Brexit matters

[RT4038]

My personal thoughts on joining Schengen (yes, absolutely) aside, it's not actually necessary to fixing the Eurostar mess. Instead, we simply need to return to on-train passport checks, which are perfectly feasible—they were routinely done on the continent pre-Schengen, and indeed on Eurostar in the early days of its operation.

(Of course, the current government won't do this, as juxtaposed controls are a means for the UK to skirt its legal obligations regarding refugees.)

The world has moved on since then, both immigration and train services, and it is no longer 'perfectly feasible' with today's requirements. As has been explained ad nauseum in this section previously.

 

[Wolfie]

I suppose one sticking point would be passport control that would have to be established in any new city that is served.

I have often wondered why Britain has not joined Schengen. Other non EU countries such as Switzerland have. It would also help with the Northern Ireland /Republic of Ireland situation.

If UK felt that signing up to Schengen was incompatible with it's objectives in securing the border/controlling migration while still a member of the EU then there is absolutely no chance that it would do so now that it is left.

My understanding is that Brexit happened due to several factors mostly economic e.g. a sense that the EU had not delivered on promises. The only aspect of Brexit that might have a bearing regarding Schengen was concern over immigration, with Germany opening her borders.

You could not be more wrong.

The world has moved on since then, both immigration and train services, and it is no longer 'perfectly feasible' with today's requirements. As has been explained ad nauseum in this section previously.

Absolutely correct. The trend in migration control worldwide is in exactly the opposite direction.

 

[nw1]

Reversing Brexit is wishful thinking. Each bit of hardship gets overcome and makes reversing Brexit more distant. There can always be a better relationship with the EU (if both sides want), but that doesn't mean rejoining.

(Moved from Sunak thread)

For now, perhaps. But in future I would beg to disagree. Who knows what people might think 10, 15 years down the line? For one thing, the pro-Brexit generation will be a much smaller percentage of the electorate. Younger generations, whose adult lives were largely in the 90s, 00s and 10s and thus more used to free and open travel to continental Europe, might begin to influence politicians more, peeved that they are denied the opportunities of movement and work that all our neighbouring countries to the north, south, east and west of us currently enjoy.

I reckon one of two things will happen. Either we will eventually rejoin, or, alternatively, we will not, but the EU will become restricted to the original core nations, due to internal conflicts resulting in other countries leaving. If there were valid reasons for the UK leaving, then there are valid reasons for other countries to leave, too.

There is nothing (that I understand, at least) which makes the UK different from all other Western and Central European countries (even the countries not currently in the EU appear to have long-term aspirations to join). The "island nation" explanation for the UK wanting to be different can be disproved by Ireland being in the EU and Iceland in Schengen, for example. Said countries are considerably further away and more isolated from mainland Europe than we are; Iceland in particular is way out in the Atlantic and a long, long way from any European mainland. Not just 21 miles and connected by rail, like we are!

So, either way, I don't think the UK will remain the inexplicable "oddity" in Western/Central Europe for ever. Either we will rejoin or others will leave.

 

[REVUpminster]

(Moved from Sunak thread)

For now, perhaps. But in future I would beg to disagree. Who knows what people might think 10, 15 years down the line? For one thing, the pro-Brexit generation will be a much smaller percentage of the electorate. Younger generations, whose adult lives were largely in the 90s, 00s and 10s and thus more used to free and open travel to continental Europe, might begin to influence politicians more, peeved that they are denied the opportunities of movement and work that all our neighbouring countries to the north, south, east and west of us currently enjoy.

I reckon one of two things will happen. Either we will eventually rejoin, or, alternatively, we will not, but the EU will become restricted to the original core nations, due to internal conflicts resulting in other countries leaving. If there were valid reasons for the UK leaving, then there are valid reasons for other countries to leave, too.

There is nothing (that I understand, at least) which makes the UK different from all other Western and Central European countries (even the countries not currently in the EU appear to have long-term aspirations to join). The "island nation" explanation for the UK wanting to be different can be disproved by Ireland being in the EU and Iceland in Schengen, for example. Said countries are considerably further away and more isolated from mainland Europe than we are; Iceland in particular is way out in the Atlantic and a long, long way from any European mainland. Not just 21 miles and connected by rail, like we are!

So, either way, I don't think the UK will remain the inexplicable "oddity" in Western/Central Europe for ever. Either we will rejoin or others will leave.

Countries won't leave the EU while they are receiving money from it. If the UK is an oddity so must Norway be.

 

[Belperpete]

I think that the main oddity with the UK was a concerted push by the right wing press to blame the EU for everything from the shape of bananas and cucumbers upwards, often the government shifting the blame to the EU for things it could have dealt with. But also as one of the major economies, we were one of the major financial contributors. There was always an undercurrent that the cost/benefit ratio of our membership wasn't good enough, which I have never detected in other countries. Most st of the later joiners fought hard to join for the financial benefits it would bring them, and I doubt they will give up those benefits too easily.

 

[nw1]

If the UK is an oddity so must Norway be.

To be fair I was bracketing the EU and Schengen together (see also Iceland). Do that, and the UK is definitely the oddity.

 

[Snow1964]

For now, perhaps. But in future I would beg to disagree. Who knows what people might think 10, 15 years down the line? For one thing, the pro-Brexit generation will be a much smaller percentage of the electorate. Younger generations, whose adult lives were largely in the 90s, 00s and 10s and thus more used to free and open travel to continental Europe, might begin to influence politicians more, peeved that they are denied the opportunities of movement and work that all our neighbouring countries to the north, south, east and west of us currently enjoy.

I reckon one of two things will happen. Either we will eventually rejoin, or, alternatively, we will not

The electorate has already changed by about 5.5m people since Brexit vote. Every year approx 700,000 die, and similar number reach voting age.

In another 10 years and about quarter of the electorate at referendum will have been replaced.

 

[edwin_m]

I reckon one of two things will happen. Either we will eventually rejoin, or, alternatively, we will not, but the EU will become restricted to the original core nations, due to internal conflicts resulting in other countries leaving. If there were valid reasons for the UK leaving, then there are valid reasons for other countries to leave, too.

Interesting thought. I wonder if the EU may adopt the "two speed Europe" idea that crops up from time to time, with the UK and the more recent accession countries in the outer circle. Either due to not wanting to or being deemed not convergent enough, these countries might not be expected to adopt the Euro and some other more controversial EU policies.

 

[Enthusiast]

Interesting thought. I wonder if the EU may adopt the "two speed Europe" idea that crops up from time to time, with the UK and the more recent accession countries in the outer circle.

Why on Earth should the UK want to become entwined - especially under the auspices of the EU whether "two speed" or not - with the nations that are essentially net recipients from the current EU coffers? Those nations would not doubt expect that happy situation to continue with the UK being the only member of their "circle" likely to be able to contribute to their enhanced lifestyles.

Either due to not wanting to or being deemed not convergent enough, these countries might not be expected to adopt the Euro and some other more controversial EU policies.

There is nothing "controversial" about the single currency. In fact, with an organisation so clearly intent on creating a full blown federal European state, it would only be controversial if it was not proposed.

 

[Belperpete]

Why on Earth should the UK want to become entwined - especially under the auspices of the EU whether "two speed" or not - with the nations that are essentially net recipients from the current EU coffers? Those nations would not doubt expect that happy situation to continue with the UK being the only member of their "circle" likely to be able to contribute to their enhanced lifestyles.

I think this is going to be the big sticking point for the UK rejoining. Maggie Thatcher got a big concession from the EU for our payments (the rebate) - I cannot see the EU ever agreeing to that again. We would be paying much higher contributions than last time if we rejoined.

 

[class ep-09]

I think this is going to be the big sticking point for the UK rejoining. Maggie Thatcher got a big concession from the EU for our payments (the rebate) - I cannot see the EU ever agreeing to that again. We would be paying much higher contributions than last time if we rejoined.

Contributions were and would be dwarfed by economic benefits.
How much money government and businesses must spend now on all red tape that wasn’t there while UK was in the EU?
How much money economy lost due to bexit ?
If it is 4% of GDP, most economists say, then UK lost 120 billion USD (4% of approx 3 trylion USD ) because of brexit .

That is many, many times more than any contributions , even without “Thatcher rebate”.
In addition to that UK is and will be following EU regulations, whether it likes or not . No country or business can trade with the EU , if they don’t .
Does the UK have say about these rules ? No.
Will UK stop trading with EU ? Of corse not.
EU is the biggest , wealthiest and closest trading block to UK.

 

[Snow1964]

In addition to that UK is and will be following EU regulations, whether it likes or not . No country or business can trade with the EU , if they don’t .
Does the UK have say about these rules ? No.
Will UK stop trading with EU ? Of corse not.
EU is the biggest , wealthiest and closest trading block to UK.

I think rejoining the EU and rejoining the trading block will be separated. First will be kept in long grass for few years.

The second part, free trade will come back quickly. Businesses hate lack of it, and has added to costs and inflation, small businesses have lost trade and some have closed because of the admin, a third group keep getting temporary extension of old rules. Northern Ireland border has become a mess that gives Government a headache (again temporarily fixed by not fully actioning agreed paperwork and checks for periods that keep getting extended). No workable permanent solution.

Quite simply UK having different standards doesn't work (otherwise fully implementing border rules and checks would be done). Of course will be few obscure products that lose out that have benefited from different UK rules, but hundreds of thousands of products will be cheaper as made to common standards and no admin costs associated with crossing borders.

 

[sor]

I think rejoining the EU and rejoining the trading block will be separated. First will be kept in long grass for few years.

The latter is like 90% of the former though, since it will lead to the return of freedom of movement etc too (the EU has said they don't want another Switzerland style pick and mix arrangement and has tried to get them closer to what other EFTA countries have).

Maybe we'll finally get the Norway deal that brexit supporters liked to tout - and if we do then I'd agree that calls for rejoining would get a lot quieter.

 

[317 forever]

The electorate has already changed by about 5.5m people since Brexit vote. Every year approx 700,000 die, and similar number reach voting age.

In another 10 years and about quarter of the electorate at referendum will have been replaced.

Apparently, the changeover date on which it was believed more people would have voted Remain was January 19th 2019.

 

[nw1]

The justification for "doing things differently" (e.g. leaving the EU) is that the UK is different to other European countries (in particular EU members). About 170 countries are not EU members. This makes EU countries, not the rest, unusual. They are more than unusual in name only. Among many other things, normal countries do not allow their legislature to be trumped by a supranational organisation.

(Moved from election thread)

Ah, but the UK is in Europe (the continent). That's the thing. Culturally, we are closer to other European countries than other parts of the world (look at the "Old World" shared history, the importance of social politics compared to say the USA, the similar architecture as a result of the shared history, the relatively good rail networks compared to other parts of the world, and good public access to the countryside, for example - all very "European" things). And geographically, we are very much closer. So really, it could be argued that we should be doing things similar to other (Western and Central) European countries as our cultural and geographical neighbours.

So if that is the argument, then really, we should be doing things similarly to other European countries.

I'm not saying there might not be other arguments for Brexit, perhaps - but these are not relevant to this particular discussion. Most arguments for Brexit (sovereignty, controlling the borders) would be valid arguments for other countries to exit the EU too. And I certainly don't want to get into another argument about immigration; that's not the point I'm trying to make.

The argument that somehow we are not "like" other European countries while all the other western/central European countries are all similar is hard to comprehend. For one thing, it assumes that EU/Schengen countries are one homogeneous bloc which we are somehow very different to. Why are Bulgaria, Estonia, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and Germany all culturally similar to each other - but the difference between us and any of them, including Ireland, is greater than the difference between all those EU/Schengen countries?

And don't say "island nation"! Ireland, Iceland, Malta and Cyprus are also island nations, with Ireland and Iceland in particular more isolated from the mainland than we are.

Doesn't make sense. Yes, there are significant differences in culture between different European countries but I don't understand why the UK is more different than the rest of them.

The Celtic nations of Scotland and Ireland provide a particularly graphic example. Is the cultural difference between Scotland and Ireland really bigger than the cultural difference between Ireland and remote parts of the EU?

 

[Enthusiast]

The argument that somehow we are not "like" other European countries while all the other western/central European countries are all similar is hard to comprehend.

It might be hard to comprehend if that's what I am saying. But I'm not. The difference between (say) Portugal and Sweden (both Western European nations and both members of the EU) could not be more stark (and I'm not thinking of the weather). And the difference between the UK and each of them equally so. The UK is different to other EU member nations many of whom are, in turn, different to each other. There may be some similarities in some respects between neighbours (e.g. Bulgaria and Romania; Hungary and Poland). But overall they are all very different and the EU approach of "one size must fit all" - in all manner of things - is very often at best inappropriate and at worst downright troublesome.

The argument put forward in the GE thread was that the government was being hypocritical by claiming on the one hand that the conscription nonsense which Mr Sunak had announced was justified because "...other countries do it", whilst on the other hand claiming that Brexit was justified "...on the basis that our country is in some special way uniquely different from other countries to justify doing things differently".

I'm not by any means suggesting that the conscription plan is a good idea. It's not. But it seems a strange argument to say that we cannot adopt good ideas from other countries because we have decided EU membership is not in our best interests. That seems to be symptomatic of those who wished to remain who seem to consider leaving as a complete cessation of all relationships with the rest of the world. Bit like saying those who leave the Scouts should no longer go camping.

The UK is different to many, if not most EU countries and they are each different to most of the others. But that's not the reason I voted to leave the EU and in fact not a reason I saw presented as an argument by the Leave campaign (not that I looked too closely at it). So I was a little surprised to see the juxtaposition of the two arguments in the GE thread.

 

[RT4038]

(Moved from election thread)

Ah, but the UK is in Europe (the continent). That's the thing. Culturally, we are closer to other European countries than other parts of the world (look at the "Old World" shared history, the importance of social politics compared to say the USA, the similar architecture as a result of the shared history, the relatively good rail networks compared to other parts of the world, and good public access to the countryside, for example - all very "European" things). And geographically, we are very much closer. So really, it could be argued that we should be doing things similar to other (Western and Central) European countries as our cultural and geographical neighbours.

So if that is the argument, then really, we should be doing things similarly to other European countries.

Obviously the perception of cultural differences and what is constituted as important is going to be fairly subjective. I don't think there is ever so much shared history (yes - in recent times two world wars that we intervened in and rapidly departed, but not really a shared history over any period): our recent (last 300 years) shared history is far closer to the countries of our far flung former colonial empire than it is with continental Europe. Similar architecture, rail networks and countryside access are of no importance in determining the similarities of culture. We may well be between Europe and the USA on the importance of social politics, but I suspect we lean more towards the US view more than the European. Our legal system is by and large based on different foundations ( laws are what the lawmakers wrote, rather than the European what they intended; no activity is legal unless it is specifically permitted, rather than our system of everything is legal unless specifically prohibited ). Fundamental differences not immediately obvious, but a contribution to our difference. Language, legal systems (and with it business, finance etc), lengthy shared history, kith and kin are the bedrocks of cultural similarity

I'm not saying there might not be other arguments for Brexit, perhaps - but these are not relevant to this particular discussion. Most arguments for Brexit (sovereignty, controlling the borders) would be valid arguments for other countries to exit the EU too. And I certainly don't want to get into another argument about immigration; that's not the point I'm trying to make.

The argument that somehow we are not "like" other European countries while all the other western/central European countries are all similar is hard to comprehend. For one thing, it assumes that EU/Schengen countries are one homogeneous bloc which we are somehow very different to. Why are Bulgaria, Estonia, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and Germany all culturally similar to each other - but the difference between us and any of them, including Ireland, is greater than the difference between all those EU/Schengen countries?

And don't say "island nation"! Ireland, Iceland, Malta and Cyprus are also island nations, with Ireland and Iceland in particular more isolated from the mainland than we are.

Doesn't make sense. Yes, there are significant differences in culture between different European countries but I don't understand why the UK is more different than the rest of them.

The Celtic nations of Scotland and Ireland provide a particularly graphic example. Is the cultural difference between Scotland and Ireland really bigger than the cultural difference between Ireland and remote parts of the EU?

I think that you are failing to take into account the financial imperatives of many of the EU members, where the desire/need for EU (funded mainly by Germany) financial support trumps the considerations (at this stage anyway) of culture and sovereignty, and ensures their continued membership and mutes complaint. It also gives an amount of German hegemony over those countries, and (with EU majority voting) an amount of German hegemony over the countries that are not financially in the same position. Of course, there will be some in the UK who are happy with this, who feel close culturally to our Continental neighbours, or feel that this is worth not having to queue for a passport stamp. There are others who will have thought through some of the possible implications.....

 

[nw1]

Obviously the perception of cultural differences and what is constituted as important is going to be fairly subjective. I don't think there is ever so much shared history (yes - in recent times two world wars that we intervened in and rapidly departed, but not really a shared history over any period): our recent (last 300 years) shared history is far closer to the countries of our far flung former colonial empire than it is with continental Europe. Similar architecture, rail networks and countryside access are of no importance in determining the similarities of culture. We may well be between Europe and the USA on the importance of social politics, but I suspect we lean more towards the US view more than the European. Our legal system is by and large based on different foundations ( laws are what the lawmakers wrote, rather than the European what they intended; no activity is legal unless it is specifically permitted, rather than our system of everything is legal unless specifically prohibited ). Fundamental differences not immediately obvious, but a contribution to our difference. Language, legal systems (and with it business, finance etc), lengthy shared history, kith and kin are the bedrocks of cultural similarity

I really doubt that the UK is culturally more similar to the US than the continent. The US is, IMX, very, very different to us, the only real common thing is language (which we also have in common with most citizens of EU state Ireland of course). When I go there it always seems much more "foreign" than continental countries.

I suspect there would be riots if a US-style health system was brought in here. Welfare is another thing the US does poorly, not to mention workers' rights, or should I say, a lack of them. It all seems very different to me - and these are the reasons why I would probably never attempt to move to the US. It's fine to visit - but that's it.

It may be true that the British right, particularly the Thatcherite wing, have more affinity with the US system, but I suspect the centre and left have more affinity with Continental Europe. Many of us find the US approach to social issues quite hardline right-wing. I suspect there is a correlation between voting Tory and supporting the US way of doing things, with Labour and Lib Dem voters much less keen.

You say that things like railways (which I would extend to public transport in general) and countryside access don't matter - I beg to differ, as they provide an aspect of familiarity and their presence in another country can help you feel at home, and comfortable, there.

I suspect there is more annoyance at the British public about the "special relationship" between the UK and the US than there would be about any future "special relationship" with the EU. A lot of us, including myself but many on the liberal and/or left-wing side would prefer a much more hands-off, arms-length relationship with the US, I suspect - but a much closer relationship with the EU, even if we accept re-joining is unrealistic for now.

And in any case, are you also implying that there is some common cultural similarity between (say) Ireland, Germany, Portugal and Bulgaria which we do not share here?

It might be hard to comprehend if that's what I am saying. But I'm not. The difference between (say) Portugal and Sweden (both Western European nations and both members of the EU) could not be more stark (and I'm not thinking of the weather). And the difference between the UK and each of them equally so. The UK is different to other EU member nations many of whom are, in turn, different to each other. There may be some similarities in some respects between neighbours (e.g. Bulgaria and Romania; Hungary and Poland). But overall they are all very different and the EU approach of "one size must fit all" - in all manner of things - is very often at best inappropriate and at worst downright troublesome.

The argument put forward in the GE thread was that the government was being hypocritical by claiming on the one hand that the conscription nonsense which Mr Sunak had announced was justified because "...other countries do it", whilst on the other hand claiming that Brexit was justified "...on the basis that our country is in some special way uniquely different from other countries to justify doing things differently".

I'm not by any means suggesting that the conscription plan is a good idea. It's not. But it seems a strange argument to say that we cannot adopt good ideas from other countries because we have decided EU membership is not in our best interests. That seems to be symptomatic of those who wished to remain who seem to consider leaving as a complete cessation of all relationships with the rest of the world. Bit like saying those who leave the Scouts should no longer go camping.

The UK is different to many, if not most EU countries and they are each different to most of the others. But that's not the reason I voted to leave the EU and in fact not a reason I saw presented as an argument by the Leave campaign (not that I looked too closely at it). So I was a little surprised to see the juxtaposition of the two arguments in the GE thread.

Apologies if I misunderstood but that's what I read into your response to the post in the elections thread - that there was a good argument for the UK being "different" to the rest of Europe; to me that implies that there is something "different" about the UK compared to every EU and/or Schengen country. But if that's not what you meant, that's fine, please ignore my reply.

 

[Belperpete]

While there are major cultural differences between the UK and the US (health care and gun control come to mind for starters), there are also similarities. Our attitude to the free market and dislike of petty regulation are much closer aligned to the US than the EU, for example. We were roundly blamed by EU countries for the banking crisis and consequent financial crash, for example. And our constant push-back against EU regulations was trying to both sides.

A previous poster noted the desire/need for EU (funded mainly by Germany) financial support trumps the considerations (at this stage anyway) of culture and sovereignty, and ensures their continued membership and mutes complaint.

I think that we are starting to see that as some of these country's economies are improving, and they are less reliant on EU support, so they are becoming less willing to accept EU dictate. Hungary and Poland, for example.

 

[najaB]

I think that we are starting to see that as some of these country's economies are improving, and they are less reliant on EU support, so they are becoming less willing to accept EU dictate. Hungary and Poland, for example.

Alternate viewpoint: they are starting to become more active participants in the decision-making processes.

 

[nw1]

While there are major cultural differences between the UK and the US (health care and gun control come to mind for starters), there are also similarities. Our attitude to the free market and dislike of petty regulation are much closer aligned to the US than the EU, for example.

But not shared by all of us: we're not all US-style free-market Thatcherites. As I said, the political right in the UK, and Tory voters in general, may like the Thatcherite, US-inspired attitude to the free market, but many of us would prefer a much more continental ethos.

I think that we are starting to see that as some of these country's economies are improving, and they are less reliant on EU support, so they are becoming less willing to accept EU dictate. Hungary and Poland, for example.

Hungary is scarcely an exemplar government though, led currently by the far-right Viktor Orban. Poland also had a hard-right government until recently, though thankfully it has been replaced by a sane one now.

 

[Belperpete]

But not shared by all of us. As I said, the political right in the UK, and Tory voters in general, may like the Thatcherite, US-inspired attitude to the free market, but many of us would prefer a much more continental ethos.

Some may prefer a more continental ethos to regulation and taxation, but I would suggest that the majority of the UK population don't. Which is why the Labour party is effectively Tory-lite.

 

[nw1]

Some may prefer a more continental ethos to regulation and taxation, but I would suggest that the majority of the UK population don't. Which is why the Labour party is effectively Tory-lite.

I would disagree with "the majority". A "sizeable minority", perhaps. Unless I just mix with strange people.

 

[najaB]

I would disagree with "the majority". A "sizeable minority", perhaps. Unless I just mix with strange people.

I'd tend to agree with you. While I don't know many people who are happy about paying taxes, for the most part people are content with paying them as long as they perceive that they're getting value for money. This is in contrast to attitudes among many in the USA (particularly on the right) where any taxes not directly spent on defence are seen as a massive imposition and are fought against, tooth and nail.

 

[RT4038]

I really doubt that the UK is culturally more similar to the US than the continent. The US is, IMX, very, very different to us, the only real common thing is language (which we also have in common with most citizens of EU state Ireland of course). When I go there it always seems much more "foreign" than continental countries.

I suspect there would be riots if a US-style health system was brought in here. Welfare is another thing the US does poorly, not to mention workers' rights, or should I say, a lack of them. It all seems very different to me - and these are the reasons why I would probably never attempt to move to the US. It's fine to visit - but that's it.

I don't think culture comes down to how good you feel when a visit is made somewhere! Especially when the visitor has preconceived ideas about the country anyway. If a US-style health system was brought in here, it would be a very gradual process (perhaps already started?) and by the time it got to all of the population it would be a 'fait accompli'. (Getting a bit off track). As I said, the UK is between Europe and the US in culture, and I believe leans more towards the US. That doesn't mean that all aspects of US culture (or any other culturally similar country to us) will be imported here/ exported there. It is not an all or nothing situation.

And in any case, are you also implying that there is some common cultural similarity between (say) Ireland, Germany, Portugal and Bulgaria which we do not share here?

Different countries have different reasons to want to be in (or out) of the EU. Portugal and Bulgaria want the funding. Ireland has wanted the funding in the past, and also (for historical reasons which we need not go into here) wants to distance themselves from reliance on the UK. There is no one common reason, although some countries may share the same reasons. Nothing wrong with any of that, and countries will naturally look after their own interests and priorities at any given time.

Some may prefer a more continental ethos to regulation and taxation, but I would suggest that the majority of the UK population don't. Which is why the Labour party is effectively Tory-lite.

I think that is a reasonable assessment.

 

[Belperpete]

I'd tend to agree with you. While I don't know many people who are happy about paying taxes, for the most part people are content with paying them as long as they perceive that they're getting value for money. This is in contrast to attitudes among many in the USA (particularly on the right) where any taxes not directly spent on defence are seen as a massive imposition and are fought against, tooth and nail.

Yes, but would you be happy paying tax at the kind of rates the Swedes do, for example? UK tax rates are generally much lower than most other European countries. I could see people accepting a small rise, but I don't see much appetite for taxing the low paid significantly more.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, but would you be happy paying tax at the kind of rates the Swedes do, for example? UK tax rates are generally much lower than most other European countries. I could see people accepting a small rise, but I don't see much appetite for taxing the low paid significantly more.

I do not think there is a very straightforward comparison between Swedish tax and ours. Swedes are not noticeably worse off than us, which implies that the structure of their economy must be different to ours? An example - tax rates in a country are higher than ours, but housing costs are lower [ because no-one could afford our housing costs on their tax rates] . Probably our housing costs are so high because there is so much money available to pay for it, due to the low taxes. But once an economy has gone down this road it is very difficult to go back.

 

[najaB]

Yes, but would you be happy paying tax at the kind of rates the Swedes do, for example? UK tax rates are generally much lower than most other European countries. I could see people accepting a small rise, but I don't see much appetite for taxing the low paid significantly more.

I might, if we enjoyed a comparable standard of public services in return.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The argument that somehow we are not "like" other European countries while all the other western/central European countries are all similar is hard to comprehend. For one thing, it assumes that EU/Schengen countries are one homogeneous bloc which we are somehow very different to. Why are Bulgaria, Estonia, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and Germany all culturally similar to each other - but the difference between us and any of them, including Ireland, is greater than the difference between all those EU/Schengen countries?

They aren't all culturally (or even economically) similar. The difference between - say - Bulgaria and Germany is stark. Even comparing France and Germany reveals very strong differences. Obviously it's up to those countries to decide whether they believe that being in the same EU and having the same regulations etc. is beneficial despite those differences. No reason why they, evaluating their own circumstances, should come to the same conclusion as the UK, evaluating its own circumstances.

And don't say "island nation"! Ireland, Iceland, Malta and Cyprus are also island nations, with Ireland and Iceland in particular more isolated from the mainland than we are.

But being an island nation is significant and has had a huge impact on our history and the way our culture, economy and international relations and alliances have developed, and it has created differences between us and neighbouring mainland European countries. You can't discount that just because other countries that are also islands have decided that their (individual, unique) circumstances favour EU membership.

 

[nw1]

They aren't all culturally (or even economically) similar. The difference between - say - Bulgaria and Germany is stark. Even comparing France and Germany reveals very strong differences. Obviously it's up to those countries to decide whether they believe that being in the same EU and having the same regulations etc. is beneficial despite those differences. No reason why they, evaluating their own circumstances, should come to the same conclusion as the UK, evaluating its own circumstances.

And that was the point I was trying to make - that they are not similar. I'm not, for once, arguing for "Remain" here, by the way, just arguing against the argument that the UK is more different than the rest.