exchange but also currency trading, quants, insurance, reinsurance, derivatives, bonds, options, futures, credit default swaps, merger & acquisition advice, plain old fashioned banking and on and on) has become the default financial capital for Europe. Being inside the EU means The City is inside the moat and castle walls... giving it an even bigger comparative advantage against places like New York and Singapore when dealing with European companies who are looking for access to capital or other financial services. Before you roll your eyes - it benefits all export oriented industries that would be subject to additional or different rules and regulations were we outside rather than in. Among the UK's largest exports are engineering services, pharmaceuticals and precision machine parts (you can tell from that word 'precision' that slightly different regulations might impose an additional cost on the makers of those parts when they look to sell in jurisdictions with different rules). The affect this has had on the UK can be seen by looking at the numbers. 54.3% of UK exports by value are delivered to other European trade partners. That is far higher than the percentage of trade with the EU member nations back in the 1950s, (when it was more in the region of 30% and we tended to trade more with Commonwealth countries, bearing the cost of the different regulations). The effect of this may not seem large - adding 1 or 2% (depending on whose model you use) to GDP. But 2% of UK GDP is an extra $50 billion. A year. Every year. "Aha!" I hear you cry, "But surely we can get all that from a free trade area! We don't need the EU!" Yes, yes, yes... of course we can sign up for rules we don't know in advance and have no say over what those rules are (as Norway and Greenland do). But, I'm sure you can see the flaws in that idea. The members of the EU who make the rules could stack them in such a way so that they advantage their domestic companies (back to jam... did you know that for 'jam making purposes' the EU defines carrots as a fruit so that Iberians can make carrot jam? You can have as many silly rules as you like specifically disadvantaging UK firms if other people set the rules of the game we'd be forced to play by). Now, and this is important, there are many, many, many advantages to being in the EU but there are also disadvantages. Which you regard as more important is a finely balanced point (as the Brexit referendum showed - people were pretty evenly split on the matter). But to claim that there are no obvious benefits is just silly. And, Lloyd, you are very far from being a silly man - you are a luminous champion of brilliance in a cold and dark world. There is much more that could be said (and in far greater depth). But I feel this is already far too rambly and long. And largely irrelevant now as we're leaving the EU anyway. *Not the case with EFTA or the EEC at various stages. If you want to talk about why a comparison of EFTA or the EEC with the EU is a nonsense comparable to insisting a cinquedea is a match for an arming sword, find me on Twitter. ** No. That's not down to Nato, that's down to trade. Countries with McDonalds restaurants don't tend to attack other countries with McDonalds restaurants. At least, not openly or frequently. Trade. It saves lives.
Mhm. Good points. Shame this comment got relatively little attention. My only qualm is your claim of stablising eastern-european countries. If it's trying, it's not succeeding. And, while it does help maintain today's abnormal peace, it is not necessary for it. Peace is in Europe, but also in the entire world.
@Dootie That's just being facetious, of which I suspect you're probably aware. Yes, Yugoslavia had a high death toll and was devastating for those involved but it is in no way comparable to previous Balkans conflicts that spilled over and dragged in wider powers - and then the rest of the world. Not only that, but in many ways the war you're pointing to actually backs the case I made. Countries that trade reasonably comfortably with one another, resolving disputes through dialogue and international mechanisms (the EU, international courts, the WTO, the UN... etc...), tend not to go to war. It is not a case of absolutes. It is a case of 'on balance' - nations who have avenues of discussion don't reach so readily for war because they don't have to. How does Yugoslavia actually back this? The many Yugoslavia wars occurred precisely at a time when the Balkan nations were largely new to these international mechanisms or outside of them. We can follow that up by showing that, one by one, since their inclusion in these mechanisms, the region has experienced fewer conflicts. What's that you say? Ukraine as a counter-example? Russia, Europe and Ukraine all trade with one another and it's pretty tense? Again, the tension is being caused by many sources - if Ukraine is going to spill over into a wider war, very much front and centre, running alongside ethnic and historic issues: resources (particularly food production), international stability and trade are actually very close to the top of the list of issues in play, Perhaps regrettably, far more so than even the murder of civilians or Ukraine's territorial integrity. Would a Russian bombing of a civilian target killing 10,000 innocent people be more likely to drag Europe and the US deeper into the Ukraine war? Possibly. But there have been plenty of incidents and so far, the West has remained mostly as financial and materiel-providing backers for Ukraine. Now, consider, if Russia instead bombed and destroyed every grain and food storage silo around Odessa. In 2019, Ukraine produced 42% of the world's sunflower oil exports, 8.9% of wheat and 16% of maize. Those numbers are already down because of the war and causing problems in nations such as Libya and Indonesia that are net food importers. You may disagree, but I would suggest that targeting food storage intended for global sale *as a very clear aim* would likely elicit a far sterner response and be regarded as a much more severe escalation. International bodies, when operating well and efficiently, help stop wars. Because trade and talk help stop wars.
Khm. British isles are part of European continental plate that stretches all the way to Iceland. Plus, they are part of common European culture and history. Japan is still a part of Asia, for instance.
Recently the U.K. Health Secretary stated that importing medicine from the continent would have a higher priority than importing food. So my answer is, being in the EU meant that the citizens of the U.K. didn't have to choose between having medicine and having food.
EU is a compromise.... Its not perfect, but nothing is... How about shared industrial standards? -Makes it a lot easier for manufacturers in all these small nations to build parts and pieces that fit internationally... Meet shared expectations for manufacturing, reliability, etc.... Shared environmental standards? -Makes it easier to regulate toxins in your local environment when you have a say in your neighbors out-lets... -And fishing too.... Dont let one nation scoop up all the fish.... etc... Standards are great, and EU is as good a body as any to enforce those standards, so we dont waste resources having different sized nuts and bolts.... Its so wastefull for every country to do everything parallel to each other... Better to pool our resources and build a "bigger rocket"...? -That being said, I'm not for dismantling our nations just yet... We could slow down or stop the expansion and growth of EU-power for all I care.... We need a system of cooperation, not a system of absolute power!
We finally left the EU a few years ago, freeing up vast sums of money to spend on our own people, and then we promptly bankrupted ourselves by wildly overreacting to a nasty flu.
Perhaps, under some other terms, a world government could be beneficial, but the current manifestations of the EU and in my view, the US Federal government, do not recommend macro-governments. I think large governments should happen, if at all, at a slow rate that reflects the genuine aspirations and needs of the people, not the needs of large corporations, bureaucrats, and even secret governments.
Because there are global problems (of any kind: hunger, peace, environmental issues). It's easier to deal with them, if you can get everyone involved. Something like reducing the CO2 Emissions would work so much easier, if you can force it top down on everyone. Otherwise every nation can think: "They don't do it, why should we?"
Not all problems are of the same scale. There are communal, regional, national and international problems. Tackling those different kinds of problems requires different levels of government. I don't think getting rid of governments on the levels they are at currently would be a good idea, but adding a layer up top which deals with international problems doesn't strike me as a terrible idea. This layer must not be allowed to control the lower levels, but it must influence them to pass its own laws. Getting the balance between total control and the inability to govern right is the difficult part. Currently the EU government deals with tons of things they shouldn't stick their noses into. Bicycle lanes in some Italian remote farmland with less than a dozen human inhabitants are not worthy of European funds. Helping less developed countries to raise their level of education however is.
I love your military videos, but your political videos are much weaker in my opinion. Let's look at the trade-deal argument for instance. Trade-blocks are not as simple as just two countries agreeing they want to trade. They have to agree about all sorts of standards for goods and services, legal questions, etcetera. I am for instance glad there are standards and there is control for the food I eat. However, if I'm a food producer who wants to sell in multiple countries, I wouldn't want to jump through hoops for all of them. If the British government checked my food and approved it, I'd want to be able to sell it in Germany and vice versa. That requires very long complex treaties (because what will these shared standards be?), which are much more efficient (and democratic) in a central bureaucracy like the EU. Of course you don't have to be in the EU to become part. You could also just ask the EU if you could join. However, what do you think they'll do with your request? They'd like the UK in, sure, but the UK would benefit more than the EU would. Therefore, the EU would force the UK to comply with EU standards without having any say in them, and likely make them pay money for the right to profit from this central bureaucracy too. The EU doesn't only help trade within it, but also outside it. Sure, the UK is pretty big, but it is for instance completely outclassed by the US or China. They could just walz over the UK. Nobody can walz over the EU. If the EU speaks, the world listens. Nobody can afford to piss them off too much, meaning they can get much better deals. The EU is also tremendously helpful for international cooperation. Environmental standards for instance. This is typically an area that suffers strongly from the 'tragedy of the commons', where nobody does anything because others won't do it either. However, with the EU, cooperation suddenly becomes much easier. Natura 2000 for instance shows that this can be tremendously effective. There are many more arguments (and feel free to ask me about them, or criticise me), but this alone is enough reason for me to believe that the Brexit was incredibly stupid.
@@wuffothewonderdog what are you wittering about? We're seeing right now how the UK Government is having to concede all its claimed red lines regarding food standards and the NHS in its meek grovelling for a US trade deal, which despite Trump's farcical claims about the EU is itself one enormous federation. We reap what we sow.
The main point of being in the EU is to get other countries in Europe to do what you want them to, in exchange for you doing what they want. Being in the EEA only gets the bad part of that deal, since you have to do what the others want you to do, but you don’t get any right to decide what the others have to do. The point about the same being able to be achieved with treaties is moot, since the EU really is just a massive treaty. The main thing the EU gave the UK with this arrangement was the chance to house a large part of the European financial and professional services industry, and the right to tax these. This has contributed hugely to the British economy, much more than the rather minor net contributions that the UK was asked to cough up for its membership. But of course you Brexit types don’t appreciate this, because “screw the bankers”, even as they propping up the economy of your failing post-industrial provincial towns.
Yeah you can fuck off with the snooty "failing post-industrial provincial towns". Funny how faced with that kind of self-satisfied bollocks we quite easy to tell remainers to stuff it. We'll be alright. The EU is a pan-European political project, not "just a massive treaty". We have had enough of it.
You are correct about being in the EEA being worse than in the EU. I think most brexiteers would agree with that. The EU should recognise our financial services the same way they recognise the Americans. They haven’t done this, though we have a massive bargaining chip with the vaccines, our government is too incompetent to use it.
@@ldnstan2454 Not too incompetent, just too British. Beating the EU over the head with any advantage we get that hurts the poor saps who happen to live in the EU, but not the political bureaucratic muppets causing all the trouble just isn't cricket... Which is I think was the one argument for being in the EU - the improvement of our fellow man, which in turn might benefit you. Just a shame the EU is so terribly run its more a con-job than actually doing what it set out to do (plus nobody but the Brits ever really followed the damn rules that are supposed to make things better for everyone, or considered anything but their own immediate gain when using veto etc anyway)...
I think a reason that Britain is in the EU is, to get some influence on the politics within the EU. Let's say; the EU is discussing a law that indirectly affects you or something you like, you would like to have atleast some degree of influence in that matter.
The EEA is not just free trade, you also pay membership fees (like the EU) and you also follow EU laws, but you don't have any influence on those laws.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. James Hacker: Surely we're all committed to the European ideal. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister. [laughs] James Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes. James Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.
I'm usually quite fond of your opinions. So I find it very interesting if I see you having a different opinion than me. The UK is probably the country that profits least from the EU since it has no land borders with any neighbour (except perhaps Ireland but you get the idea). So policing borders and so on is less of an issue. However that doesn't mean there are no benefits. You often say, the UK could just get any treaty it wants if it benefits both sides. No, it couldn't. Politics don't work this way! You are in a political block exactly because you have greater leverage. You conveniently ignored this fact. The EU would make extensive use of this if the UK wasn't part of it. The EU would still dictate conditions. You want access to the single marked? OK then: Allow free movement and pay membership fees. Look at Norway or Switzerland. Both are not in the EU and still pay fees while being in the Schengen area. The difference to the UK: They don't have political influence within the EU. In fact Switzerland now is experiencing exactly that. They are basically forced to keep their borders open or risk being excluded from the EU marked. Here is something else to think about: If you think leaving will emancipate you from the EU's problems, think again. Britain is not an aircraft carrier. It is still very closed and very affected by any decision or event within Europe.
+Nik G this video is 5 nearly 6 years old now. a lot of the eu's intricately planned, grand fuck-ups, hadnt come together quite so momentously as they have now.
+Nik G I love this point. It just proves the fact that the EU forces countries to submit to undemocratic political union and sacrifice of sovereignty by forcing its members to pull up the drawbridge to trade on states that don't comply. This is ofcourse after they unify all the members states under the idea of free trade. This is the only REAL reason to be inside the EU. Ofcourse whether or not all of the EU member states would gladly turn their backs on trade with the financial capital of the world is where this arguement falls down.
+Nik G Still better off out than in, if the EU will impose trade tarriffs then simply go somewhere else. Analogy:If ASDA charged you £40 to enter their stores you would go somewhere else.
+Nik G but in this analogy and in actuality, the stores are not. Trade routes between US and the UK, China and the UK and India and the UK increase. Europe imports more than it exports, they need us more than we need them.
Watching his excellent episode on medieval rivers, you see him discussing the vast number of tolls and regulations at the time that made long-distance trade almost impossible for any merchants and entrepreneurs. And for a moment, you can see him pause and stare, as though wondering: "wait, could it be that is what the EU is all about?"
Don’t you think Britain and the continent can have free trade agreements without the need for a giant, undemocratic superstate with its own courts and, quite possibly soon, its own army?
@@jeremyc4811 Hurr durr, they had elections in the USSR and Communist China too, does that make them Democratic? MEPs are intentionally all but powerless, totally unable to do basic things that all legislators elsewhere can do (like propose laws), they are literally just a rubber stamp chamber with effectively no power. The EU was intentionally designed to provide little to no actual democratic accountability.
As an ex-Brit now Canadian. Looking from the outside now that Brexit has happened it does not seem that the UK IS better off. Actually it looks to me as if the UK will break up. How does that make things better or evem
you don't think it was better that Britain was able to act independently from the EU vaccine procurement process and not get caught up in their internal politics surrounding it? If the UK is to break up or not, that doesn't have much to do with our membership of a pan-European project
I'm yet to hear a coherent argument against EU membership for the UK. People mention immigration, however only 36% of immigrants in the UK are from EU countries, they are mostly from countries the UK once colonised such as India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. People mention the membership fees, however other members pay the same fees (relative to size) and manage to whinge less (that would not be hard). People mention laws, like our parliaments, both devolved and Westminster are truly shit at this. Why give them more power? No matter what you mention.. There's an argument for an against it, however if the UK left the EU and was unable to obtain a free trade agreement, the UK economy would collapse. Taking with it other nations inside and outside the EU.
Ian Immigration from other countries like India is controlled, so the immigrants bring a net benefit to the country. Leaving the EU would just stop open immigration, which is putting pressure on our housing/healthcare. We would still be able to accept European immigrants who come with valuable skills. 'Other members pay the same fees and manage to whinge less'. Well, good for them, but I think most of us would rather spend that money on people in our country, rather than on an organisation that brings us little benefit. Why would you rather politicians in Brussels, who don't care about us at all, have power over our laws, instead of our own politicians in Westminster? Agreed, a lot of Westminster politicians are disconnected from the rest of society, but politicians in Brussels are even more disconnected! Europe benefits a lot more from the current free trade agreement than we do, so they will certainly accept an agreement if we leave the EU. No question about it.
Why would I rather have politicians in Brussels have power over our laws? hmmm I guess it has something to do with the shitness of the politicians we have locally.. research Northern Irish politics and tell me if you think they're fit to blow their own noses never mind run a devolved government.
Yes, some local politicians are awful, but politicians in Brussels are probably worse. A lot of them are a lot more corrupt and war-mongering. I think the EU has been very successful in creating a righteous, 'good' image, through marketing, but it's just made of politicians after all.
+Ian The existence of regional governments in places like Northern Ireland is exactly what the EU wants, so that nation states like the UK are obsolete - it's one of the reasons why the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales are so keen on the EU. That's the whole rationale behind federalism - what you seem to suggest seems to be a European unitary state.
I'm not suggesting any sort of superstate this is what 99% of eurosceptics think.. They say things like "75% of our laws come from the EU" and my response to that is our government in Northern Ireland isn't doing too fab with what they get out of the other 25%. I really honestly don't feel like there is anything to be bothered by in regards to a "superstate" because it just means you live in a country with more people and land...
For a Polish person it probably also helps that the EU probably at least slows down the descent into authoritarianism in Poland, and that it earns Poland a shitton of money ;). (Dutch person here who strongly supports the EU)
wiet111 Stability is one concern. Yet we are in a democracy and the EU will not help us, if we (as 50% of votes) decide to do something very stupid. War is for me a major concern. So far it works. Before the EU, there was a major arms conflict every generation. There was no generation, that knew no war. I am in the second polish generation, that knows no war. Sadly some want to change that. Yet EU gives hope, as peace is in the EU so far more profitable than war.
I was under the impression that for this reason, most European countries are members of NATO. The EU is not a military alliance. And of course one could even have a European (read anti-Russian) military alliance without the EU (or at least without the bureaucratic colossus that the EU is today).
00Trademark00 Peace is not there, because one has bigger guns, but because it is better to have peace, than war. Cultural exchange, business are the main reasons there is no war in Europe. That is, since the union is there. I agree with you, the EU has become somewhat too bureaucratic, yet I need it for my safety. I do not want a next military conflict taking in Europe.
If only the world was so logical. Our politicians are not so interested in adopted everything positive from the EU and trade certainly isn't as easy as it once was. I also think that we're not alone on this planet and so thinking of how the EU benefits Britain and not how Britain benefits the EU seems self centred. We don't flourish by being focused so soley on ourselves, when others rise we can too.
I was in Germany when Brexit passed. (I'm a Yank btw) All the Germans wanted to know what we thought. I supported it. They all said something to the effect of, "Well, now Britain will have to negotiate x number of individual trade deals!" To which I replied, "And they will. It isn't that difficult for a country who controlled the world economy for centuries to negotiate a handful of trade deals." As you might imagine, I wasn't popular with the Germans on that trip.
The political class of this country has degraded substantially since the centuries when Britain was predominant, and is no longer capable of handling such negotiations as well as we would like. God only knows if this can be rectified.
@@venmis137 Yeah. We have a similar problem. Our entire government is run by people who think men can breastfeed. No wonder WWIII is starting. We are weak.
I would be happier if aids could be cured with antibiotics, back to the sixties... you have strange empirebuilding dreams for a single human being to cherish.
The insurmountable problem with Britain staying in the EU is that it took a very different lesson from World War 2 than most continental European nations did. For the British, it was their distance to Europe that saved them from nazi defeat and domination. For continental countries, on the other hand, it was the lack of political unity that got them defeated. So while Britain has always sought to maintain that isolation, the continent has concluded that closer integration was required to meet threats - be they political, military, or economical - from inside or outside. That explains how, while everyone agrees that a *lot* could be approved about the EU, most of those countries would not consider leaving it. We have had peace in most of Europe for over seventy years now, and the EU must take some credit for that - and that is a real benefit. This isn't only about whether we get as much out as we put in this year. It is about preventing that we're annihilated by some power block because we failed to organize ourselves. The tragedy is that it could be something great, but the same petty squabbles that the EU was meant to prevent now threaten to become its greatest obstacle in trying to reform. Britain's half-hearted entry, its perennial negotiations for opt-outs and its different legal system have been problems for the EU from the beginning, and both are probably better off separated.
Please remember that in WWI and WWII Britain attacked Germany, not other way around. Britain could have remained out of both world wars and Germany would never come West. German ambition has always been to the East. And one man dragged Britain though both world wars - Winston Churchill! He was Secretary of the Admiralty during WWI and after the cabinet meeting in which it was decided that perhaps, given the German incursion into Belgium it might be necessary to declare war on Germany, Churchill went straight back to his office and sent a message to all ships to start shooting Germans. If he hadn't, chances are wiser heads would have said, wait a minute, let's think about this before we start something we will regret, maybe give the Kaiser a few days to reconsider. But no, Churchill started the shooting as soon as he could. And in WWII Churchill espoused the policy of German unconditional surrender which dragged the war on for years longer than necessary.
I think perhapse you need to re vist history a bit, Extra Credits did a fair (and nice 10 min bite sized chunks) review on the start or WWI, which ultimatly lead to WWII. and frankly considering the henius crimes that the upper echlons of Hitlers regime ended up perpetrating. The thought of any of them being allowed to get away with those crimes because of surrender clauses... nope I would begrudgingly give my own life to stop that. some things cannot stand.
Continental countries didn't get defeated because of lack of political unity. If Hitler's Germany had won, Europe would be politically united. Many European countries now are being economically exploited due to political unity. WW2 started due to a mix of conflicts, ambitions and disproportion of powers. Which is always reason of wars. And please spare me that total bullshit "EU takes some credit for lack of war during last 70 years in Europe". EU as a name for several orgnizations was created in 1993, and as a organization was created in 2009. So what are you talking about? Really, really, do you think if EU wasn't created there would be a war in Europe just for this fact? You can't be that stupid. There was no war in Europe for 70 years because: Germany was occupied, NATO was created. Just it. And there are no problems for EU with Britain's legal differences. Apart from issuing despotic power on Britain. How much bullshit do EU-enthusiasts say is shocking. That is simply dangerous. How they confuse military power of NATO with EU. And "if not for EU there would be a war". What next? If not for EU, we would get attacked by aliens? You think I'm joking. No way. These are ideas of Juncker nad Wałęsa. EU's authorities.
@@_Mentat are you an actual nazi? Ever heard of operation sea lion? The nazis were fully prepared to invade Britain. Britain were not agressors. Stop spewing lies, nazi.
International relations and international perception of Britain have noticeably gone down in the last few years :/ I believe in a time where democracy is receding, democracies should be working together, not bickering. We'd all love to receive a lot of money and contribute as little as possible, but working together means making compromises. I do wish that money went to better things, though.
I remember when Spain was the poor man of Europe. The EU brought us all much closer to equality. This "but what's in it for ME?" attitude is Trumpian AF. He may as well be asking why Wales is in the UK. It takes out more than it pays in, so perhaps the rest of the UK should file for divorce? Why stop there? Maybe Lloyd and his middle-class family should just stop paying tax altogether. After all, they've probably been forking out far more than they get back for generations. What a knob.
So that the fishermen who don't want to be in the EU can sell the fish they catch to countries in the EU whilst the catch is still fresh enough to sell?
Hi Lindy, I fully appreciate that it's been almost ten years since you've posted this video, I'm just wondering (given the current Brexit situation) if you've changed your opinions on this matter? Given that entry to the EEC appears to be "out" (as Dame Thatcher put it), the UK's commitiments to the GFA and the impact Brexit will have on this, and that, if the UK "hard Brexits" (looking increasingly likely), that you will have to trade with the world on WTO terms, and if you don't place a border in Northern Ireland, you'll be in breach of the "most favoured nation" rule (and if you do, you'll be in breach of the GFA).
I appreciate it's been a year since that comment, have you changed your own opinions on the matter? Since we don't have to trade on WTO terms - we have a deal - and we definitely seem to have benefited from being on the outside of the EU vaccine debacle?
@@Caroleonus My views haven't changed, the Conservative government signed an agreement at the eleventh hour that effectively put a border down the Irish sea; this has secured the GFA, but was exactly what the UK government had railed against for the previous three or so years! And in recent times, have even breached that as it appears to be unworkable. The UK is in a very bad place politically at the moment. Regarding the roll out of vaccines, yes, the UK was fast and effective doing this (credit where credit is due!), but their response to the pandemic wasn't exactly stellar. Also, I understand that while a large percentage of the UK have had their first 'jab' of the vaccine, the UK government may have trouble securing the second jabs for everyone in time (I really hope this isn't the case, the world will be the better as soon as everyone is vaccinated; virus' don't respect borders!
I'm in Illinois. What does Illinois get out of being part of the US? Surely we'd be just as well off independent. I hope that sounds silly, because it's supposed to. The benefits are difficult to list up, but they are there and they are enormous.
Well, to be fair they'd lost most of that superpower status well before the EU's advent. Depending which date you take for the founding of the EU, thirty to fifty years before it.
@@VladPolarexplorer their empire was already crumbling after the heavy costs of WWII. Also it wasn't the EU stripping power from Britain but the US. Most famously the Suez-Canal-Crisis or frances and britains control of the middle east.
@@VladPolarexplorer We lost our Empire and most of our superpower status long before we joined the EU, or don't you read history? We may not even be a United Kingdom by the time this lot have finished trashing the place.
Ok let's put it this way: Membership in the Efta still comes with a membership fee and on that one you get nothing back, membership in the Efta still means abiding to most EU legislation but without being able to influence it and membership in the Efta still means to accept free movement of EU citizens into your country (including picking up work and residence there). I could go on and bring facts on economic benefits that are based on the EU being more than just a free trade zone but frankly what you did was essentially presenting an example of the same hot air argument as you accuse people on the immigration topic. The EU is a complicated issue neither a 10 min video nor a YT comment leave enough space to discuss the pros and cons of membership compared to various other options.
Lindy asked why Britin is in EU. You wrote a 3 paragraph post about: you know why but you won't say; YT comments are to short; accused Lindy of "hot air argument". I'm not gonna say I'm surprised. That's exactly what I expected.
I am usually very pro-EU. Yet Britain has always been a special case since becoming a member. From what I gathered Britain got in there wanting to benefit from the trade agreements and other economic benefits. And seeing as how they are not in the Schengen area and still have the pound and what not, they lost way less sovereingty then others. But in purely domestic economy the EU doesn't help Britain that much and thus if you keep to that perspective, Britain is wise to leave despite the possible temporary backdrop. Yet the Brexit debaters used either straight up lies or emotional arguments to get out of the EU and won. So their strategy worked but why, if it is good to leave, didn't they use facts that backed that up? Sure Britain gives money to the EU, The Netherlands does as well and gets similarily little in return when it comes to financial support. However I see that as a kind of membership fee for the other benefits which I will now try to list: -Ever tried planning a holiday in China? I'd be surprised if you got all the paper work done within a month. Also paperwork is modern hell. Yet if I like it I can stuff my backpack and go to Spain with only money and my ID. No preparations needed except if you go by plane for then you need to buy your ticket. -The EU is a strong help for peace within the EU, and if ennemies see the EU as one unified force they would be less likely to attack. I am not saying that the Brexit is a threat to peace but a total dissolution of the EU would be. -I am not sure what troublesome laws you are talking about but if Britain wants to trade with the EU as a member or as an independant party, all EU product laws will still have to be upheld for all trades anyway. -Europol, although I haven't read up on Europol's strudture and achievements and I am not even sure Britain contributes to Europol. But without it any criminal escaping the country where he committed his crime would be way harder to catch then nowadays. -Cooperation between members can allow for better management for things like immigration, larger and more ambitious projects and possibly better tolerance between european cultures. Again I am biased in this because I really want the EU to work and I will not deny that it doesn't have it's issues (most of them in the political structure). And although I do speculate a bit in my list of why the EU is good, I do think my arguments make more sense then what I heard from the Brexit debaters.
@@jayteegamble NATO is for defense against external threats. EU is for keeping the peace between European countries. One big reason for that is the shared economy (with the euro and whatnot)
The EU 27 accounted for 48% of UK exports of goods, and 8% of GDP in 2017, not to mention most of our standards and other trade agreements globally. Not to worry, if it goes as well as our Covid measures I'm sure it'll be all right in the end. At least according to our non-dom billionaire owned, tax-avoiding 'media'.
@@ld8341 yep, and while there are other countries to trade with, most 1st world non EU countries are a long way from Britain, raising cost of transporting goods
As a Swede, I am sad to see you leave the EU. You were our closest allies when it came to economic policies, and without you there will be little we can do, being a quite small country, to stop the protectionistic urges of the French and the German. But neither can we leave, not getting the short end of the stick when negotiating trade deals will be hard enough for England, and would be impossible for Sweden. We only have ~10 million inhabitants and even though our GDP/capita is amongst the absolute top in the world, we don't have the economic muscle to negotiate on anything near equal terms with most countries. Hell, half (if not more) of the inhabitants of the world live in countries with 150+ million inhabitants! I don't know if you English know this, but you are a very popular country in Sweden, we've never been at war, and traded extensively for hundreds of years! I really do hope the trade works out for you, and that the French and German don't screw you over out of spite.
whenever somebody says "im a swede" my brain does two things 1.II read it in a wildly inaccurate accent, the one done by the Nords in Skyrim or the danish in south park 2. I think "heh, he's a turnip" I'm not sorry, I just wanted you to know
+TheLittleApocalypse Maybe we should start calling ourselves Swedishmen or something. Proclaiming one self to be a turnip every time one tries to state nationality is a bit preposterous. Or we could start using the provincial names, if it's okay for a Britton to call himself a scot or a welsh then a swede could surly call himself an ostrogeat, gothlandian or sweonian. Sweden was only united a thousand years ago after all.
"only united a thousand years ago" England is turning 950 this year too, if memory serves the kings of Uppsala ruled until 1060, if you take that as the point of formation then sweden is 956 this year I imagine some viking guy visiting his brother who lives in normandy and gloating about creating a country, the brother would be like "I can do it too, holdeth my mead" that is my theory about the norman invasion of britton
Congrats, Lloyd! You have foresaw the future! Now, I believe there is a need for follow up video - to predict what will happen with UK in 10 years time
Let's see... the advantages of being in the EU for the UK. None. ------------------- The advantages for other nations being in the EU the UK. ------------------- Since the UK is gone from the EU there is no point in keeping the EU together now since more countries are planning on leaving it.
I would think a primary argument is that Britain is invested in the prosperity of Europe by its proximity to the rest of Europe. Every country in the EU stands to benefit from a geopolitically and economically stable Europe in the long run. It also gives European interests more leverage on the global stage because it allows Europe to act in unison. If not for that then the squabbling interests of individual European nations would be more easily exploited by foreign interests such as the interests of America, Russia, China, or maybe OPEC. Some laws will be enacted that don't benefit a few nations and some nations will have to pay in more than others, but it should all pay off in the end, but admittedly in ways that are hard to discern.
+SpazzyMcGee1337 Britain is far more invested in the Commonwealth, because Britain is not just a nation in proximity to Europe, Britain is also a nation of the seas. It is why we have far more trade interests abroad in Malaysia, India, North America, Brazil, Australia, China, - with vastly growing economies full of potential that we can't fully realize because being a part of the EU deprives us of our ability to negotiate independent deals, even being forced to give up our seat on the World Trade Organization. In return we get Germany trying to control our currency? Yay? Likewise if you want to see foreign manipulation of the EU, in order to manipulate the EU all you need to do is corrupt the unelected Commission, you don't even need to provide receipts for your expenses. One need only see Putin funding Greens within the EU in order to promote a reliance on Russian gas before he annexed the Crimea, and to see the EU so dumbfoundedly believing that Russia would not go to war - to see how incompetent they are on the world stage. If this pays off, how? It really only pays off for Germany, already the richest nation in Europe.
+John Merces There are a couple of problems with your comments, 1. We are not far more invested in the commonwealth. Our top trading partners are mostly in Europe, with the US and China being two exceptions to the rule. Using numbers from 2014, because i can't seem to find anything more recent, we import more from the Netherlands than we do China or the USA for example. 2. While we cannot negotiate independently regarding free trade deals, for obvious reasons, we do negotiate collectively which gives us far more power in said negotiations. Because a collective bloc of 500 million people with the worlds largest economy gives us more say at the table than a single country of 65 million people and the worlds 5th largest economy. Particularly in concerns to larger nations - the US, China and India for example whom tend to have a habit of aggressive push of their own interests. 3. Germany isn't trying to control our currency, we've had an opt-out with the ability to keep the pound for a long time. 4. As for your "foreign manipulation of the EU", your examples fundamentally misunderstand the situation. No one on the official establishments - not the USA, not Ukraine, not the UK or really anyone - foresaw the actions Russia would take that it did. It was a post-Cold War complacency that really can't be tied to the EU. Particularly given it's role in external security has been somewhat limited until very very recently.
Jock Duff 1. The Netherlands statistic is a result of the Rotterdam effect, Rotterdam is one of the busiest ports in the world - a lot of our imports from the rest of the world stop off in Rotterdam and are marked as coming from the Netherlands for ease of last country collection statistics. A similar case would be Europe getting their bananas from Ireland - in reality they come from South America, but stop off in Ireland before being exported to the rest of Europe. The majority of our exports go to the rest of the world and our imports give us leverage. 2. We don't do any negotiations collectively, the negotiations are made on our behalf and we have no power to force negotiators to even take us into account. Which is why we continue to do our independent negotiations in the first place (even if we shouldn't be by EU rules, ha), even with the EU making things harder for us to do so independently. Simply put we cannot use France or Germany as leverage to negotiate with anyone, Germany is using our wealth as leverage to negotiate for themselves. 3. Germany failing to take control of our currency is not the same as Germany trying to take control of our currency. They are, they wanted us to join the EER, they wanted us to join the Euro, and they still do. 4. "No one?" Russia's actions were predictable, and they were predicted by everyone who noticed Russia moving to take key bridges, the Eastern Europeans asking the Americans to not refocus on Eastern Asia, Russia stocking up their Forex reserves and the very simple fact that Russia themselves said they would not accept the EU enlarging themselves into Russia's civilization. The only people I could find that genuinely believed Russia would not respond militarily were the EU who commissioned a report saying that Russia would not invade because they were a "democracy." That's either crippling naivety or stupidity at work, all the signs were there and they were either to high in their chairs to see or they had put their heads deliberately in the sand. When Georgia threatened Russia's strategic security, Russia invaded. How the EU thought this would be different with Ukraine, I do not know. Maybe they knew and didn't care, figuring they would be able to use the war as justification to build a common military, they did try to do that but it never caught on. That is lethally poor judgement. Literally half a decade prior French ministers were warning the USA that expanding NATO membership to Ukraine would be an unnecessary provocation to Russia, and then the EU gives Ukraine a membership plan for itself. They knew all too well - Germany was one such nation to warn the US that NATO membership would result in war for Ukraine. Seems Germany is fine to have Ukraine in the German sphere, but not American.
+John Merces This is bullshit. You should be ashamed for even trying to get away with it. So the refugees are from France, right? Because that is where they want to enter the UK from. LOL!!!! ALL imports and exports are logged to and from the point of origin. The EU is the UKs biggest export market and that will not change. If it does then the UK is fucked. So the UK leaves the EU and has to negotiate new trade rules with a much bigger and more powerful partner (the EU) and will be forced into accepting pretty much all of the rules anyway (just like Norway) - but now the UK does not get to decide any of those rules - we are out and simply have to either accept the rules or not do the deal. To answer the original question from the poster (again) I will say this: Being part of the EU means being part of the decision-making process within our most important economic market... If you don't see that, you are stupid imho!
Rigsby Rigged No they are from all across the world and must pass through at least four safe countries in order to reach the UK, when you deliberately pass through safe countries in order to reach the ones offering the most benefits you are not a refugee, because you have just fled from multiple safe countries. They are in France - no one is going to kill them there. So what are they fleeing from in France? Likewise imports and exports are not all logged from point of origin, they are logged from last port of call, otherwise almost every manufactured good we have would be logged as coming from China. In a globalized economy keeping track of where everything comes from especially with multiple components from multiple assembly lines from multiple countries would be a bureaucratic nightmare, so the stats are just logged by port of last call. The international market already makes up the majority of British exports and the amount we export to the EU cannot keep pace with growing economies like that of MINT or BRIC. It already changed 10 years ago, this is not new news. Perhaps what you mean is that our imports will mostly all come from the EU, in which case we will control our own tariff rates and be able to set EU import tariffs to zero ourselves, or simply buy from overseas from the USA or BRIC or the Commonwealth. We already negotiate our own trade deals and have preexisting trade deals with European states and international ones, just last year we negotiated for ourselves a trade deal with China. Heck, Iceland with a population of 300,000 people has negotiated its own trade deals with the likes of the EU and China. They have 300,000 people, we are the 5th largest economy on the planet. I think we'll manage :P On the topic of Norway their government signed their country up for the Schengen Area even though their people voted to stay out of the EU. The UK is not even in the Schengen Area, though they are not in the EU we already follow less EU legislation than Norway. Likewise if you believe the UK being a part of the decision making process holds any water when our Prime Minister tried to stop Juncker being chosen President of the Commission he failed, we hold no legislative or veto powers, and our Prime Minister has just come back from Brussels with no reforms at all. All we got was a promise to "talk about British concerns for 5 years" with no legal backing. By being a part of the EU we lose decision making power over our own country and the EU gains decision making power over it. Our country is unique in being the financial capital of the world, Europe is important but its stagnant growth amidst the eurozone crisis just cannot compare with the fast-developing nations like China, Brazil, Australia, the USA, Nigeria or India. Rather than have Germany leverage our power for her financial gain, I would rather we fully utilize it for our trading partners and our benefit. If you don't see that I shan't call you stupid, we have all come to our different conclusions the same way :)
The advantage to being part of a larger group is that groups hold more power than individuals. It's why unions exist. The bargaining leverage of a single worker is pretty small, but the collective bargaining power of a couple thousand workers is significantly larger than each of those workers would hold individually. It works the same with countries. By being a part of the EU, and giving up a measure of sovereignty to the EU, Britain, or any other country, becomes part of a really powerful trading block. If Austria and Britain and Belgium each tried to make a deal with a larger economy, like the US, the US would get to dictate a lot more of the terms; their economy is larger, thereby making a deal between Austria and the US a lot more important for Austria than for the US, and the same with Britain and the US and also with Belgium and the US. But if all three of them say "Right, if you want to cut a deal, we *all* have to like it", the US loses a lot of power at the negotiating table, since their combined economy is significantly more important to the US than any one of their markets individually. Furthermore, being a part of a large bloc like the EU means that all members are expected to act in unison with regard to at least a few things, meaning the enforcement of standards. This is *good*. It's why we have IUPAC, instead of each country deciding to do their own little thing with their chemistry. Imagine, if you wanted to transport some chemicals from Britain to Germany, and you hopped on a plane with your British labels. The German customs officer looks at your chemicals, which have all the required British warning labels and says "Um... what the heck is this?" And you have to take the time to then explain everything you're carrying, what hazards it has, and what each of those funny little symbols mean. Then he has to go and get a great whopping book, or look up your chemical in the database, and tell you all the restrictions that apply to transporting this chemical around in Germany. Now imagine that a standard is enforced, and you hop off the plane, the officer can see all the warning labels and *understand them*, and lets you on your merry way, because the same restrictions apply to transporting that chemical in Germany as it does in Britain. It saves a lot of hassle, and hassle takes time, the time a customs officer is occupied has to be paid for with money, money paid for by taxpayers. So by standardizing things, as a large trading bloc tend to do, taxpayers end up saving some money there. Being part of a trade bloc like the EU also grants Britain more power over other nations in that bloc. If they don't like what Luxembourg is doing, they say in the EU parliament "Hey! We should stop Luxembourg doing that thing we don't like!" And if the rest of the EU agrees, Luxembourg has to do it, because they don't want to be punished with sanctions by the whole union, which holds a lot more power than sanctions by any one member of the union. Ergo, by coordinating more closely with other countries in a large trading bloc like the EU, Britain is able to participate in more coordinated efforts, efforts that grant it more political sway internationally, work more effectively with it's neighbors, and hold more influence with other members of the trading bloc. There are prices to pay for power, but collective bargaining and coordinated effort can be well worth the price. Provided nobody passes Article 13.
The collapsing economy, ruin of exporters, and problems with import are showing why we were in the EU. Can't agree with Lindy on this he's deluded here.
He is a larper, his whole channel is dedicated to him buying the British propaganda he was raised on and trying to live in it. He dreams of longbowmen, english soldiers in khaki, English fleets controling the seas and forts. Of course he is deluded, his life is based on trying to live in an idealized past where he would have been part of the controlling class of the world, the leaders of "civilization".
Now you are free, go and do what you want. But now Scotland and NI will ask the same question, why we should be in the UK??? My answer to your question is: Europe will stay strong and free only economically and politically united. This is the reason why the UK and all other countries should be there, yes and this is with a price tag. 19th century and colonialism are gone, former European superpowers are gone...
As an American with a French wife, let me tell you some things that are much different for EU and non-EU. 1. Freedom of movement: I've seen a Ferrari with Belgian plates at a Château in the Loire Valley. And a German who marries a French woman can take a job in Ireland and have a summer house in Portugal. It isn't like that for non-EU. Yes, you can negotiate for your car license plates to continue to work, but taking a ferry and driving around Europe could also become a thing of the past. Of course, the money isn't the same, but that was a UK choice. It is the same for the rest of the block. There are two million EU citizens in the UK, and one million UK citizens in the EU. Right now, France can't stop you from buying a cottage in Bretagne. But as an American I have to take French lessons, civics lessons, complete miles of paperwork. Millions of people are about to lose the right to visit family members or their own property whenever they want. That sucks. 2. As an American - and I assure you the US has tried very hard to get these treaties you assume the UK will be able to get and keep. China and the US face the VAT as an import tax and numerous other hurdles. Your passport, license plate, citizenship, etc is valid across all EU countries, plus your business has the right to establish branches, buy property and hire workers from any member in the block. Countries outside the EU have none of those things. I can't take a job in Ireland, because I'm establishing residency in France. If I were an EU citizen I wouldn't have that problem. 3. Leaving the EU, the UK surrenders power to France and Germany. If Texas left the US, California and New York would yield enormous power in the United States and would be free to adopt policies Texas hates. There is a reason Scotland voted to remain in the UK. Even now, the European Union banking authority has selected Paris as its new headquarters. American and Chinese banks and other businesses are located in the UK because they want a branch in the EU and prefer the English language. Now they must either move to the continent, or split their staff. As a member of a union of states (the USA) let me say that being a member of a block is a huge advantage both in daily life and economically. This isn't going to turn out well. Brexit will be a horrible warning on the dangers of secession. And in a few years I expect Scotland, and later England, to come back hat in hand to regain admission.
So what you're saying, if I have this right, is that the EU is a conceited xenophobe that gives special treatment to its family members and makes life deliberately difficult for Johnny foreigner, yes? So it's better to be in the bully's gang than outside it?
Valve Wizard I'm saying thinking you'll have all the advantages you now have is like thinking the UK will have all the advantages of a US state. Lots of countries want what you have and can't get it unless they are in the EU. Call it whatever you want, but that is how treaties work. The US is never going to give the UK a better deal than California and the EU is never going to give post-Brexit UK a better deal than Germany. Just like the UK gives better treatment to its citizens than it does Chinese people. You are about to lose EU citizenship and be placed on about the same footing as Americans. From my experience I can't recommend it. It is a step down.
This is a somewhat late answer but being in the EEA (which I think you meant instead of EEC) would still involve paying money to the EU so the "saving on membership fees" argument doesn't work very well (though there might be small savings to be had there). Also, that would involve being subject to some EU laws/directives while not being able to vote on them. What about EFTA then? Well, the other members might not be so keen to let the UK in. Also note that 3 EFTA members (Norway, Iceland, & Liechtenstein) are also in the EEA and the remaining member (Switzerland) has a similar set of deals with the EU. Maybe you could get a Switzerland-like deal with the EU? That might be difficult because the EU doesn't want a lot of countries to just start picking only those aspects of membership they want and not the others. Also, even Switzerland pays money to the EU so that again doesn't seem to be the way to go if your main argument against membership is membership fees.
I'm old enough to remember the trading we did with the British Commonwealth before we joined the Common Market, as it was then. My father was a Refrigeration Engineer on a merchant ship, trading with Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina. Happy days.
People in a city won't complain when a poorer street that isn't theirs gets a new shiny layer of asphalt, yet when a supra-national organisation gives poorer countries a boost it's a big deal...
Things that have already happened because of Brexit: Lower purchasing power, jobs moving away, less investment, the knock on effect of the last two on tax income, trade [yes, it is impacting trade, and a ton of stuff is going to have to be negotiated all over again], loss of free movement [what do you mean I have to pay a fee to travel to spain?!?!?!], loss of influence within the EU [and effective transfer of implied power to Germany], a significantly high possibility of a re-vote of the Scottish leave referendum, plus the risk that Ireland will do the same So far ... doesn't sound like Britain made the right choice.
@@RadicalEdwardStudios As he said, new treaties can be singed if they're needed, as well as new laws, without being in the EU. The European Union is making it as hard as possible for Britain to leave, which is a reason why things are a bit upside down right now. These kinds of things are most likely going to go back to as they where, when the whole BREXIT thing is over. Most EU nations are a bit pissed about Britain's exit, since they did profit from it. It's like subscribing to something you don't actually need.
@@saunasankari5917 Of course they're making it hard to leave. Why would they make it easy? That's a great way to break up the EU. And yes, treaties can always be signed, but they have to also be negotiated. Kinda like a hotel restaurant having a guest discount, and then people whining that they, not being guests, aren't getting the discount.
@@RadicalEdwardStudios So you're against Brexit, or for Brexit? And if you're against it, why? If new laws and treaties can be signed without having to pay all that money to the EU, why should Britain be in it?
What you're basically saying is that you should take everything you have, give up all the good parts, then spend years re-negotiating those good parts [probably getting deals that aren't as good as they were in the EU, and will basically result in subjecting you to all those things you didn't like, and left over], lose jobs [with cuts already being announced], lose tourism income [and really anything requiring travel in and out of the UK from the EU], have basically no say in the EU anymore, probably lose Scotland and Ireland, spend extra effort matching regulations from the EU [because otherwise, manufacturing will suffer], a massive loss of NHS workforce [which has already started], probably a full year recreating the EU laws that people like/want to keep [if not more], and all that so that you get ... not quite what the politicians told you you would be getting. Every single negotiation outcome is a GDP loss, with the best ones losing the least, and none showing gain. And when you realize what a terrible idea it was, and come crawling back ... all the trade that shifted away from you won't be coming back, because why would they stop their [to be] current trade with countries that /didn't/ leave, just to give a gift to one that did? By all means, the EU does stupid things, but ... you won't be there to vote against them. The vote coming on the 11th will, if it passes, result in you not being in the single market anymore, and you can expect a 4% shrinkage of your economy. If that vote fails, the hit will be over 9%. Only some 12 or 13 percent of you voted to leave. Apathy was the real killer. A significant majority of your population polls for staying, right now. Odds are good that the political fallout from this will be severe, based on the polls so far. Or to put it more concisely: "new laws and treaties can be signed without having to pay all that money to the EU" You'll be struggling to get deals that are a fraction as favorable as what you're giving up, and it'll take years. Your net contribution to the EU was almost £9B in 2016. Your 4% economic shrinkage is worth £112B [no deal could be £270B]. The less favorable deals will hurt trade, jobs, tourism, tax income, your workforce, your people, quality of life, etc etc. What's the gain, again?
The EU is a buffer between the UK and the East. And also because, when you are an empire and you have all the money in the world, you can afford to build a nice neighborhood around your house and pay for your neighbors plastic surgery so they will lighten up your day when you wake up. Or would you rather not expend that money and have all of your European neighboring countries be soviet? You are about to find out.
I see your arguments, and I think they seem pretty reasonable. I can understand why a lot of brits feel like they don't benefit from the EU. However, if I'm to be selfish, I have to say that I like it a lot. It allows me to easily move to and start working in Britain. That wouldn't be achieved quite so easily otherwise, so for my own sake, I'm still very happy about the EU atm.
You're happy that the entity that is destroying the UK, allowed you to move to the UK and witness its destruction? That about sum it up? Front row seat for your subjection and mass starvation and the wholesale slaughter. Right on.
Yep, well done for him. I think he raises a crucial point about the importance of EU and how it allows easier access to/from different countries and I believe that is the cornerstone for a united world, perhaps we need a better more efficient union, albeit a global one.
I can only speak for scientists, but we get a whole load of cooperation, data sharing, cross-semesters, courses, conferences, funded degrees, research funding etc. I know some folks who just went to EMBL on research projects. That could (will, now) become quite a bit more difficult outside the EU.
First thing to mention is this video is 11 years old so his opinion may well be different after the debates. I suspect he won't answer however as it's a very politically charged question. I reckon for most the answer comes down to what nationality you consider yourself to belong to. I consider myself British so I would hate the idea of the prettiest part of my country being taken away. I don't consider myself European and don't subscribe to the idea that I can't vote to change laws in my country. If one considers them Scottish they are likely to have a completely different outlook on this matter. The reverse question would be how would you feel about the Shetland Islands gaining independence? What is Edinburgh decided to go it's own way? Who should get to decide? It's tricky.
@@richardschofield2201 A lot of words for "I only care about what I feel benefits me in the short term and don't want to think about alternative solutions"
1) Your logic in the second part of the video presupposes Britain not being in the EU. You can't naively assume that nations won't be offended by the UK quitting the union, now that you are in it. You can't just believe it wouldn't cost a heck of a lot, that it wouldn't involve sanctions against your country because of this etc. 2) You would also lose the option of using your national ID card as a passport for all the union - Lloyd, you are a traveller - has it been easier to travel around, say, in Germany or Hungary than Turkey? Isn't is such a bloody hassle with all those documents instead of having them combined? 3) You, in less than a day's time, with one visit to the office, can get a card that gives you free healtcare in emergency for the time you're on holiday within the EU. I hurt my knee quite a bit while I was in Germany - I just called for a cab, had myself taken to the hospital and with my card had my knee checked. It hasn't ever been easier and cheaper than this. 4) And now my -I believe - strongest argument: Britain is crumbling. There are loads of reasons why this might be, but surely, one cannot act upon one's now non-existent dominion over much of the known world now, in post-colonial times. After WWII, due to much of the loans from the USA and the colonies secluding, this country couldn't just stand on its sovereign own. Britain needs every contract it can sign to stay relevant. 5) Unification of currency, measurement etc. is making life terribly neat and easy and hereby I have two points. One that the EU is bringing over a lof of these improvements, the second one, even if contradictory: and the UK has succeeded in dodging them. What other country has the right of moving so freely in the Union? None. Respect that you already have much greater a field to navigate in that Germany or France. 6) Also, this is a minor point, the immigration people tend to question actually isn't the one coming from the EU, but ouside of it. For all I know, immigration from the EU is fairly bearable and good-quality. 7) Also, don't be stuck-up and stupid; Britain bloody well is in Europe. No one is willing to believe that that wee strip of sea means anything, hell, people even swim across it all the time, it isn't nearly enough to separate you from Europe. But that's the geographic reason, another one being that the culturally unique peoples (picts, celts) of the Island were murdered by European invaders anyways, giving Britain much a European face, language, culture, look etc. Are these points enough?
***** I posted this 3 months ago. Since that, mainly because I started to focus on British politics with renewed attention for the forthcoming elections, I changed my mind a bit. Peter Hitchens and Farage (even though he's got a couple of things wrong) have convinced me that for any sense of self-governance and to lower the no-borders mass immigration, Britain needs a referendum and from there, it's your decision. That being said, Cameron's 'lead the EU, not leave the EU' policy appeals to me as well. Only problem with that is that Angela thinks differently.
That is what I would do, honestly. Fair choice. It should be a matter of consideration though, that EU-immigrants make Britain ₤5bn, while non-EU migrants cost ₤118bn. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html
6 years before the punch.
Even tho i dont agree with him, he is a astute type of dude and smarter than 90% of people one encounters!
+Gaddaffi “Gadaffy Duck” Duck OMG someone on the Internet called me stupid. I am wounded beyond help. What will I do?
An illiterate someone on the internet.
Mitch Johnson
Mitch, you've skilfully failed to address any of the points he's raised here.
Insulting a person is no substitute for answering the argument.
sophrapsune Before I answer you, I need to understand who you think I was insulting. Was is Lloyd? I was insulting Gaddaffi because he insulted the last person with the comment "U must be from edenham cause u act clever but ur fucking dumb pusyclaat". Then the person he insulted said "Oh no! I've been insulted by someone on the internet." I merely added it wasn't just "someone" but an "illtereate someone," as evidenced by the sentence.
If you already know that and you are saying that Gaddaffi made some good points, can you point me to those good points?
I like to think that Nigel Farage saw this video and thought to himself: "Uhm... Why indeed?"
Farage officially led UKIP from 2006 and had been a prominent member and anti-EU campaigner for many years previously. The Tory party has been in schism about EU membership for decades. Lindy's video was somewhat later to this game.
@@ld8341 he's having a laugh mate, if you need to find your stick i know where you left it
@@thatlonelygiraffeinc.6989 You think so? Perhaps "having a laugh" explains the factual inaccuracies in most Brexiter thinking.
Would have thought David Cameron
The same Farage who applied for a German passport one day after the referendum?
RUclips is really interested in getting me to re-watch old, controversial Lindybeige stuff.
Really though, I got the boer concentration camp video, then "let's laugh at minorities", followed by "let the children smoke". It almost looks like youtube is trying to drive people away from lindy's channel
@@lord_hemp Big tech and social media have as much power as we allow them. The internet was better without them.
Mee too
@@lord_hemp Indeed. I only discovered this channel about a month ago and enjoyed a lot of his videos but in the past week I've witnessed some of his older videos where he comes across as an absolute tit.
Of course, everyone's entitled to their own political views but the whole idea of asking a question in such a rhetorical manner is the kind of thing I associate with bigots.
Anyone with a genuine interest in why the UK joined the EU could simply Google it and read the answers. There are no doubt a multitude of logical reasons. Of course he might disagree with those reasons, and I'd respect his opinion, but asking an open question when it's obvious he doesn't really want to hear the answer is... Well, I expected better.
Same, at this point I've seen him talk about the EU, free speech, hate speech, global warming, religion, and the holocaust. Until I started getting these recommendations, I'd basically always thought of him as a basic history/weapons RUclipsr, without a controversial bone in his body.
Britain is not in European Union. From yesterday. Time flies xD
BenqInferno and now it’s seemingly irrelevant, time really flies
@@willotter4503 True that. Time, really, flies
Freedom
@@perperson199 we were free all along, albeit subject to an inherited monarchy, unelected House of Lords, governments without popular mandates and media 80% owned by 5 non-dom billionaires. Even immigration controls were largely in our own hands, but we failed to implement them or even to employ the necessary staff. We opposed very few EU regulations, were key proposers of many more, and had a massive say in most.
We're now still de facto subject to most EU regulation, but with zero influence. However, because we now need our own systems, we're creating tens of thousands of needless new British bureacrats to track trade, regulation and law. As to the notoriously incorrect £350M PA basic membership, our entire bill has already been eclipsed by Brexit costs. It's our biggest own goal since WW2 which even its most eloquent exponent admits will have no discernable benefits for 50 years unless you're a non-dom billionaire looking for a new tax haven.
Actually just two months ago officially
Being in the EU brings the world closer to a world government.
Which will allow a coordinated defence when the aliens attack.
Because, if my Xcom experience has taught me anything, it's that individual nations are bitches when it comes to keeping happy.
Jake, is that sarcasm?
Everyone knows aliens really only attack the USA, preferably New York or Area 51.
Ew globalism
JoeRingo118 That's a bit like choosing between gonorrhea and syfilis. Which you shouldn't ever have to
This video aged well didn't it
Yes 🇬🇧
🇪🇺
🔥
@@tomsharpe2251 congrats from across the pond
No.
Has anyone else looked at the figures?
@@ClannCholmain what do you expect instand wealth? Ofcourse it takes time everything takes time give it some years to recover
@@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150 I don’t remember any slogan saying vote to make your country poorer for a number of years.
Loyd was euro skeptic before I left primary school
Same
I was in year 7
Britain: *sees this video*
Britain: *Aight.... Imma head out*
Once again, Lloyd was years ahead of his time whilst seeming years behind his time.
He lived both in 1919 and 2019, in 2010.
Well, we are seeing the fruits of leaving now.
@@captainswoop8722 Such as what?
I haven’t seen many benefits just Boris Johnson’s government being incompetent
He was dead wrong, but ahead of his other dead wrong peers.
Now we've left the EU I'm expecting to get a lot of great community centres. If not, I'm coming for you!!
It won't happen, it will be spent on tax breaks. I mean it's great to have that money back in theory, but it realistically will go to dodgey shit
@@britishnerd3919 well a lot of people don't seem to realize that Britain GOT things from the money they spent, that's how spending works, having more money isn't a good thing if it means you're not getting anything, governments are SUPPOSED to spend money. Britain got a free trade system, work visas, and an entire inspection agency for safety and the like while barely paying for any of it in the first place!
@@LegendLength just speculation.
@@connerh492 We still used our own health and safety agency, the HSE, we used our own standards, the BSI, we can still apply for work visas. Community centres are good as long as they are used, and governments haven't stopped funding them, despite people using them less and less these days. We aren't subject to economic manipulations like the EU storing tonnes of perishable product in warehouses to keep markets steady and we aren't propping up nations like Spain and Greece. Oh, and we also have an elected leader instead of the unelected presidents on the EU.
That's for YOU to make sure with YOUR politician .. why delegate THIS responsibility to EU ? Why are you so sure that EU can think for UK more better than EU leaders( being chosen by people out of UK) who have no skin in the decision making ?
Just being logical .. I don't have dog in the fight ..
The astute gentleman, calling it 6 years before we saw it. Keep at it Lindybeige!
loving the name ;)
Yea, 6 years ahead of time he had a stupid idea that as every sane person predicted was a complete shitshow and turned out to be just that. Applause.
Pfft haha yea.... because the EU plan has worked out so well for Germany right?
xC4N4D14NB4C0Nx seeing how we are very stable, in fact, have the most stable economy in all of the EU, yea pretty much genius.
Ha no need to be disingenuous, the world knows multi-cultistan is a sinking ship. The economy may be strong, until it runs out of educated labourers.
This aged well.
It aged like milk lol
@@kentknightofcaelin4537 In France it aged like a fine cheese.😘
I'm from Switzerland, the true heart of Europe (geographically speaking). We are not in the EU, as you probably know, and guess what? We still end up adopting all the EU laws and trade standards, simply because if we wouldn't, nobody in the EU would deal with us anymore. Only difference is, we have no saying in the making of the rules.
Now, Britain is a much bigger market than Switzerland, so probably more products would be made specifically for Britain, but still you would feel the same pressure to adopt to EU standards.
You don't just go to an Ambassador and sign a contract in an afternoon. These negotiations with the EU are time- and cost-consuming and if they don't work out, you have to start negotiating with individual countries.
Also, it sucks to stand in line at airports.
The line in the airports for passport controls in european flights depends on being or not part of Schenghen, which CH is and GB isn't.
Geographically speaking, the heart of Europe is more like Belarus or thereabouts. Just saying.
I very much agree, I also would like to add that if/when Britain leaves the EU allot of EU countries would see that Britain contributes a significant amount of money so could decide to not make a deal with Britain and therefore force it into staying or else Britain would receive massive blowback due to high trade costs.
Center of Europe is Austria so...
I hope you know that Britain isn't surrounded by the EU lol
and now brexit happened
Did it now?
I'm not holding my breath. May has already promised Nicola Sturgeon she won't move forward with Brexit until it becomes clear what will happen to Scotland afterwards. It seems increasingly likely that Brexit means break up of the UK. This is such a politically toxic thing that no politician will touch it unless forced to. It will destroy the career of any politician who tries to untangle it.
The government is walking an impossible tightrope: they have to appear to be moving forwards, without actually doing anything. Let's see how long May can keep it up for...
ellieban Exactly.
***** I don't think what the polls say today matters overly, it's what they say once the terms of Brexit and their impact on Scotland becomes clear that will determine whether Sturgeon calls another Indy Ref. She's putting everything in place, just in case, and I don't blame her in the slightest.
***** Scotland may feel the same ^^ Certainly England is the bigger basket case at present...
And now we've actually left. Wonder what Lloyd thinks of the deal we got
I'm in the US, what kind of deal did the UK get?
Hi @@keokihiga8462, greetings from the UK! Brexit was a very divisive issue in the UK and so the deal was never going to please everyone. It will potentially make life more difficult for those who businesses and individuals who deal with continental Europe frequently. However, the aim was to bring more domestic control over British affairs. We had thought we'd know some effects of Brexit (positive or negative) by now... but all we've seen is the effect of the pandemic! So we still don't really know the impact of Brexit and I'm not sure we ever will be able to unpick the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic. A recent Brexit success was how the UK was able to individually negotiate for vaccine stocks ahead of mainland Europe. You can read a summary of the deal here: www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/brexit-deal-what-trade-fishing-summary/
@@nottsxander This is a lie
"A recent Brexit success was how the UK was able to individually negotiate for vaccine stocks ahead of mainland Europe"
We were in transition (so still in the EU) when these arrangements were made.
I we hadn't been so stupid as to leave, we could still have made the same arrangements as we did.
@@keokihiga8462 Fishing is dead. Car manufacturing is leaving. Food exports are almost impossible, and Northern Ireland is on fire. Apart from that, quite bad.
@@AlexFoobar104 I voted to remain in the EU myself. I was just trying to be balanced and fair in my assessment of Brexit's impact. Any graphs we see of international trade or national GDP will be affected by both Brexit and the pandemic - surely it will be hard to unpick the impact of one from the other?
It would be interesting to see if or how Lindy's views have shifted in eleven years. He was very dismissive of things like free trade etc (to be fair to him, none of us Brits really understood or cared what our membership of the Customs Union and Single Market meant eleven years ago).
Would be interested in a follow up video.
The man deserves the chance to admit he was ignorant and terribly wrong, yes. This is a great idea.
@@phylwx You seem to have a very self-righteous and (possibly) arrogant worldview.
You also have no idea what his view would be now, and whether or not it would have shifted into alignment with yours.
@@venmis137 Who knows? maybe he shifted the blame for the UK economic downturn to immigrants! That would be really original, wouldn't it?
Lloyd created Vote Leave 6 years before brexit
Dieter Gaudlitz yet you still provide no factual counter argument.
Yes,i he is a fool ,if there was ever any doubt.
@@sadvenom7826 Funny, that's pretty much the accusation presented against Vote Leave, which by its own admission won by an emotional plea, rather than facts or rational argument, most of which supported Remain and still do. The Tory Covid shambles arrived just in time to provide the smokescreen: one cock-up to hide another. Genius!
@@ld8341
Hear hear.
The majority of attempts to draw a rational or logical argument for leaving the EU from a proponent of the ideology of the UK leaving the EU typically result in an objection to any such argument put to them and will eventually arrive at something along the lines of them not liking 'others' telling them what to do.
It's not economics (for it was never about the economy), nor is it immigration (for it was never about the immigrants) or even the right for the nation to steer its own course (for the UK will still be under the influence of other nations) - so what logic is it then that convinces one to support this apparently mad campaign?
Snake oil sold by demagogues, I'm afraid.
I do genuinely hope I'm wrong, but "I told you so" has become the new mantra of the "remainer", and for good reason.
I'm pretty sure that Lloyd wasn't the first to ask the question (see his other video about how only the first matters). I don't agree with him but he makes some good points.
+Lindybeige To quote sir humphrey Appleby:
"Yes Minister: The Writing on the Wall (#1.5)" (1980)
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker: Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister.
[laughs]
James Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.
It seems remarkably accurate.... in light of events, don't you think? :P
Thatcher proofread the script right? ...
Indeed it is remarkably accurate. Mind you though that as there is now a need of continuous negotiation on every detail of the relationship, there is still a lot of opportunity to sow diversion even from the outside...
How does britain benefit from being out of the EU? Question you can ask now because reality has opened that path
Saying that Great Britain isn't located in Europe is like saying that Japan doesn't belong to Asia :D
man this didn't age fantastically. a followup would be kinda funny though, curious if views have shifted.
Proof that even an intelligent person can massively underestimate the complexities of international trade
Just because someone knows a lot about history doesn't mean one is intelligent
@@Jeyeyeyey So you're calling Lindy stupid AND ignorant? Alright then.
9 years later: why did Britain leave EU?
I would watch it one after another
@Kurt Rustle Good that you need to care about the EU anymore, because the EU stopped care about you.
Because it was a great idea.
@@freespeechisneverwrong9351 *shit idea
@@foty8679 why use big word when small word do trick?
Hey Loyd, how do you feel about Brexit now that it has happened?
"What's the EU ever done for us?"
So, now we've left the EU, where are all the benefits of leaving?
Well, now Northern Irishmen and Scotts are starting to seriously ask themselves: "Why are we part of the UK?"
Seems like these kind of things go both ways, and leaving the EU sparked separatism accross a substantial part of the UK so... in a not so distant future, the UK might be reduced to England + Wales? Yay?...
Net financial contributors can leave a union and go their own way in the world. Net financial recipients cannot.
England can leave the UK, then the other constuent parts can break up the union.
But none of the other parts of the UK can jump the gun and leave before hand, without a very rich sugar daddy.
All this present day separatism is political smoke and mirrors, and financial graft.
@@metalmark9276 indeed, especially in Scotland's case, for which independence would be a headache in many, many ways. For their sake, I sincerely hope they do not leave the Union. Northern Ireland is a different case though, since it would go for a reunification with the Republic of Ireland, one with which it shares an open border, culture, strong economic ties, etc... and which is a country as rich as the UK (relatively speaking of course, the United Kingdom's population, and thus its economy dwarf Ireland's).
@@jierdareisa4313 even N. Ireland no chance. Their share of national debt. Accrued regional debt through a forever deficit. Share of state pension liability, present and accrued. The list goes on.
Plus all the private sector contracts licences. Electricity, gas, mobile phone , fixed phone line . All of them retail and infrastructure. Covered by UK acts of parliament.
Retail banking and insurance. Also an issue.
All are UK coverage. That only make money in England, but have a national coverage because that is part of their licence to operate. Independance also means from the licences, and I can assure you the companies operating them, will have no problem walking away from a money pit.
And I haven't even called you up on the unification with the Republic. The Republic talks a good united Ireland. But only while it is never a reality. That would change.
Then there is the EU. There is an understanding that Spain would veto any succesionist country from an EU member, including former members , from joining the EU. Also the EU is not interested in countries that are anything other than net contributors from joining the EU. This situation would affect Irelands place as a net contributor, again not an option for the EU. Then you have the security/civil unrest scenario, once more, a situation the EU will not under any circumstances be any part of.
As I say , all smoke and mirrors. Never, in truth, will it be anything else.
@@metalmark9276 oh, I did not realise what I was saying was misleading. I am neither in favor of Scottish indepedence or Irish reunification, but was rather noting that the Brexit referendum had reinforced pro-independence parties' positions, to the point that any of these two territories might leave the UK in the decade to come.
As for whether it would be a good thing economically speaking... Indepedence raises some serious, if not nightmarish issues : Which currency to use? What would the border look like in terms of trade (both of goods and services)? What about the rules and standards currently followed by companies? What about the oil fields? And the fishing areas? And the financial sytem? (be it in terms of investment, banking or insurances)...
And what about the armed forces? And the relationship with the EU? And diplomacy? And the NHS?
Many, many more issues than what the UK had to face when leaving the EU, with the added pressure of being smaller entities with less leverage when negociating and facing devastating consequences in case of a "no deal".
The message I was trying to convey regarding Northern Ireland was that it was less vulnerable to those than Scotland is, primarly because it would not be going independent per se but because it would be integrated in the Republic of Ireland. This would allow for easier integration within the EU and the euro zone, while also benefitting from the Irish economy to absorb part of the economic backlash resulting from independence, though no miracle should be expected. The reunification of Germany shows a good example of such things happening, and the situation was much worse in that case than with Ireland.
On that note, two small precisions concerning the EU, which do not change my PoV regarding the incredible risks of independence : Spain actually changed its position regarding vetoing seceding territories from entering the EU a couple years ago (it was against it during the Scottish referendum, as you rightly underlined, but then came around when the left came to power). Also being a net creditor never was part of the conditions to join the EU, several countries joined while being net debtors, the latest of which being Croatia in 2013 (or 2011 if we're talking about the signing of the treaty). Additionally, given that Ireland's net external debt is -380% of its GDP, I'd say it has some margin in that regard, as it is better than every other EU country's bar Luxembourg.
"And we get saddled with an awful lot of really stupid troublesome laws as well." Not saying that's wrong, but would've been good to name at least _one_ given your derision of vague arguments in favour of the EU.
Just 72 out of 34,105 new laws have been forced on the UK. Many of those had support from other parts of the UK and even parts of the ruling parties. Very few of the "really stupid" laws were remotely guilty of what was claimed. Indeed, from Churchill's founding input to the European project and to the idea of Human Rights, then throughout its membership, Britain has more often been at the driving heart of Europe and its legal framework.
www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/rationalist-destroys-leavers-with-list-of-all-eu-laws-that-have-been-forced-on-us-against-our-will/22/01/
All of that is irrelivent now. Britan is no longer in the EU.
Britan was never in the EU.
@@grantmalone It was...
can you now fiddle with pound like good old days of 80s and 90s ?
There are so many possible answers to your question that I'm surprised you've apparently 'never had a good one'. They range from the highly complex and mathematical (you can, using economics and maths, show exactly how much the UK benefits from being in the EU via lower tariffs, access to wider pools of 'factors of production' - mostly, labour but also entrepreneurs, capital and land, to a lesser extent*), through to the political (if that's your bag) - an example of which might be: Europe hasn't had a major war in more than 70 years, which is historically abnormal**. Or, that the EU has demonstrably helped stabilise countries that until recently had dictatorships, and the more gravitas the membership has, the greater that stabilising effect; these countries include Greece, Spain, Portugal, though also those of East Europe. You can quibble more about the political side of things than the economics, so let's take a look at the economics.
One of the main sources of wealth creation for countries has been focusing on their comparative advantage. Specialising in goods and services where countries have a lower opportunity cost, leads to an increase in economic welfare for all countries (everybody gains). Again, if we wanted to get geeky, there are real numbers we could look up for this. This sort of thing works more efficiently when there is free trade.
The EU is, at its heart, a giant free trade zone (Don't yawn and bleat about EFTA or the EEC, we'll get to that). That doesn't just mean tariffs are non existent between members (though that's a big part). It also means our laws and regulations are the same (Not necessarily the case with EFTA or the EEC - which you are misplacing here as the EEC was, in some ways, a process... one that evolved as a natural part of its progression into the EU). A pot of jam in Germany is the same as one in Sweden and one in the UK. The same regulations cover all of them. So, if you're a UK jam maker, by being in the EU, with no extra cost to you of retooling your machinery or printing new labels or tweaking the ingredients, you can sell to more than 350 million customers rather than just 60 million.
Jam may seem a silly example but the UK has a very real and well known comparative advantage in finance. The City of London (not just shares and the London Stock Exchange but also currency trading, quants, insurance, reinsurance, derivatives, bonds, options, futures, credit default swaps, merger & acquisition advice, plain old fashioned banking and on and on) has become the default financial capital for Europe. Being inside the EU means The City is inside the moat and castle walls... giving it an even bigger comparative advantage against places like New York and Singapore when dealing with European companies who are looking for access to capital or other financial services.
Before you roll your eyes - it benefits all export oriented industries that would be subject to additional or different rules and regulations were we outside rather than in. Among the UK's largest exports are engineering services, pharmaceuticals and precision machine parts (you can tell from that word 'precision' that slightly different regulations might impose an additional cost on the makers of those parts when they look to sell in jurisdictions with different rules).
The affect this has had on the UK can be seen by looking at the numbers. 54.3% of UK exports by value are delivered to other European trade partners. That is far higher than the percentage of trade with the EU member nations back in the 1950s, (when it was more in the region of 30% and we tended to trade more with Commonwealth countries, bearing the cost of the different regulations).
The effect of this may not seem large - adding 1 or 2% (depending on whose model you use) to GDP. But 2% of UK GDP is an extra $50 billion. A year. Every year.
"Aha!" I hear you cry, "But surely we can get all that from a free trade area! We don't need the EU!"
Yes, yes, yes... of course we can sign up for rules we don't know in advance and have no say over what those rules are (as Norway and Greenland do). But, I'm sure you can see the flaws in that idea. The members of the EU who make the rules could stack them in such a way so that they advantage their domestic companies (back to jam... did you know that for 'jam making purposes' the EU defines carrots as a fruit so that Iberians can make carrot jam? You can have as many silly rules as you like specifically disadvantaging UK firms if other people set the rules of the game we'd be forced to play by).
Now, and this is important, there are many, many, many advantages to being in the EU but there are also disadvantages. Which you regard as more important is a finely balanced point (as the Brexit referendum showed - people were pretty evenly split on the matter).
But to claim that there are no obvious benefits is just silly. And, Lloyd, you are very far from being a silly man - you are a luminous champion of brilliance in a cold and dark world.
There is much more that could be said (and in far greater depth). But I feel this is already far too rambly and long. And largely irrelevant now as we're leaving the EU anyway.
*Not the case with EFTA or the EEC at various stages. If you want to talk about why a comparison of EFTA or the EEC with the EU is a nonsense comparable to insisting a cinquedea is a match for an arming sword, find me on Twitter.
** No. That's not down to Nato, that's down to trade. Countries with McDonalds restaurants don't tend to attack other countries with McDonalds restaurants. At least, not openly or frequently. Trade. It saves lives.
Mhm. Good points. Shame this comment got relatively little attention.
My only qualm is your claim of stablising eastern-european countries. If it's trying, it's not succeeding. And, while it does help maintain today's abnormal peace, it is not necessary for it. Peace is in Europe, but also in the entire world.
Ha ha,ha,ha
@Dootie That's just being facetious, of which I suspect you're probably aware.
Yes, Yugoslavia had a high death toll and was devastating for those involved but it is in no way comparable to previous Balkans conflicts that spilled over and dragged in wider powers - and then the rest of the world.
Not only that, but in many ways the war you're pointing to actually backs the case I made.
Countries that trade reasonably comfortably with one another, resolving disputes through dialogue and international mechanisms (the EU, international courts, the WTO, the UN... etc...), tend not to go to war.
It is not a case of absolutes.
It is a case of 'on balance' - nations who have avenues of discussion don't reach so readily for war because they don't have to.
How does Yugoslavia actually back this?
The many Yugoslavia wars occurred precisely at a time when the Balkan nations were largely new to these international mechanisms or outside of them. We can follow that up by showing that, one by one, since their inclusion in these mechanisms, the region has experienced fewer conflicts.
What's that you say? Ukraine as a counter-example? Russia, Europe and Ukraine all trade with one another and it's pretty tense?
Again, the tension is being caused by many sources - if Ukraine is going to spill over into a wider war, very much front and centre, running alongside ethnic and historic issues: resources (particularly food production), international stability and trade are actually very close to the top of the list of issues in play,
Perhaps regrettably, far more so than even the murder of civilians or Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Would a Russian bombing of a civilian target killing 10,000 innocent people be more likely to drag Europe and the US deeper into the Ukraine war? Possibly. But there have been plenty of incidents and so far, the West has remained mostly as financial and materiel-providing backers for Ukraine.
Now, consider, if Russia instead bombed and destroyed every grain and food storage silo around Odessa.
In 2019, Ukraine produced 42% of the world's sunflower oil exports, 8.9% of wheat and 16% of maize. Those numbers are already down because of the war and causing problems in nations such as Libya and Indonesia that are net food importers.
You may disagree, but I would suggest that targeting food storage intended for global sale *as a very clear aim* would likely elicit a far sterner response and be regarded as a much more severe escalation.
International bodies, when operating well and efficiently, help stop wars. Because trade and talk help stop wars.
too much words me not read.
Khm. British isles are part of European continental plate that stretches all the way to Iceland. Plus, they are part of common European culture and history. Japan is still a part of Asia, for instance.
Taiwan sweating nervously
Recently the U.K. Health Secretary stated that importing medicine from the continent would have a higher priority than importing food. So my answer is, being in the EU meant that the citizens of the U.K. didn't have to choose between having medicine and having food.
I would love to see an update on this video.
I want a follow up entitled 'Why isn't Britain in the EU'!!
"What have the Romans ever done for us!?" - "Brought peace...?"
„And the aquaeduct...“
Spot on.
@@nagualdesign But besides the peace, the aquaduct, economic prosperity, and general well-being...what have they done for us?
@@jeremyc4811 Ratified the Paris Agreement?
Ruined my planned vacation to Carthage
EU is a compromise.... Its not perfect, but nothing is...
How about shared industrial standards? -Makes it a lot easier for manufacturers in all these small nations to build parts and pieces that fit internationally... Meet shared expectations for manufacturing, reliability, etc....
Shared environmental standards? -Makes it easier to regulate toxins in your local environment when you have a say in your neighbors out-lets...
-And fishing too.... Dont let one nation scoop up all the fish.... etc...
Standards are great, and EU is as good a body as any to enforce those standards, so we dont waste resources having different sized nuts and bolts....
Its so wastefull for every country to do everything parallel to each other... Better to pool our resources and build a "bigger rocket"...?
-That being said, I'm not for dismantling our nations just yet... We could slow down or stop the expansion and growth of EU-power for all I care....
We need a system of cooperation, not a system of absolute power!
The best argument I've herd is that Europe goes a bit mental whenever we disengage from it. I wish I could remember the examples the guy gave me.
We finally left the EU a few years ago, freeing up vast sums of money to spend on our own people, and then we promptly bankrupted ourselves by wildly overreacting to a nasty flu.
I don't know why people in the comments see progress towards a "unified world government" as a good thing. What a terrifying and horrible idea.
Agreed.
Perhaps, under some other terms, a world government could be beneficial, but the current manifestations of the EU and in my view, the US Federal government, do not recommend macro-governments. I think large governments should happen, if at all, at a slow rate that reflects the genuine aspirations and needs of the people, not the needs of large corporations, bureaucrats, and even secret governments.
Because there are global problems (of any kind: hunger, peace, environmental issues). It's easier to deal with them, if you can get everyone involved.
Something like reducing the CO2 Emissions would work so much easier, if you can force it top down on everyone. Otherwise every nation can think: "They don't do it, why should we?"
Not all problems are of the same scale. There are communal, regional, national and international problems. Tackling those different kinds of problems requires different levels of government. I don't think getting rid of governments on the levels they are at currently would be a good idea, but adding a layer up top which deals with international problems doesn't strike me as a terrible idea. This layer must not be allowed to control the lower levels, but it must influence them to pass its own laws. Getting the balance between total control and the inability to govern right is the difficult part. Currently the EU government deals with tons of things they shouldn't stick their noses into. Bicycle lanes in some Italian remote farmland with less than a dozen human inhabitants are not worthy of European funds. Helping less developed countries to raise their level of education however is.
EACPentrit then you have under goverments who take care of regional qestions
Could you name one of these stupid troublesome laws that we were saddled with?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
I love your military videos, but your political videos are much weaker in my opinion. Let's look at the trade-deal argument for instance.
Trade-blocks are not as simple as just two countries agreeing they want to trade. They have to agree about all sorts of standards for goods and services, legal questions, etcetera. I am for instance glad there are standards and there is control for the food I eat. However, if I'm a food producer who wants to sell in multiple countries, I wouldn't want to jump through hoops for all of them. If the British government checked my food and approved it, I'd want to be able to sell it in Germany and vice versa. That requires very long complex treaties (because what will these shared standards be?), which are much more efficient (and democratic) in a central bureaucracy like the EU.
Of course you don't have to be in the EU to become part. You could also just ask the EU if you could join. However, what do you think they'll do with your request? They'd like the UK in, sure, but the UK would benefit more than the EU would. Therefore, the EU would force the UK to comply with EU standards without having any say in them, and likely make them pay money for the right to profit from this central bureaucracy too.
The EU doesn't only help trade within it, but also outside it. Sure, the UK is pretty big, but it is for instance completely outclassed by the US or China. They could just walz over the UK. Nobody can walz over the EU. If the EU speaks, the world listens. Nobody can afford to piss them off too much, meaning they can get much better deals.
The EU is also tremendously helpful for international cooperation. Environmental standards for instance. This is typically an area that suffers strongly from the 'tragedy of the commons', where nobody does anything because others won't do it either. However, with the EU, cooperation suddenly becomes much easier. Natura 2000 for instance shows that this can be tremendously effective.
There are many more arguments (and feel free to ask me about them, or criticise me), but this alone is enough reason for me to believe that the Brexit was incredibly stupid.
Written by civil servants for MPs to use when confronted by 'umpty leaver constituents.
Lies throughout, as only to be expected from Whitehall..
@@wuffothewonderdog what are you wittering about? We're seeing right now how the UK Government is having to concede all its claimed red lines regarding food standards and the NHS in its meek grovelling for a US trade deal, which despite Trump's farcical claims about the EU is itself one enormous federation. We reap what we sow.
TOO LONG DIDNT READ LOL
@@ThreatFromAbovee Struggle with words longer than two syllables, too?
Yawn...you finished yet? Wrong platform, friend.
Comments on youtube should be concise.
The main point of being in the EU is to get other countries in Europe to do what you want them to, in exchange for you doing what they want. Being in the EEA only gets the bad part of that deal, since you have to do what the others want you to do, but you don’t get any right to decide what the others have to do.
The point about the same being able to be achieved with treaties is moot, since the EU really is just a massive treaty.
The main thing the EU gave the UK with this arrangement was the chance to house a large part of the European financial and professional services industry, and the right to tax these. This has contributed hugely to the British economy, much more than the rather minor net contributions that the UK was asked to cough up for its membership. But of course you Brexit types don’t appreciate this, because “screw the bankers”, even as they propping up the economy of your failing post-industrial provincial towns.
Yeah you can fuck off with the snooty "failing post-industrial provincial towns". Funny how faced with that kind of self-satisfied bollocks we quite easy to tell remainers to stuff it. We'll be alright.
The EU is a pan-European political project, not "just a massive treaty". We have had enough of it.
@@Caroleonus That's a lot of words for "Fuck off, I don't have any arguments".
You are correct about being in the EEA being worse than in the EU. I think most brexiteers would agree with that. The EU should recognise our financial services the same way they recognise the Americans. They haven’t done this, though we have a massive bargaining chip with the vaccines, our government is too incompetent to use it.
@@ldnstan2454 Not too incompetent, just too British. Beating the EU over the head with any advantage we get that hurts the poor saps who happen to live in the EU, but not the political bureaucratic muppets causing all the trouble just isn't cricket... Which is I think was the one argument for being in the EU - the improvement of our fellow man, which in turn might benefit you. Just a shame the EU is so terribly run its more a con-job than actually doing what it set out to do (plus nobody but the Brits ever really followed the damn rules that are supposed to make things better for everyone, or considered anything but their own immediate gain when using veto etc anyway)...
Fuck the bankers alright, but they won't be fucked either way. The ones that get fucked are the working folk.
Id love lindy to fo another video about reflecting on this now we're not in lol
Lloyd is like a walking caricature of Dunning-Kruger effect.
I think a reason that Britain is in the EU is, to get some influence on the politics within the EU. Let's say; the EU is discussing a law that indirectly affects you or something you like, you would like to have atleast some degree of influence in that matter.
The EEA is not just free trade, you also pay membership fees (like the EU) and you also follow EU laws, but you don't have any influence on those laws.
Yeah, but he's a gammon
Britain has a veto on everything the counsil decides
@@tomatensoup190 Had.
Yes but the UK has agreed with over 90% of EU rules
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker: Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister.
[laughs]
James Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Stephen Andersen Hi Stephen if I may ask where is this from?
it is from the "Yes, Minister" TV series. In my opinion, one of the best shows ever made.
Awesome :) Thank you very much.
+Stephen Andersen LOL
+Stephen Andersen
Damn, I was about write all that when I saw the title of this video.
If Britain isn't part of the European Union I would expect that it would be more subject to the United States national interest.
I'm usually quite fond of your opinions. So I find it very interesting if I see you having a different opinion than me.
The UK is probably the country that profits least from the EU since it has no land borders with any neighbour (except perhaps Ireland but you get the idea). So policing borders and so on is less of an issue. However that doesn't mean there are no benefits.
You often say, the UK could just get any treaty it wants if it benefits both sides. No, it couldn't. Politics don't work this way! You are in a political block exactly because you have greater leverage. You conveniently ignored this fact. The EU would make extensive use of this if the UK wasn't part of it. The EU would still dictate conditions. You want access to the single marked? OK then: Allow free movement and pay membership fees.
Look at Norway or Switzerland. Both are not in the EU and still pay fees while being in the Schengen area. The difference to the UK: They don't have political influence within the EU. In fact Switzerland now is experiencing exactly that. They are basically forced to keep their borders open or risk being excluded from the EU marked.
Here is something else to think about: If you think leaving will emancipate you from the EU's problems, think again. Britain is not an aircraft carrier. It is still very closed and very affected by any decision or event within Europe.
+Nik G this video is 5 nearly 6 years old now. a lot of the eu's intricately planned, grand fuck-ups, hadnt come together quite so momentously as they have now.
+Nik G I love this point. It just proves the fact that the EU forces countries to submit to undemocratic political union and sacrifice of sovereignty by forcing its members to pull up the drawbridge to trade on states that don't comply.
This is ofcourse after they unify all the members states under the idea of free trade.
This is the only REAL reason to be inside the EU.
Ofcourse whether or not all of the EU member states would gladly turn their backs on trade with the financial capital of the world is where this arguement falls down.
+Nik G Still better off out than in, if the EU will impose trade tarriffs then simply go somewhere else.
Analogy:If ASDA charged you £40 to enter their stores you would go somewhere else.
Andrew Doyle
If the stores were the only ones in your vicinity, you would not have a choice.
+Nik G but in this analogy and in actuality, the stores are not. Trade routes between US and the UK, China and the UK and India and the UK increase. Europe imports more than it exports, they need us more than we need them.
Watching his excellent episode on medieval rivers, you see him discussing the vast number of tolls and regulations at the time that made long-distance trade almost impossible for any merchants and entrepreneurs. And for a moment, you can see him pause and stare, as though wondering: "wait, could it be that is what the EU is all about?"
Don’t you think Britain and the continent can have free trade agreements without the need for a giant, undemocratic superstate with its own courts and, quite possibly soon, its own army?
@@trevorkiefer6433 undemocratic? If I recall, the UK chose to join and the MEPs are elected.
@@jeremyc4811 Hurr durr, they had elections in the USSR and Communist China too, does that make them Democratic? MEPs are intentionally all but powerless, totally unable to do basic things that all legislators elsewhere can do (like propose laws), they are literally just a rubber stamp chamber with effectively no power. The EU was intentionally designed to provide little to no actual democratic accountability.
As an ex-Brit now Canadian. Looking from the outside now that Brexit has happened it does not seem that the UK IS better off. Actually it looks to me as if the UK will break up. How does that make things better or evem
you don't think it was better that Britain was able to act independently from the EU vaccine procurement process and not get caught up in their internal politics surrounding it?
If the UK is to break up or not, that doesn't have much to do with our membership of a pan-European project
I'm yet to hear a coherent argument against EU membership for the UK. People mention immigration, however only 36% of immigrants in the UK are from EU countries, they are mostly from countries the UK once colonised such as India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. People mention the membership fees, however other members pay the same fees (relative to size) and manage to whinge less (that would not be hard). People mention laws, like our parliaments, both devolved and Westminster are truly shit at this. Why give them more power? No matter what you mention.. There's an argument for an against it, however if the UK left the EU and was unable to obtain a free trade agreement, the UK economy would collapse. Taking with it other nations inside and outside the EU.
Ian Immigration from other countries like India is controlled, so the immigrants bring a net benefit to the country. Leaving the EU would just stop open immigration, which is putting pressure on our housing/healthcare. We would still be able to accept European immigrants who come with valuable skills.
'Other members pay the same fees and manage to whinge less'.
Well, good for them, but I think most of us would rather spend that money on people in our country, rather than on an organisation that brings us little benefit.
Why would you rather politicians in Brussels, who don't care about us at all, have power over our laws, instead of our own politicians in Westminster? Agreed, a lot of Westminster politicians are disconnected from the rest of society, but politicians in Brussels are even more disconnected!
Europe benefits a lot more from the current free trade agreement than we do, so they will certainly accept an agreement if we leave the EU. No question about it.
Why would I rather have politicians in Brussels have power over our laws? hmmm I guess it has something to do with the shitness of the politicians we have locally.. research Northern Irish politics and tell me if you think they're fit to blow their own noses never mind run a devolved government.
Yes, some local politicians are awful, but politicians in Brussels are probably worse. A lot of them are a lot more corrupt and war-mongering.
I think the EU has been very successful in creating a righteous, 'good' image, through marketing, but it's just made of politicians after all.
+Ian The existence of regional governments in places like Northern Ireland is exactly what the EU wants, so that nation states like the UK are obsolete - it's one of the reasons why the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales are so keen on the EU. That's the whole rationale behind federalism - what you seem to suggest seems to be a European unitary state.
I'm not suggesting any sort of superstate this is what 99% of eurosceptics think.. They say things like "75% of our laws come from the EU" and my response to that is our government in Northern Ireland isn't doing too fab with what they get out of the other 25%. I really honestly don't feel like there is anything to be bothered by in regards to a "superstate" because it just means you live in a country with more people and land...
I am Polish. I have a somewhat different view on wars. For me the EU is primary, so there would not be a next war in Europe. So far it works.
For a Polish person it probably also helps that the EU probably at least slows down the descent into authoritarianism in Poland, and that it earns Poland a shitton of money ;).
(Dutch person here who strongly supports the EU)
wiet111 Stability is one concern. Yet we are in a democracy and the EU will not help us, if we (as 50% of votes) decide to do something very stupid.
War is for me a major concern. So far it works. Before the EU, there was a major arms conflict every generation. There was no generation, that knew no war. I am in the second polish generation, that knows no war. Sadly some want to change that. Yet EU gives hope, as peace is in the EU so far more profitable than war.
Although I disagree with the EU I do agree that Poland needs help since the fall of the Soviets.
I was under the impression that for this reason, most European countries are members of NATO. The EU is not a military alliance. And of course one could even have a European (read anti-Russian) military alliance without the EU (or at least without the bureaucratic colossus that the EU is today).
00Trademark00 Peace is not there, because one has bigger guns, but because it is better to have peace, than war. Cultural exchange, business are the main reasons there is no war in Europe. That is, since the union is there. I agree with you, the EU has become somewhat too bureaucratic, yet I need it for my safety. I do not want a next military conflict taking in Europe.
If only the world was so logical. Our politicians are not so interested in adopted everything positive from the EU and trade certainly isn't as easy as it once was.
I also think that we're not alone on this planet and so thinking of how the EU benefits Britain and not how Britain benefits the EU seems self centred. We don't flourish by being focused so soley on ourselves, when others rise we can too.
I was in Germany when Brexit passed. (I'm a Yank btw) All the Germans wanted to know what we thought. I supported it. They all said something to the effect of, "Well, now Britain will have to negotiate x number of individual trade deals!" To which I replied, "And they will. It isn't that difficult for a country who controlled the world economy for centuries to negotiate a handful of trade deals." As you might imagine, I wasn't popular with the Germans on that trip.
The political class of this country has degraded substantially since the centuries when Britain was predominant, and is no longer capable of handling such negotiations as well as we would like. God only knows if this can be rectified.
@@venmis137 Yeah. We have a similar problem. Our entire government is run by people who think men can breastfeed. No wonder WWIII is starting. We are weak.
Well, as it turns out, you guys were in for the lorry drivers. Now you know for sure.
I really would be happier without Britain in the EU. Concretely I think it was a mistake to let the UK join in first place...
You are correct
I would be happier if aids could be cured with antibiotics, back to the sixties... you have strange empirebuilding dreams for a single human being to cherish.
Agreed, the faster that laughingstock of a country fucks off the better. Good riddance.
@@seybertooth9282 and as a cream on top, their little rotten "empire" will disintegrate soon, with Scotland and Ireland going away
Regardless of politics. Saying the British Isle isn't in Europe is like saying Japan isn't in Asia.
The insurmountable problem with Britain staying in the EU is that it took a very different lesson from World War 2 than most continental European nations did. For the British, it was their distance to Europe that saved them from nazi defeat and domination. For continental countries, on the other hand, it was the lack of political unity that got them defeated. So while Britain has always sought to maintain that isolation, the continent has concluded that closer integration was required to meet threats - be they political, military, or economical - from inside or outside.
That explains how, while everyone agrees that a *lot* could be approved about the EU, most of those countries would not consider leaving it. We have had peace in most of Europe for over seventy years now, and the EU must take some credit for that - and that is a real benefit. This isn't only about whether we get as much out as we put in this year. It is about preventing that we're annihilated by some power block because we failed to organize ourselves.
The tragedy is that it could be something great, but the same petty squabbles that the EU was meant to prevent now threaten to become its greatest obstacle in trying to reform. Britain's half-hearted entry, its perennial negotiations for opt-outs and its different legal system have been problems for the EU from the beginning, and both are probably better off separated.
Please remember that in WWI and WWII Britain attacked Germany, not other way around. Britain could have remained out of both world wars and Germany would never come West. German ambition has always been to the East.
And one man dragged Britain though both world wars - Winston Churchill! He was Secretary of the Admiralty during WWI and after the cabinet meeting in which it was decided that perhaps, given the German incursion into Belgium it might be necessary to declare war on Germany, Churchill went straight back to his office and sent a message to all ships to start shooting Germans. If he hadn't, chances are wiser heads would have said, wait a minute, let's think about this before we start something we will regret, maybe give the Kaiser a few days to reconsider. But no, Churchill started the shooting as soon as he could.
And in WWII Churchill espoused the policy of German unconditional surrender which dragged the war on for years longer than necessary.
I think perhapse you need to re vist history a bit, Extra Credits did a fair (and nice 10 min bite sized chunks) review on the start or WWI, which ultimatly lead to WWII. and frankly considering the henius crimes that the upper echlons of Hitlers regime ended up perpetrating. The thought of any of them being allowed to get away with those crimes because of surrender clauses... nope I would begrudgingly give my own life to stop that. some things cannot stand.
Continental countries didn't get defeated because of lack of political unity. If Hitler's Germany had won, Europe would be politically united.
Many European countries now are being economically exploited due to political unity.
WW2 started due to a mix of conflicts, ambitions and disproportion of powers. Which is always reason of wars. And please spare me that total bullshit "EU takes some credit for lack of war during last 70 years in Europe". EU as a name for several orgnizations was created in 1993, and as a organization was created in 2009. So what are you talking about? Really, really, do you think if EU wasn't created there would be a war in Europe just for this fact? You can't be that stupid. There was no war in Europe for 70 years because: Germany was occupied, NATO was created. Just it.
And there are no problems for EU with Britain's legal differences. Apart from issuing despotic power on Britain.
How much bullshit do EU-enthusiasts say is shocking. That is simply dangerous. How they confuse military power of NATO with EU. And "if not for EU there would be a war". What next? If not for EU, we would get attacked by aliens?
You think I'm joking. No way. These are ideas of Juncker nad Wałęsa. EU's authorities.
@@_Mentat are you an actual nazi? Ever heard of operation sea lion? The nazis were fully prepared to invade Britain. Britain were not agressors. Stop spewing lies, nazi.
How’s brexit going for you now buddy?!
International relations and international perception of Britain have noticeably gone down in the last few years :/
I believe in a time where democracy is receding, democracies should be working together, not bickering. We'd all love to receive a lot of money and contribute as little as possible, but working together means making compromises.
I do wish that money went to better things, though.
I remember when Spain was the poor man of Europe. The EU brought us all much closer to equality. This "but what's in it for ME?" attitude is Trumpian AF.
He may as well be asking why Wales is in the UK. It takes out more than it pays in, so perhaps the rest of the UK should file for divorce?
Why stop there? Maybe Lloyd and his middle-class family should just stop paying tax altogether. After all, they've probably been forking out far more than they get back for generations.
What a knob.
So that the fishermen who don't want to be in the EU can sell the fish they catch to countries in the EU whilst the catch is still fresh enough to sell?
We need the EU to compete with the American and Chinese markets.
Hi Lindy, I fully appreciate that it's been almost ten years since you've posted this video, I'm just wondering (given the current Brexit situation) if you've changed your opinions on this matter? Given that entry to the EEC appears to be "out" (as Dame Thatcher put it), the UK's commitiments to the GFA and the impact Brexit will have on this, and that, if the UK "hard Brexits" (looking increasingly likely), that you will have to trade with the world on WTO terms, and if you don't place a border in Northern Ireland, you'll be in breach of the "most favoured nation" rule (and if you do, you'll be in breach of the GFA).
I appreciate it's been a year since that comment, have you changed your own opinions on the matter? Since we don't have to trade on WTO terms - we have a deal - and we definitely seem to have benefited from being on the outside of the EU vaccine debacle?
@@Caroleonus My views haven't changed, the Conservative government signed an agreement at the eleventh hour that effectively put a border down the Irish sea; this has secured the GFA, but was exactly what the UK government had railed against for the previous three or so years! And in recent times, have even breached that as it appears to be unworkable.
The UK is in a very bad place politically at the moment.
Regarding the roll out of vaccines, yes, the UK was fast and effective doing this (credit where credit is due!), but their response to the pandemic wasn't exactly stellar. Also, I understand that while a large percentage of the UK have had their first 'jab' of the vaccine, the UK government may have trouble securing the second jabs for everyone in time (I really hope this isn't the case, the world will be the better as soon as everyone is vaccinated; virus' don't respect borders!
I'm in Illinois. What does Illinois get out of being part of the US? Surely we'd be just as well off independent.
I hope that sounds silly, because it's supposed to.
The benefits are difficult to list up, but they are there and they are enormous.
Everybody in the comments are insulting him, although it is difficult for people to provide answers beyond what he has already laid out.
hasn't the UK gained political influence because of the EU?
No, rather they have lost political influence. UK once was a superpower, now they are not
Well, to be fair they'd lost most of that superpower status well before the EU's advent. Depending which date you take for the founding of the EU, thirty to fifty years before it.
@@VladPolarexplorer their empire was already crumbling after the heavy costs of WWII. Also it wasn't the EU stripping power from Britain but the US. Most famously the Suez-Canal-Crisis or frances and britains control of the middle east.
@@VladPolarexplorer We lost our Empire and most of our superpower status long before we joined the EU, or don't you read history? We may not even be a United Kingdom by the time this lot have finished trashing the place.
@@tomatensoup190
Exactly this.
The EU was once the new lens of British influence following the decline of Empire.
Ok let's put it this way: Membership in the Efta still comes with a membership fee and on that one you get nothing back, membership in the Efta still means abiding to most EU legislation but without being able to influence it and membership in the Efta still means to accept free movement of EU citizens into your country (including picking up work and residence there).
I could go on and bring facts on economic benefits that are based on the EU being more than just a free trade zone but frankly what you did was essentially presenting an example of the same hot air argument as you accuse people on the immigration topic.
The EU is a complicated issue neither a 10 min video nor a YT comment leave enough space to discuss the pros and cons of membership compared to various other options.
Free trade is the return for the EFTA. Even so we don't have to stay in the EFTA either if we don't want.
Lindy asked why Britin is in EU.
You wrote a 3 paragraph post about: you know why but you won't say; YT comments are to short; accused Lindy of "hot air argument".
I'm not gonna say I'm surprised. That's exactly what I expected.
I am usually very pro-EU. Yet Britain has always been a special case since becoming a member. From what I gathered Britain got in there wanting to benefit from the trade agreements and other economic benefits. And seeing as how they are not in the Schengen area and still have the pound and what not, they lost way less sovereingty then others. But in purely domestic economy the EU doesn't help Britain that much and thus if you keep to that perspective, Britain is wise to leave despite the possible temporary backdrop. Yet the Brexit debaters used either straight up lies or emotional arguments to get out of the EU and won. So their strategy worked but why, if it is good to leave, didn't they use facts that backed that up? Sure Britain gives money to the EU, The Netherlands does as well and gets similarily little in return when it comes to financial support. However I see that as a kind of membership fee for the other benefits which I will now try to list:
-Ever tried planning a holiday in China? I'd be surprised if you got all the paper work done within a month. Also paperwork is modern hell. Yet if I like it I can stuff my backpack and go to Spain with only money and my ID. No preparations needed except if you go by plane for then you need to buy your ticket.
-The EU is a strong help for peace within the EU, and if ennemies see the EU as one unified force they would be less likely to attack. I am not saying that the Brexit is a threat to peace but a total dissolution of the EU would be.
-I am not sure what troublesome laws you are talking about but if Britain wants to trade with the EU as a member or as an independant party, all EU product laws will still have to be upheld for all trades anyway.
-Europol, although I haven't read up on Europol's strudture and achievements and I am not even sure Britain contributes to Europol. But without it any criminal escaping the country where he committed his crime would be way harder to catch then nowadays.
-Cooperation between members can allow for better management for things like immigration, larger and more ambitious projects and possibly better tolerance between european cultures.
Again I am biased in this because I really want the EU to work and I will not deny that it doesn't have it's issues (most of them in the political structure). And although I do speculate a bit in my list of why the EU is good, I do think my arguments make more sense then what I heard from the Brexit debaters.
I'm going to give NATO, not the EU, credit for no war in Europe.
@@jayteegamble NATO is for defense against external threats. EU is for keeping the peace between European countries. One big reason for that is the shared economy (with the euro and whatnot)
The EU 27 accounted for 48% of UK exports of goods, and 8% of GDP in 2017, not to mention most of our standards and other trade agreements globally. Not to worry, if it goes as well as our Covid measures I'm sure it'll be all right in the end. At least according to our non-dom billionaire owned, tax-avoiding 'media'.
Well said, Vincent. Thank you for putting many of my thoughts into words.
@@ld8341 yep, and while there are other countries to trade with, most 1st world non EU countries are a long way from Britain, raising cost of transporting goods
We need follow up videos for these now
i dunno, why is scotland in the UK?
because it is physically attached to britain
fiemalin hruma Because of history...
checkmate.
Why is London part of England? Don't be stupid.
ask lindy, just running on his logic
As a Swede, I am sad to see you leave the EU. You were our closest allies when it came to economic policies, and without you there will be little we can do, being a quite small country, to stop the protectionistic urges of the French and the German. But neither can we leave, not getting the short end of the stick when negotiating trade deals will be hard enough for England, and would be impossible for Sweden. We only have ~10 million inhabitants and even though our GDP/capita is amongst the absolute top in the world, we don't have the economic muscle to negotiate on anything near equal terms with most countries. Hell, half (if not more) of the inhabitants of the world live in countries with 150+ million inhabitants!
I don't know if you English know this, but you are a very popular country in Sweden, we've never been at war, and traded extensively for hundreds of years!
I really do hope the trade works out for you, and that the French and German don't screw you over out of spite.
whenever somebody says "im a swede" my brain does two things
1.II read it in a wildly inaccurate accent, the one done by the Nords in Skyrim or the danish in south park
2. I think "heh, he's a turnip"
I'm not sorry, I just wanted you to know
+TheLittleApocalypse
Maybe we should start calling ourselves Swedishmen or something. Proclaiming one self to be a turnip every time one tries to state nationality is a bit preposterous. Or we could start using the provincial names, if it's okay for a Britton to call himself a scot or a welsh then a swede could surly call himself an ostrogeat, gothlandian or sweonian. Sweden was only united a thousand years ago after all.
"only united a thousand years ago"
England is turning 950 this year too, if memory serves the kings of Uppsala ruled until 1060, if you take that as the point of formation then sweden is 956 this year
I imagine some viking guy visiting his brother who lives in normandy and gloating about creating a country, the brother would be like "I can do it too, holdeth my mead"
that is my theory about the norman invasion of britton
9 years before the Chaos...
All i can say is that we (Germans) don't miss you as much as we thought.
What about you?
Congrats, Lloyd! You have foresaw the future! Now, I believe there is a need for follow up video - to predict what will happen with UK in 10 years time
independent Scotland, Northern Ireland returned to Ireland, the UK of England and Wales becomes and American puppet
@@Jeyeyeyey an independent Northumbria and an independent Wales.
We are going to become Cornwall, Mercia, Wessex, Sussex, east Anglia, and Northumbria,
Let's see... the advantages of being in the EU for the UK.
None.
-------------------
The advantages for other nations being in the EU
the UK.
-------------------
Since the UK is gone from the EU there is no point in keeping the EU together now since
more countries are planning on leaving it.
I would think a primary argument is that Britain is invested in the prosperity of Europe by its proximity to the rest of Europe. Every country in the EU stands to benefit from a geopolitically and economically stable Europe in the long run.
It also gives European interests more leverage on the global stage because it allows Europe to act in unison. If not for that then the squabbling interests of individual European nations would be more easily exploited by foreign interests such as the interests of America, Russia, China, or maybe OPEC.
Some laws will be enacted that don't benefit a few nations and some nations will have to pay in more than others, but it should all pay off in the end, but admittedly in ways that are hard to discern.
+SpazzyMcGee1337
Britain is far more invested in the Commonwealth, because Britain is not just a nation in proximity to Europe, Britain is also a nation of the seas. It is why we have far more trade interests abroad in Malaysia, India, North America, Brazil, Australia, China, - with vastly growing economies full of potential that we can't fully realize because being a part of the EU deprives us of our ability to negotiate independent deals, even being forced to give up our seat on the World Trade Organization.
In return we get Germany trying to control our currency? Yay?
Likewise if you want to see foreign manipulation of the EU, in order to manipulate the EU all you need to do is corrupt the unelected Commission, you don't even need to provide receipts for your expenses. One need only see Putin funding Greens within the EU in order to promote a reliance on Russian gas before he annexed the Crimea, and to see the EU so dumbfoundedly believing that Russia would not go to war - to see how incompetent they are on the world stage.
If this pays off, how? It really only pays off for Germany, already the richest nation in Europe.
+John Merces There are a couple of problems with your comments,
1. We are not far more invested in the commonwealth. Our top trading partners are mostly in Europe, with the US and China being two exceptions to the rule. Using numbers from 2014, because i can't seem to find anything more recent, we import more from the Netherlands than we do China or the USA for example.
2. While we cannot negotiate independently regarding free trade deals, for obvious reasons, we do negotiate collectively which gives us far more power in said negotiations.
Because a collective bloc of 500 million people with the worlds largest economy gives us more say at the table than a single country of 65 million people and the worlds 5th largest economy. Particularly in concerns to larger nations - the US, China and India for example whom tend to have a habit of aggressive push of their own interests.
3. Germany isn't trying to control our currency, we've had an opt-out with the ability to keep the pound for a long time.
4. As for your "foreign manipulation of the EU", your examples fundamentally misunderstand the situation.
No one on the official establishments - not the USA, not Ukraine, not the UK or really anyone - foresaw the actions Russia would take that it did. It was a post-Cold War complacency that really can't be tied to the EU. Particularly given it's role in external security has been somewhat limited until very very recently.
Jock Duff
1. The Netherlands statistic is a result of the Rotterdam effect, Rotterdam is one of the busiest ports in the world - a lot of our imports from the rest of the world stop off in Rotterdam and are marked as coming from the Netherlands for ease of last country collection statistics. A similar case would be Europe getting their bananas from Ireland - in reality they come from South America, but stop off in Ireland before being exported to the rest of Europe. The majority of our exports go to the rest of the world and our imports give us leverage.
2. We don't do any negotiations collectively, the negotiations are made on our behalf and we have no power to force negotiators to even take us into account. Which is why we continue to do our independent negotiations in the first place (even if we shouldn't be by EU rules, ha), even with the EU making things harder for us to do so independently. Simply put we cannot use France or Germany as leverage to negotiate with anyone, Germany is using our wealth as leverage to negotiate for themselves.
3. Germany failing to take control of our currency is not the same as Germany trying to take control of our currency. They are, they wanted us to join the EER, they wanted us to join the Euro, and they still do.
4. "No one?" Russia's actions were predictable, and they were predicted by everyone who noticed Russia moving to take key bridges, the Eastern Europeans asking the Americans to not refocus on Eastern Asia, Russia stocking up their Forex reserves and the very simple fact that Russia themselves said they would not accept the EU enlarging themselves into Russia's civilization. The only people I could find that genuinely believed Russia would not respond militarily were the EU who commissioned a report saying that Russia would not invade because they were a "democracy." That's either crippling naivety or stupidity at work, all the signs were there and they were either to high in their chairs to see or they had put their heads deliberately in the sand. When Georgia threatened Russia's strategic security, Russia invaded. How the EU thought this would be different with Ukraine, I do not know. Maybe they knew and didn't care, figuring they would be able to use the war as justification to build a common military, they did try to do that but it never caught on. That is lethally poor judgement.
Literally half a decade prior French ministers were warning the USA that expanding NATO membership to Ukraine would be an unnecessary provocation to Russia, and then the EU gives Ukraine a membership plan for itself. They knew all too well - Germany was one such nation to warn the US that NATO membership would result in war for Ukraine. Seems Germany is fine to have Ukraine in the German sphere, but not American.
+John Merces This is bullshit. You should be ashamed for even trying to get away with it. So the refugees are from France, right? Because that is where they want to enter the UK from. LOL!!!! ALL imports and exports are logged to and from the point of origin. The EU is the UKs biggest export market and that will not change. If it does then the UK is fucked. So the UK leaves the EU and has to negotiate new trade rules with a much bigger and more powerful partner (the EU) and will be forced into accepting pretty much all of the rules anyway (just like Norway) - but now the UK does not get to decide any of those rules - we are out and simply have to either accept the rules or not do the deal. To answer the original question from the poster (again) I will say this: Being part of the EU means being part of the decision-making process within our most important economic market... If you don't see that, you are stupid imho!
Rigsby Rigged
No they are from all across the world and must pass through at least four safe countries in order to reach the UK, when you deliberately pass through safe countries in order to reach the ones offering the most benefits you are not a refugee, because you have just fled from multiple safe countries. They are in France - no one is going to kill them there. So what are they fleeing from in France?
Likewise imports and exports are not all logged from point of origin, they are logged from last port of call, otherwise almost every manufactured good we have would be logged as coming from China. In a globalized economy keeping track of where everything comes from especially with multiple components from multiple assembly lines from multiple countries would be a bureaucratic nightmare, so the stats are just logged by port of last call.
The international market already makes up the majority of British exports and the amount we export to the EU cannot keep pace with growing economies like that of MINT or BRIC. It already changed 10 years ago, this is not new news. Perhaps what you mean is that our imports will mostly all come from the EU, in which case we will control our own tariff rates and be able to set EU import tariffs to zero ourselves, or simply buy from overseas from the USA or BRIC or the Commonwealth.
We already negotiate our own trade deals and have preexisting trade deals with European states and international ones, just last year we negotiated for ourselves a trade deal with China. Heck, Iceland with a population of 300,000 people has negotiated its own trade deals with the likes of the EU and China. They have 300,000 people, we are the 5th largest economy on the planet. I think we'll manage :P
On the topic of Norway their government signed their country up for the Schengen Area even though their people voted to stay out of the EU. The UK is not even in the Schengen Area, though they are not in the EU we already follow less EU legislation than Norway. Likewise if you believe the UK being a part of the decision making process holds any water when our Prime Minister tried to stop Juncker being chosen President of the Commission he failed, we hold no legislative or veto powers, and our Prime Minister has just come back from Brussels with no reforms at all. All we got was a promise to "talk about British concerns for 5 years" with no legal backing. By being a part of the EU we lose decision making power over our own country and the EU gains decision making power over it.
Our country is unique in being the financial capital of the world, Europe is important but its stagnant growth amidst the eurozone crisis just cannot compare with the fast-developing nations like China, Brazil, Australia, the USA, Nigeria or India. Rather than have Germany leverage our power for her financial gain, I would rather we fully utilize it for our trading partners and our benefit. If you don't see that I shan't call you stupid, we have all come to our different conclusions the same way :)
When you wish upon a star.
The advantage to being part of a larger group is that groups hold more power than individuals. It's why unions exist. The bargaining leverage of a single worker is pretty small, but the collective bargaining power of a couple thousand workers is significantly larger than each of those workers would hold individually.
It works the same with countries.
By being a part of the EU, and giving up a measure of sovereignty to the EU, Britain, or any other country, becomes part of a really powerful trading block. If Austria and Britain and Belgium each tried to make a deal with a larger economy, like the US, the US would get to dictate a lot more of the terms; their economy is larger, thereby making a deal between Austria and the US a lot more important for Austria than for the US, and the same with Britain and the US and also with Belgium and the US. But if all three of them say "Right, if you want to cut a deal, we *all* have to like it", the US loses a lot of power at the negotiating table, since their combined economy is significantly more important to the US than any one of their markets individually.
Furthermore, being a part of a large bloc like the EU means that all members are expected to act in unison with regard to at least a few things, meaning the enforcement of standards. This is *good*. It's why we have IUPAC, instead of each country deciding to do their own little thing with their chemistry. Imagine, if you wanted to transport some chemicals from Britain to Germany, and you hopped on a plane with your British labels. The German customs officer looks at your chemicals, which have all the required British warning labels and says "Um... what the heck is this?" And you have to take the time to then explain everything you're carrying, what hazards it has, and what each of those funny little symbols mean. Then he has to go and get a great whopping book, or look up your chemical in the database, and tell you all the restrictions that apply to transporting this chemical around in Germany. Now imagine that a standard is enforced, and you hop off the plane, the officer can see all the warning labels and *understand them*, and lets you on your merry way, because the same restrictions apply to transporting that chemical in Germany as it does in Britain. It saves a lot of hassle, and hassle takes time, the time a customs officer is occupied has to be paid for with money, money paid for by taxpayers. So by standardizing things, as a large trading bloc tend to do, taxpayers end up saving some money there.
Being part of a trade bloc like the EU also grants Britain more power over other nations in that bloc. If they don't like what Luxembourg is doing, they say in the EU parliament "Hey! We should stop Luxembourg doing that thing we don't like!" And if the rest of the EU agrees, Luxembourg has to do it, because they don't want to be punished with sanctions by the whole union, which holds a lot more power than sanctions by any one member of the union.
Ergo, by coordinating more closely with other countries in a large trading bloc like the EU, Britain is able to participate in more coordinated efforts, efforts that grant it more political sway internationally, work more effectively with it's neighbors, and hold more influence with other members of the trading bloc. There are prices to pay for power, but collective bargaining and coordinated effort can be well worth the price.
Provided nobody passes Article 13.
The collapsing economy, ruin of exporters, and problems with import are showing why we were in the EU.
Can't agree with Lindy on this he's deluded here.
He is a larper, his whole channel is dedicated to him buying the British propaganda he was raised on and trying to live in it. He dreams of longbowmen, english soldiers in khaki, English fleets controling the seas and forts. Of course he is deluded, his life is based on trying to live in an idealized past where he would have been part of the controlling class of the world, the leaders of "civilization".
Now you are free, go and do what you want. But now Scotland and NI will ask the same question, why we should be in the UK??? My answer to your question is: Europe will stay strong and free only economically and politically united. This is the reason why the UK and all other countries should be there, yes and this is with a price tag. 19th century and colonialism are gone, former European superpowers are gone...
Part 2 is due.
As an American with a French wife, let me tell you some things that are much different for EU and non-EU.
1. Freedom of movement: I've seen a Ferrari with Belgian plates at a Château in the Loire Valley. And a German who marries a French woman can take a job in Ireland and have a summer house in Portugal. It isn't like that for non-EU. Yes, you can negotiate for your car license plates to continue to work, but taking a ferry and driving around Europe could also become a thing of the past. Of course, the money isn't the same, but that was a UK choice. It is the same for the rest of the block. There are two million EU citizens in the UK, and one million UK citizens in the EU. Right now, France can't stop you from buying a cottage in Bretagne. But as an American I have to take French lessons, civics lessons, complete miles of paperwork. Millions of people are about to lose the right to visit family members or their own property whenever they want. That sucks.
2. As an American - and I assure you the US has tried very hard to get these treaties you assume the UK will be able to get and keep. China and the US face the VAT as an import tax and numerous other hurdles. Your passport, license plate, citizenship, etc is valid across all EU countries, plus your business has the right to establish branches, buy property and hire workers from any member in the block. Countries outside the EU have none of those things. I can't take a job in Ireland, because I'm establishing residency in France. If I were an EU citizen I wouldn't have that problem.
3. Leaving the EU, the UK surrenders power to France and Germany. If Texas left the US, California and New York would yield enormous power in the United States and would be free to adopt policies Texas hates. There is a reason Scotland voted to remain in the UK. Even now, the European Union banking authority has selected Paris as its new headquarters. American and Chinese banks and other businesses are located in the UK because they want a branch in the EU and prefer the English language. Now they must either move to the continent, or split their staff.
As a member of a union of states (the USA) let me say that being a member of a block is a huge advantage both in daily life and economically. This isn't going to turn out well. Brexit will be a horrible warning on the dangers of secession. And in a few years I expect Scotland, and later England, to come back hat in hand to regain admission.
So what you're saying, if I have this right, is that the EU is a conceited xenophobe that gives special treatment to its family members and makes life deliberately difficult for Johnny foreigner, yes? So it's better to be in the bully's gang than outside it?
Valve Wizard I'm saying thinking you'll have all the advantages you now have is like thinking the UK will have all the advantages of a US state. Lots of countries want what you have and can't get it unless they are in the EU. Call it whatever you want, but that is how treaties work. The US is never going to give the UK a better deal than California and the EU is never going to give post-Brexit UK a better deal than Germany. Just like the UK gives better treatment to its citizens than it does Chinese people. You are about to lose EU citizenship and be placed on about the same footing as Americans. From my experience I can't recommend it. It is a step down.
This is a somewhat late answer but being in the EEA (which I think you meant instead of EEC) would still involve paying money to the EU so the "saving on membership fees" argument doesn't work very well (though there might be small savings to be had there). Also, that would involve being subject to some EU laws/directives while not being able to vote on them. What about EFTA then? Well, the other members might not be so keen to let the UK in. Also note that 3 EFTA members (Norway, Iceland, & Liechtenstein) are also in the EEA and the remaining member (Switzerland) has a similar set of deals with the EU. Maybe you could get a Switzerland-like deal with the EU? That might be difficult because the EU doesn't want a lot of countries to just start picking only those aspects of membership they want and not the others. Also, even Switzerland pays money to the EU so that again doesn't seem to be the way to go if your main argument against membership is membership fees.
"Please do not give any of the following answers, because I've heard them"
Looks like 3. has changed now, hasn't it?
I'm old enough to remember the trading we did with the British Commonwealth before we joined the Common Market, as it was then. My father was a Refrigeration Engineer on a merchant ship, trading with Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina. Happy days.
Well Lindybeige, did you consider spite to be a possibility in EU countries not trading with us?
... or even if they want to buy GB fish, you can not deliver on time, because you are not in the customunion? :-(
Why would they not trade with you? The UK is a large market.
PS love your channel ,I just grin and bear your political stuff:)
People in a city won't complain when a poorer street that isn't theirs gets a new shiny layer of asphalt, yet when a supra-national organisation gives poorer countries a boost it's a big deal...
Well leaving the EU hasn't really strengthened the British economy so I guess it was quite useful...
Given the amount of pain people are apparently feeling as a result of leaving, it sounds like there are a number of benefits to being a member.
Things that have already happened because of Brexit: Lower purchasing power, jobs moving away, less investment, the knock on effect of the last two on tax income, trade [yes, it is impacting trade, and a ton of stuff is going to have to be negotiated all over again], loss of free movement [what do you mean I have to pay a fee to travel to spain?!?!?!], loss of influence within the EU [and effective transfer of implied power to Germany], a significantly high possibility of a re-vote of the Scottish leave referendum, plus the risk that Ireland will do the same
So far ... doesn't sound like Britain made the right choice.
@@RadicalEdwardStudios As he said, new treaties can be singed if they're needed, as well as new laws, without being in the EU. The European Union is making it as hard as possible for Britain to leave, which is a reason why things are a bit upside down right now. These kinds of things are most likely going to go back to as they where, when the whole BREXIT thing is over. Most EU nations are a bit pissed about Britain's exit, since they did profit from it.
It's like subscribing to something you don't actually need.
@@saunasankari5917 Of course they're making it hard to leave. Why would they make it easy? That's a great way to break up the EU. And yes, treaties can always be signed, but they have to also be negotiated. Kinda like a hotel restaurant having a guest discount, and then people whining that they, not being guests, aren't getting the discount.
@@RadicalEdwardStudios So you're against Brexit, or for Brexit? And if you're against it, why? If new laws and treaties can be signed without having to pay all that money to the EU, why should Britain be in it?
What you're basically saying is that you should take everything you have, give up all the good parts, then spend years re-negotiating those good parts [probably getting deals that aren't as good as they were in the EU, and will basically result in subjecting you to all those things you didn't like, and left over], lose jobs [with cuts already being announced], lose tourism income [and really anything requiring travel in and out of the UK from the EU], have basically no say in the EU anymore, probably lose Scotland and Ireland, spend extra effort matching regulations from the EU [because otherwise, manufacturing will suffer], a massive loss of NHS workforce [which has already started], probably a full year recreating the EU laws that people like/want to keep [if not more], and all that so that you get ... not quite what the politicians told you you would be getting. Every single negotiation outcome is a GDP loss, with the best ones losing the least, and none showing gain. And when you realize what a terrible idea it was, and come crawling back ... all the trade that shifted away from you won't be coming back, because why would they stop their [to be] current trade with countries that /didn't/ leave, just to give a gift to one that did? By all means, the EU does stupid things, but ... you won't be there to vote against them. The vote coming on the 11th will, if it passes, result in you not being in the single market anymore, and you can expect a 4% shrinkage of your economy. If that vote fails, the hit will be over 9%. Only some 12 or 13 percent of you voted to leave. Apathy was the real killer. A significant majority of your population polls for staying, right now. Odds are good that the political fallout from this will be severe, based on the polls so far.
Or to put it more concisely:
"new laws and treaties can be signed without having to pay all that money to the EU"
You'll be struggling to get deals that are a fraction as favorable as what you're giving up, and it'll take years. Your net contribution to the EU was almost £9B in 2016. Your 4% economic shrinkage is worth £112B [no deal could be £270B]. The less favorable deals will hurt trade, jobs, tourism, tax income, your workforce, your people, quality of life, etc etc. What's the gain, again?
Spot on about the lawyers wanting more laws and the rest of us not so much.
The EU is a buffer between the UK and the East. And also because, when you are an empire and you have all the money in the world, you can afford to build a nice neighborhood around your house and pay for your neighbors plastic surgery so they will lighten up your day when you wake up. Or would you rather not expend that money and have all of your European neighboring countries be soviet? You are about to find out.
This video aged hilariously.
Please make a video about how You feel now, about Britan leaving the European Union ;-)
If that will ever happen ...
@@blauespony1013 wassup
I'd say we feel pretty great!
Brexit has happened and it's great!
@@brintabokka1393 Well the Chinese and Russians certainly think so.
@@henghistbluetooth7882 Oh dear, you're a conspiracy theorist aren't you?
I see your arguments, and I think they seem pretty reasonable. I can understand why a lot of brits feel like they don't benefit from the EU.
However, if I'm to be selfish, I have to say that I like it a lot. It allows me to easily move to and start working in Britain. That wouldn't be achieved quite so easily otherwise, so for my own sake, I'm still very happy about the EU atm.
You're happy that the entity that is destroying the UK, allowed you to move to the UK and witness its destruction? That about sum it up? Front row seat for your subjection and mass starvation and the wholesale slaughter. Right on.
Exactly. At least he was honest about it, however. Ha ha.
Yep, well done for him. I think he raises a crucial point about the importance of EU and how it allows easier access to/from different countries and I believe that is the cornerstone for a united world, perhaps we need a better more efficient union, albeit a global one.
destroyin the UK? mate stfu.
I can only speak for scientists, but we get a whole load of cooperation, data sharing, cross-semesters, courses, conferences, funded degrees, research funding etc. I know some folks who just went to EMBL on research projects. That could (will, now) become quite a bit more difficult outside the EU.
Science??? HURR DURR FREEDOM!!! WE GOT OUR NATION BACK!!!
...brexiteers are so retarded
I wish Lloyd rants would come back.
Lindybeige, are you brexit supporter now? Are you sympathise with Scots who want to leave United Kingdom? If not, why?
First thing to mention is this video is 11 years old so his opinion may well be different after the debates.
I suspect he won't answer however as it's a very politically charged question.
I reckon for most the answer comes down to what nationality you consider yourself to belong to.
I consider myself British so I would hate the idea of the prettiest part of my country being taken away.
I don't consider myself European and don't subscribe to the idea that I can't vote to change laws in my country.
If one considers them Scottish they are likely to have a completely different outlook on this matter.
The reverse question would be how would you feel about the Shetland Islands gaining independence? What is Edinburgh decided to go it's own way?
Who should get to decide?
It's tricky.
@@richardschofield2201 A lot of words for "I only care about what I feel benefits me in the short term and don't want to think about alternative solutions"
@@LuizAlexPhoenix would the alternative solution be splitting the UK into two?
I don't really need to consider it to reject that idea.
I guess viewing this ten years after its creation you're about to find out. Being an american, we have our own massive problem, so good luck.
The question no longer matters. Cheers to the British
1) Your logic in the second part of the video presupposes Britain not being in the EU. You can't naively assume that nations won't be offended by the UK quitting the union, now that you are in it. You can't just believe it wouldn't cost a heck of a lot, that it wouldn't involve sanctions against your country because of this etc.
2) You would also lose the option of using your national ID card as a passport for all the union - Lloyd, you are a traveller - has it been easier to travel around, say, in Germany or Hungary than Turkey? Isn't is such a bloody hassle with all those documents instead of having them combined?
3) You, in less than a day's time, with one visit to the office, can get a card that gives you free healtcare in emergency for the time you're on holiday within the EU. I hurt my knee quite a bit while I was in Germany - I just called for a cab, had myself taken to the hospital and with my card had my knee checked. It hasn't ever been easier and cheaper than this.
4) And now my -I believe - strongest argument: Britain is crumbling. There are loads of reasons why this might be, but surely, one cannot act upon one's now non-existent dominion over much of the known world now, in post-colonial times. After WWII, due to much of the loans from the USA and the colonies secluding, this country couldn't just stand on its sovereign own. Britain needs every contract it can sign to stay relevant.
5) Unification of currency, measurement etc. is making life terribly neat and easy and hereby I have two points. One that the EU is bringing over a lof of these improvements, the second one, even if contradictory: and the UK has succeeded in dodging them. What other country has the right of moving so freely in the Union? None. Respect that you already have much greater a field to navigate in that Germany or France.
6) Also, this is a minor point, the immigration people tend to question actually isn't the one coming from the EU, but ouside of it. For all I know, immigration from the EU is fairly bearable and good-quality.
7) Also, don't be stuck-up and stupid; Britain bloody well is in Europe. No one is willing to believe that that wee strip of sea means anything, hell, people even swim across it all the time, it isn't nearly enough to separate you from Europe. But that's the geographic reason, another one being that the culturally unique peoples (picts, celts) of the Island were murdered by European invaders anyways, giving Britain much a European face, language, culture, look etc.
Are these points enough?
***** I posted this 3 months ago. Since that, mainly because I started to focus on British politics with renewed attention for the forthcoming elections, I changed my mind a bit. Peter Hitchens and Farage (even though he's got a couple of things wrong) have convinced me that for any sense of self-governance and to lower the no-borders mass immigration, Britain needs a referendum and from there, it's your decision. That being said, Cameron's 'lead the EU, not leave the EU' policy appeals to me as well. Only problem with that is that Angela thinks differently.
That is what I would do, honestly. Fair choice. It should be a matter of consideration though, that EU-immigrants make Britain ₤5bn, while non-EU migrants cost ₤118bn. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html
@@modestMouseism so still want to leave or did the pound dive enough for you to reconsider?