What will be the benefits of Brexit? [on hold]Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?Will the British Parliament prevent “Brexit”?Brexit: leaving Customs Union and/or Single Market — what do these things really mean?What can UK citizens do to replace first past the post with a proportional representation voting system?What method can be used to estimate the likelihood of a civil war?Have any prominent Brexiteers argued for the UK to become a duty-free country (like Singapore)?UK visitor Visa & BrexitWill the UK still have to pay the EU under No-Deal Brexit?Will brexit affect (and if so, how?) orphan drugs?How will brexit affect the British export and import?How will the UK's economy be affected, depending on if it will be a hard or soft Brexit?

Go Pregnant or Go Home

Everything Bob says is false. How does he get people to trust him?

I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?

Is there any easy technique written in Bhagavad GITA to control lust?

Lay out the Carpet

Is there any reason not to eat food that's been dropped on the surface of the moon?

Is it okay / does it make sense for another player to join a running game of Munchkin?

Dot above capital letter not centred

Why is delta-v is the most useful quantity for planning space travel?

Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?

(Bedrock Edition) Loading more than six chunks at once

How can I replace every global instance of "x[2]" with "x_2"

What defines a dissertation?

apt-get update is failing in debian

Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?

How was Earth single-handedly capable of creating 3 of the 4 gods of chaos?

Coordinate position not precise

Why does John Bercow say “unlock” after reading out the results of a vote?

How does it work when somebody invests in my business?

Short story about space worker geeks who zone out by 'listening' to radiation from stars

What't the meaning of this extra silence?

The baby cries all morning

How can I get through very long and very dry, but also very useful technical documents when learning a new tool?

Failed to fetch jessie backports repository



What will be the benefits of Brexit? [on hold]


Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?Will the British Parliament prevent “Brexit”?Brexit: leaving Customs Union and/or Single Market — what do these things really mean?What can UK citizens do to replace first past the post with a proportional representation voting system?What method can be used to estimate the likelihood of a civil war?Have any prominent Brexiteers argued for the UK to become a duty-free country (like Singapore)?UK visitor Visa & BrexitWill the UK still have to pay the EU under No-Deal Brexit?Will brexit affect (and if so, how?) orphan drugs?How will brexit affect the British export and import?How will the UK's economy be affected, depending on if it will be a hard or soft Brexit?













65















As a fairly typical UK citizen, with a partner, children, job, mortgage, etc., what benefits can I expect to experience over the next five years as a result of the UK leaving the EU?



I'm aware of several definite down sides (e.g. losing the right to live and work in the EU, losing the right to vote in EU elections, etc.) and a whole multitude of potential downsides (less staff for the NHS, less food that is lower quality and more expensive, etc.), and a handful of less likely but possibly critical, state-level failures (return of the Troubles, or NI opting to leave UK and join RoI, Scotland voting for independence, etc.). In the interests of forming a balanced and optimistic view of the future, I'm keen to understand what good things will happen. I'm particularly keen to find out about the things that are even better than we have already as members of the EU that will compensate for the things that we will lose.



I'm not interested in speculative things that might happen 25 or 50 years in the future, rather what will definitely happen, or even probably happen, during the next few years that I will personally experience as a good result of the UK leaving the EU?



(Watching the close votes (up to 4 now), it would appear that my question has fallen foul of being primarily opinion based, or maybe unanswerable. Perhaps a closure would be an answer of some kind in itself?)










share|improve this question









New contributor




Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











put on hold as primarily opinion-based by DJClayworth, Sjoerd, zibadawa timmy, Bregalad, reirab 1 hour ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 1





    Regarding the close votes, I think you could avoid the charge of "opinion based" by rephrasing from "what will...?" to "what might...?" or "what arguments are offered in favor...?"

    – phoog
    13 hours ago











  • Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer the question in the comments.

    – Philipp
    8 hours ago











  • Agreed with phoog. "What are the benefits" is primarily opinion-based because people disagree both about what the likely results are and about whether those results are benefits, neutral, or drawbacks. Asking something more along the lines of "What arguments are offered in favor of" is much more definitively answerable and much less opinion-based. The latter type of questions tend to get much better answers on this site as a result, at least in my experience.

    – reirab
    1 hour ago
















65















As a fairly typical UK citizen, with a partner, children, job, mortgage, etc., what benefits can I expect to experience over the next five years as a result of the UK leaving the EU?



I'm aware of several definite down sides (e.g. losing the right to live and work in the EU, losing the right to vote in EU elections, etc.) and a whole multitude of potential downsides (less staff for the NHS, less food that is lower quality and more expensive, etc.), and a handful of less likely but possibly critical, state-level failures (return of the Troubles, or NI opting to leave UK and join RoI, Scotland voting for independence, etc.). In the interests of forming a balanced and optimistic view of the future, I'm keen to understand what good things will happen. I'm particularly keen to find out about the things that are even better than we have already as members of the EU that will compensate for the things that we will lose.



I'm not interested in speculative things that might happen 25 or 50 years in the future, rather what will definitely happen, or even probably happen, during the next few years that I will personally experience as a good result of the UK leaving the EU?



(Watching the close votes (up to 4 now), it would appear that my question has fallen foul of being primarily opinion based, or maybe unanswerable. Perhaps a closure would be an answer of some kind in itself?)










share|improve this question









New contributor




Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











put on hold as primarily opinion-based by DJClayworth, Sjoerd, zibadawa timmy, Bregalad, reirab 1 hour ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 1





    Regarding the close votes, I think you could avoid the charge of "opinion based" by rephrasing from "what will...?" to "what might...?" or "what arguments are offered in favor...?"

    – phoog
    13 hours ago











  • Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer the question in the comments.

    – Philipp
    8 hours ago











  • Agreed with phoog. "What are the benefits" is primarily opinion-based because people disagree both about what the likely results are and about whether those results are benefits, neutral, or drawbacks. Asking something more along the lines of "What arguments are offered in favor of" is much more definitively answerable and much less opinion-based. The latter type of questions tend to get much better answers on this site as a result, at least in my experience.

    – reirab
    1 hour ago














65












65








65


6






As a fairly typical UK citizen, with a partner, children, job, mortgage, etc., what benefits can I expect to experience over the next five years as a result of the UK leaving the EU?



I'm aware of several definite down sides (e.g. losing the right to live and work in the EU, losing the right to vote in EU elections, etc.) and a whole multitude of potential downsides (less staff for the NHS, less food that is lower quality and more expensive, etc.), and a handful of less likely but possibly critical, state-level failures (return of the Troubles, or NI opting to leave UK and join RoI, Scotland voting for independence, etc.). In the interests of forming a balanced and optimistic view of the future, I'm keen to understand what good things will happen. I'm particularly keen to find out about the things that are even better than we have already as members of the EU that will compensate for the things that we will lose.



I'm not interested in speculative things that might happen 25 or 50 years in the future, rather what will definitely happen, or even probably happen, during the next few years that I will personally experience as a good result of the UK leaving the EU?



(Watching the close votes (up to 4 now), it would appear that my question has fallen foul of being primarily opinion based, or maybe unanswerable. Perhaps a closure would be an answer of some kind in itself?)










share|improve this question









New contributor




Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












As a fairly typical UK citizen, with a partner, children, job, mortgage, etc., what benefits can I expect to experience over the next five years as a result of the UK leaving the EU?



I'm aware of several definite down sides (e.g. losing the right to live and work in the EU, losing the right to vote in EU elections, etc.) and a whole multitude of potential downsides (less staff for the NHS, less food that is lower quality and more expensive, etc.), and a handful of less likely but possibly critical, state-level failures (return of the Troubles, or NI opting to leave UK and join RoI, Scotland voting for independence, etc.). In the interests of forming a balanced and optimistic view of the future, I'm keen to understand what good things will happen. I'm particularly keen to find out about the things that are even better than we have already as members of the EU that will compensate for the things that we will lose.



I'm not interested in speculative things that might happen 25 or 50 years in the future, rather what will definitely happen, or even probably happen, during the next few years that I will personally experience as a good result of the UK leaving the EU?



(Watching the close votes (up to 4 now), it would appear that my question has fallen foul of being primarily opinion based, or maybe unanswerable. Perhaps a closure would be an answer of some kind in itself?)







united-kingdom brexit






share|improve this question









New contributor




Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 17 hours ago







Evil Dog Pie













New contributor




Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









Evil Dog PieEvil Dog Pie

422129




422129




New contributor




Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Evil Dog Pie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




put on hold as primarily opinion-based by DJClayworth, Sjoerd, zibadawa timmy, Bregalad, reirab 1 hour ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









put on hold as primarily opinion-based by DJClayworth, Sjoerd, zibadawa timmy, Bregalad, reirab 1 hour ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 1





    Regarding the close votes, I think you could avoid the charge of "opinion based" by rephrasing from "what will...?" to "what might...?" or "what arguments are offered in favor...?"

    – phoog
    13 hours ago











  • Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer the question in the comments.

    – Philipp
    8 hours ago











  • Agreed with phoog. "What are the benefits" is primarily opinion-based because people disagree both about what the likely results are and about whether those results are benefits, neutral, or drawbacks. Asking something more along the lines of "What arguments are offered in favor of" is much more definitively answerable and much less opinion-based. The latter type of questions tend to get much better answers on this site as a result, at least in my experience.

    – reirab
    1 hour ago













  • 1





    Regarding the close votes, I think you could avoid the charge of "opinion based" by rephrasing from "what will...?" to "what might...?" or "what arguments are offered in favor...?"

    – phoog
    13 hours ago











  • Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer the question in the comments.

    – Philipp
    8 hours ago











  • Agreed with phoog. "What are the benefits" is primarily opinion-based because people disagree both about what the likely results are and about whether those results are benefits, neutral, or drawbacks. Asking something more along the lines of "What arguments are offered in favor of" is much more definitively answerable and much less opinion-based. The latter type of questions tend to get much better answers on this site as a result, at least in my experience.

    – reirab
    1 hour ago








1




1





Regarding the close votes, I think you could avoid the charge of "opinion based" by rephrasing from "what will...?" to "what might...?" or "what arguments are offered in favor...?"

– phoog
13 hours ago





Regarding the close votes, I think you could avoid the charge of "opinion based" by rephrasing from "what will...?" to "what might...?" or "what arguments are offered in favor...?"

– phoog
13 hours ago













Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer the question in the comments.

– Philipp
8 hours ago





Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer the question in the comments.

– Philipp
8 hours ago













Agreed with phoog. "What are the benefits" is primarily opinion-based because people disagree both about what the likely results are and about whether those results are benefits, neutral, or drawbacks. Asking something more along the lines of "What arguments are offered in favor of" is much more definitively answerable and much less opinion-based. The latter type of questions tend to get much better answers on this site as a result, at least in my experience.

– reirab
1 hour ago






Agreed with phoog. "What are the benefits" is primarily opinion-based because people disagree both about what the likely results are and about whether those results are benefits, neutral, or drawbacks. Asking something more along the lines of "What arguments are offered in favor of" is much more definitively answerable and much less opinion-based. The latter type of questions tend to get much better answers on this site as a result, at least in my experience.

– reirab
1 hour ago











11 Answers
11






active

oldest

votes


















81














In decreasing order of certainty:



  1. If you're a staunch nationalist (or even more surely if you're a xenophobe), you'll feel (a lot) better about yourself. Psychological well-being is important.

  2. If you work (or intend to work) in a field dealing with border/customs/phytosanitary etc., Brexit may have new job opportunities.

  3. If your job/income was somehow threatened by potential immigrants from the EU, it might be less so.


  4. If national legislation on environment or other business regulations gets streamlined relative to the EU-inherited one, you might benefit if you're in a business that can take advantage of that streamlining.


  5. If you work in a field that the UK government will be more protectionist of (in terms of imports), you might make more money.

  6. Something similar for subsidized exports.

Those last two or three items are more contingent on no-deal Brexit, in which the UK will be completely unencumbered by EU with any sort of customs union sooner.



As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1, 3 & 4 are based on that. I'm not sure if "not sending money to the EU" (another reason why some voted for Brexit) will translate into any personal financial benefits, given the potential for an economic downturn that might offset any gains from that non-contribution. But one could phrase that as a conditional benefit as well.



The elephant in the room is of course how will British economy react (in the short run, since this is focus of the OP's question) to whatever flavor of Brexit passes. Unless you choose to trust the arch-Brexiteers' positive forecasts, the prognostic from more established sources is negative, e.g. Standard & Poors predicted UK recession until 2020 in case of a no-deal Brexit




S&P's analysis sees a recession lasting four to five quarters should there be no deal before the exit date on 29 March.



It sees the economy shrinking 1.2% in 2019 and 1.5% in 2020, and returning to only moderate growth the following year so that by 2021 economic output would still be 5.5% lower than in the event of an "orderly exit and transition period".




Of course analysts aren't infaillible. But in this case I haven't heard from a non-politicized body saying UK will shrug it off.






share|improve this answer




















  • 7





    I don't think I'm nationalistic, but I do consider myself to be patriotic, and it makes me feel sick with worry that leaving the EU might leave the country that I'm fiercely proud of much reduced both domestically and internationally. This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to.

    – Evil Dog Pie
    yesterday






  • 4





    @EvilDogPie: I didn't mean to imply you personally fit in any of these categories. As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1 & 3 are there basically. csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

    – Fizz
    yesterday







  • 2





    Downvoted for "if you're a xenophobe", implying that only xenophobes support Brexit or that all xenophobes support it.

    – JonathanReez
    yesterday






  • 51





    @JonathanReez: The answer does not say that only xenophobes support Brexit. I'm not sure if we're even reading the same text, since the version I see goes to quite some lengths not to even imply it. It does imply that all (or at least most, depending on whether you read "even more surely" as expressing absolute or relative certainty) xenophobes support Brexit, which is not the same thing. And while there probably is at least one xenophobe somewhere in Britain who's against Brexit, I'm not aware of any substantial anti-Brexit sentiment among either self-identified or alleged xenophobes.

    – Ilmari Karonen
    yesterday






  • 8





    @EvilDogPie Since you said "This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to", everyone objective will tell you that there is no benefit apart from being on your own and not have to bother to take part in the EU.

    – Paradox
    yesterday


















36














There will be no immediate benefits, or even in the short term.



It may be possible to do trade deals with other countries that the EU would take longer to complete, but they are likely to be unfavourable to the UK due to the difficult situation and reduced bargaining power post-brexit. Also, any benefit from them will only come once they have offset whatever is lost when the UK leaves the EU and the Common Market / customs union.



There may be some small gains in sovereignty, in that the UK could pass some laws that are currently incompatible with EU regulations. Practically it won't want to make major changes that make trading more difficult. It will also be under pressure to accept rules from other countries in exchange for trade deals (mutual recognition of rules is the basis of trade deals), or to make its economy more competitive with non-EU economies (e.g. by removing worker's rights).



The UK will be able to control immigration from the EU. It already has full control of non-EU immigration. Demands to reduce immigration will cause worker shortages and economic loss. While some may regard reduced immigration as a benefit, it's a largely intangible one where as the monetary losses are very real.



There may be some benefits for certain parts of the UK. For example, Scotland may be able to achieve independence due to increased support after being forced to leave the EU against its collective will. There will be considerable disruption during the process but in the medium term it may have benefits. It's difficult to tell as there are so many unknowns.






share|improve this answer


















  • 5





    I appreciate your answer, but I'm not sure that any of the points are clear benefits. If we do make trade agreements with other countries (including the EU) we will still have to accept legislative and regulatory changes, but they will be from third parties that we have no democratic authority over (unlike the EU, where we elect MEPs). I fail to see how trading EU citizens for Commonwealth citizens will help control immigration (even if immigration were a concern of mine). As for losing territorial sovereignty over Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, that's certainly not a benefit to the UK.

    – Evil Dog Pie
    yesterday






  • 43





    @EvilDogPie That's the point. All purported benefits are extremely unlikely to materialize.

    – user
    yesterday






  • 8





    The UK also currently has a reasonable level of control over EU immigration that it has chosen not to use. "European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC ... allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/…

    – Player One
    yesterday







  • 3





    This is simply untrue. For example, the UK's exports of Scotch Whisky will almost certain double as soon as the (EU-led) export tariffs to India and other parts of the world are removed or lowered. They want to buy more and we want to sell more, hence the Scotch Whisky Association strongly favouring Brexit - "...the draft Withdrawal Agreement and accompanying Political Declaration on the Future UK-EU Relationship stand up well against the Scotch Whisky industry’s Brexit priorities" - scotsman.com/news/politics/…

    – Valorum
    23 hours ago







  • 5





    @PlayerOne Also the UK didn't use the controls allowed to restrict immigration from the A8 countries in the accession transition period. The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for UK government decisions about the exercise of its immigration powers.

    – Lag
    22 hours ago


















23














As I'm sure you've probably worked out, there's no definitive, general answer to this question. For evidence, I'll simply point to the fact that, if there was, it would have been shouted from the rooftops by pro-Brexit campaigners.



However, it's possible to sketch out some of the likely consequences but you'll have to work out for yourself if you consider them net positive or not.



Firstly, assuming we don't remain in the customs union, we'll be able to negotiate bi-lateral trade deals. Short term, this is unlikely to have much effect. The reason being that there are a lot to complete so most are being negotiated on a like for like basis i.e. the same as our current EU ones. Just for stability.



In the medium term (and 5 years is probably there or thereabouts) we'd be expecting to close final version of some of the bigger ones e.g. US, EU, China, Switzerland. It's unlikely that the EU trade agreement will be net positive for the UK because they'll keep their usual red lines and we'll have our own, different, ones.



For the others, though, there are opportunities. For example, the EU tends to negotiate very complex agricultural tariffs. This is because of CAP and the general strength of the agricultural lobby in the EU. The downside is that the EU often has to give up some advantage in other areas to maintain this subsidy regime. For the UK, agriculture is substantially less significant, politically. So we may well end up agreeing trade deals that are net negative for our agriculture industry, compared to now, but beneficial to other industries e.g. manufacturing or services. If you're farming rape seed today this could be an issue. If you work in advertising (to pick a random occupation), it could be positive.



No deal has equivalent but different concerns. We'd be under WTO rules. However, the exact tariff regime we'd come up with hasn't been agreed (or at least publicised). Once the initial confusion has died down, there are likely to be winners and losers relative to existing tariffs. My educated guess is that agriculture and services will take a hit which manufacturing may well do better. But it's just a guess at this stage.



Secondly, assuming we don't stay in the single market, there'll be no freedom of movement with the EU. Now, it's highly debatable what level of immigration we'll have post-Brexit. In fact, it's economically questionable if it should be much lower than now. However, what is fairly indisputable is that freedom of movement makes immigration levels difficult to predict and, worse, dependent on circumstances outside of the UK's control. So, if you found your children in schools where there was a substantial increase in pupils, but without the equivalent timely investment, this is less likely to occur in future (whether the school investment will be at an appropriate level in future is a separate question).



Thirdly, the EU has strict rules on state subsidies. Outside of the EU, we are free to choose what we subsidise (ok, probably not completely free as we will likely be constrained by trade agreements but how we are constrained will be our choice). This is something that the current Labour leadership are very keen on as they would like to invest heavily in public ownership. So, if you consider, say, rail nationalisation a positive move then this sort of thing is much easier outside the EU.



And fourthly, don't discount independence considerations. There are plenty of people that do consider a united Ireland or independent Scotland a positive thing. For the former, where once the considerations were primarily religious, post-Brexit, there are likely to be very good economic arguments for uniting Ireland. Would it swing a vote sufficiently? Probably not given the depth of feeling but a major UK recession could affect that.



Similarly in Scotland, there's a much stronger case for a second referendum if Brexit happens than if it didn't. Moreover, the EU was dead against a break up of an EU country. They may well look very differently at a Scotland coming in from the cold, as it were. If Scotland also wanted to join the Euro (toxic during the first referendum, less so now), the EU may be very amenable. This could easily be enough to swing a vote.






share|improve this answer






























    16














    The Brexiters have made multiple claims about benefits... None of them had much merit IMHO, but the main ones were:



    Reclaim full sovereignty



    There are two main gripes here:



    The first is that Brussels produces laws that apply as is (Regulations) or that set a minimum standard that must get transcribed into national law (Directives). EU citizens have a say on them by virtue of the EP; the UK government has some form of say on them by virtue of the EU Council and how EU commissioners get appointed; the UK's (or any other member's) national parliament has no say. The net result of this setup is that EU institutions tend to be viewed as not democratic enough.



    A corollary argument that latches on to this first point is that, without these apparently annoying EU regulations -- that prevent you from e.g. eating chlorinated chicken, working 60 hour weeks, drinking polluted water, or buying lead-laced toys -- the UK could improve the living standards of its poorer population by working more and lowering its standards to cut the cost of goods. You can hear this lower cost of goods argument being made straight from Rees-Mogg's mouth, albeit without the part that makes explicit that it would involve cutting standards and corners.



    The other is that the European Court of Justice supersedes all national law according to the ECJ. In practice it's a bit murkier, because the constitutional courts of at least one member state (France [FR]) have politely begged to differ with the ECJ and held that their constitution trumped EU law should a test arise.



    At any rate, the threat to sovereignty should be fairly clear if you're concerned that an EU high court, set up to be the arbiter of EU treaties (that your government signed and your MPs approved) and laws (that you're involved in making through the EP), with one judge appointed by each member state, actually does its job and enforces that an EU treaty or law (part of international public law) might supersede your national law (as it should, bar your Constitution).



    Independent trade deal policy



    The gripe here is simple: the EU is currently responsible for negotiating international trade deals on its members' behalf. And the UK would like to make its own deals. The UK's silver-tongued negotiators can presumably do much better. They're reputably so outstanding, and the UK's economy is so important, that negotiating new trade deals will be the easiest thing ever.



    Snark aside, an indicator that things might not go as planned here is Turkey: by virtue of having a customs arrangement with the EU, Turkey reportedly has a hard time finding trading partners who want to negotiate deals with it. The reason is that, as a would-be trading partner, you're better off negotiating with the EU instead, giving you access to a much bigger market, while snatching a de facto deal with Turkey as a bonus without the latter having much if any say on it.



    That, you might be thinking, is an excellent reason to not stay in the Customs Union, on top of the pesky problem of not having any independent trade policy if you're in it to begin with. But then you'd also introduce a lot of trade friction with the world's largest market, and risk a return of The Troubles by introducing a hard border at the Irish border.



    EU contributions



    This argument was famously advanced on London buses, but it's been so debunked and ridiculed by now (to say nothing about retracted the day after the Brexit poll) that I hope you don't need any convincing it was hogwash.



    Still, I would raise in passing that whether the UK continues to pay into EU contributions or not in the future (which it might, if it ultimately opts for a Norway type of deal), there are financial commitments that need to be honored short of having wide ranging implications for UK retirees (former EU civil servants), UK students (Erasmus), UK research programs and infrastructure projects that rely on EU grants and subsidies, and so forth.



    Border control



    Until now the UK already had control over its borders when it came to non-EU migration. So what we're actually talking about here is preventing the proverbial Polish plumber from settling in the UK, or the UK doing its part to absorb the millions of Syrians that poured into the EU owing to a crisis that the UK played its part in fueling.



    IMHO this might actually be the only tangible benefit -- provided that you view that as a good thing, and think that having no freedom of movement for UK citizens within the EU is an acceptable cost.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 3





      Those "millions of Syrians" would not have the freedom of movement to settle in the EU until they naturalise as citizens of a EU member state (by which time they have already been absorbed elsewhere). Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens.

      – gerrit
      20 hours ago












    • As far as I am aware, a country's obligations to refugees are due to international law, even when those laws are reinforced by EU legislation. The ECHR is independent of the EU and we're not leaving that, so our obligations to take and look after refugees will be unaffected by Brexit, won't it?

      – Evil Dog Pie
      19 hours ago






    • 2





      @EvilDogPie: Best I'm aware, under international law, the country that the refugees enter through is responsible for processing them, and refugees usually enter Europe through southern and eastern European countries. Leaving aside that Syrian refugees arguably should have stopped in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, the burden sharing within the EU that comes after they enter through Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc. is an EU thing insofar as I'm aware.

      – Denis de Bernardy
      19 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy The burden sharing is an EU thing that happens to be totally failing. There is no burden sharing in practice, certainly not mandatory burden sharing.

      – gerrit
      14 hours ago












    • @gerrit: Agreed. I wanted to add a note that it wasn't working at all, but I lacked characters to do so.

      – Denis de Bernardy
      14 hours ago


















    11














    The problem with seeing benefits is that the main benefit of Brexit is that it gives more power to our politicians to decide things themselves, for good or bad. This means that any benefits are only as good as the politicians making them, and may also be impacted by any deal we strike with the EU.



    Also, in the short term (which for something of this scale probably means 3-5 years), the costs of change may outweigh benefits. Also, as in any change, benefits will be distributed unequally across the population; if your job relies on the EU, then you'll probably lose, but if it depends on non-EU connections, you may gain.



    Sadly, it's often the poorest who are least able to adapt to change (due to a lack of cash reserves and/or difficulties in reskilling, finding new work, etc.), so – baring government policies to the contrary – the benefits are naturally more likely to go to the better-off. Note that this isn't unique to Brexit; this is the case for any change.



    Unfortunately, whilst there's many possible immediate benefits, neither Tories nor Labour have made it clear what they'd actually do with their new freedoms, so the rest of this is more suggestions rather than actual policies anyone's suggested. I suspect that both parties have ideas, but don't want to publicise them yet as they don't want to be seen as pro-brexit, and as they don't want to show their cards to the EU until any deal is sealed.



    We could, for example, drop import tarifs on a wide range of goods from food to technology, dropping their prices instantly. However, it's unlikely that politicians will do this as it looks like we'll either be in a customs union, or some similar equivalent, to ease the NI issue.



    Trade deals (which would help our exports) unfortunately will take time, and the EU exit rules prevent us negotiating new deals until after we leave (which does seem unfair – imagine not being allowed to look for a new job / flat until after you'd left your old one...!), so unless there's been some behind-the-scenes negotiating, those will take time, particularly those with larger nations (though Trump might on a whim tweet us one immediately...!).



    Staffing in hospitals etc. won't be directly affected, as those with jobs will continue to have them (though they may decide to leave themselves). However, this is one area where we should be able to show benefits within a few years. If we have more control over immigration, we could for maintain/reduce overall immigration, but prioritise health workers from anywhere in the world over EU workers in any industry. This requires political willpower, but would probably be a political win – they would be able to bring in more health workers whilst also reducing immigration.



    We could pass stricter rules on health/safety on food and goods, but this would make it harder to import goods (in particular, if our rules are stricter than the EU, then most EU producers would need to adapt to meet them), so is unlikely to happen. It's more likely we may relax some over-strict rules to allow cheaper imports from a wider range of countries; but no politician wants to be seen to be relaxing H&S rules, so it's not hugely likely.



    One significant benefit is that we may be spared the Eurovision song contest...






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.















    • 10





      I don't think the Eurovision song contest is restricted to the EU. Last time I checked Australia isn't in the EU. ;)

      – JJJ
      yesterday






    • 4





      Note that the UK can (and does try to, with some small success, there was a question about that here recently) negotiate trade deals, as long as they don't come into effect while the UK is still in the EU.

      – Graipher
      yesterday












    • Comments deleted. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the answer and do not go on off-topic tangents.

      – Philipp
      16 hours ago











    • The EU has not prevented the UK from granting immigration to health workers from outside the EU -- there are many of them. There has recently been a limit on the number of non-EU doctors immigrating to the UK, but that limit was established by the Home Office, not by the EU.

      – phoog
      10 hours ago


















    6














    Some potential benefits that may be unlikely to materialise:



    State aid and nationalisation



    There are Brexit supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. A socialist Brexit supporter might tell you that the end of European Union competition law, in particular against State aid to privately owned companies. For example, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said:




    We cannot be afraid of intervening directly to support supply chains and new industries, any deal with the EU must recognise that the old state aid rules are no longer valid




    Likewise, a major programme of nationalising the means of production is likely to cause objection within the European Union.



    Of course, many people would question whether this is a benefit.



    The socialist newspaper Morning Star supports Brexit for this reason.



    Rewilding



    If the Common Agricultural Policy ends and UK farmers will lose their subsidies, many UK farms will disappear, in particular unprofitable sheep farming. This is even more true if tariffs are slashed, such has has been proposed. This means sheep would disappear from the hills in the UK, which would open up opportunities for a major rewilding programme, with forests returning where overgrazing currently prevents them. Note that true rewilding would take more than just removing the sheep, but supporters of rewilding may find that opposition to other proposals (such as a reintroduction of predators including wolves) would be less powerful if sheep farmers are history.



    I'm not aware of anyone explicitly supporting Brexit for this reason, nor am I aware of anyone who has proposed the policy to effectively end British sheep/hill farming, but it may be an unintended side effect which some people may consider beneficial.



    Needless to say, most people would consider it a strong negative point if British farms disappeared, and most likely post-Brexit domestic policy would ensure that they don't.




    Comment: Although some on the (far) left support Brexit, in practice the Brexit agenda is being set by pro-free market, anti-immigration, nationalist forces, that are rather associated with the political right than with the political left. It is probably unlikely that the above points will actually materialise.






    share|improve this answer

























    • This is an interesting perspective, one that I'd not previously considered. I suspect that land that was freed from agricultural purposes is more likely to be earmarked for development, but one can hope.

      – Evil Dog Pie
      20 hours ago











    • Personally I'd like to see more wilderness but unsurprisingly this is the first time I've seen that put forward as a beneft, or any sort of result. It would be trivially easy to spin that as a negative. "So you think farms failing and going back to the wild is a good thing? Perhaps you'll be happhy when our town centres are derelict, homes for urban foxes and deer!".

      – Eric Nolan
      19 hours ago











    • @EricNolan Of course, most people would see British farms will vanish as a negative. I've added a line to point that out.

      – gerrit
      19 hours ago












    • You can bet the sheep farmers will lobby the government for subsidies. Or block roads otherwise (as the French goat farmers used to do).

      – Fizz
      16 hours ago












    • @Fizz Roads blocked by sheep? That would be great fun! Definitely a benefit in my books. Something to look forward to. :-)

      – Evil Dog Pie
      15 hours ago


















    2














    Until the terms of the exit are agreed to, it will be impossible to answer this concretely. What is certain is that many of the purported benefits were, at best, not fully thought-through and will never come to be. With anything relating to trade, the EU is the UK's primary trade partner, and the UK will still have to comply with EU regulations in order to export to EU countries. This will merely add complication and a layer of bureaucracy to the matter.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



























      2














      I think the economic consensus is that the UK will be economically worse off for leaving. We can be reasonably sure that a disorderly no-deal Brexit will be economically disastrous, so everyone reasonable wants to avoid that. Even the heterodox Economists for Brexit say UK manufacturing will have to be wound down like coal and steel were (which I sincerely hope doesn't come true). Of course the economy wasn't the sole factor in the vote to leave - although I think some Brexiteers were and are, shall we say, 'overly optimistic' about the post-Brexit economy.



      The intangible benefits in principle are sovereignty - all our laws will be made domestically, we won't have to implement or abide by laws made by supranational entities - and control over immigration. But in practice our exercise of these benefits will be circumscribed by agreements and trade with other countries.



      India for example wants easier immigration for Indian nationals to the UK in its trade deal with the UK. We can change our laws about goods and services but in international trade we must nevertheless meet the standards set out in the trade agreements. We will continue to be subject to non-domestic courts or arbitration bodies formed to adjudicate disputes per the conditions of our international agreements.



      It is difficult to predict how such things will affect the individual citizen or household, particularly as there is no formal agreement yet. The only things on the table are the draft withdrawal agreement or no deal (i.e. trade under WTO rules).






      share|improve this answer






























        2














        Wanting to control immigration doesn't make me a xenophobe. It means we have less tax consumers, we build less houses on greenfield sites, and we stress our health sevices and schools less.
        We need skilled workers, and we get these through grants of work visas.



        Surgeons, yes. Baristas and car washers, no.



        But, there's no will to control immigration- as it's seen as xenophobic to do so.
        So, we might as well stay if nobody is getting what they want.



        yes yes, I'm sure this will get deleted as it's bound to offend someone somewhere.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




















        • That's perfectly possible from within the EU, right? For example, the Home Office hostile environment policy. Note that this does not seem to answer the question and may get deleted.

          – JJJ
          14 hours ago












        • The first line does not answer the question but is a comment. The rest of the first paragraph is an answer (it may not be an accurate answer, but it is an answer still). The third and fourth paragraphs are again commentary, not an answer.

          – gerrit
          14 hours ago











        • This is not an answer, and it's borderline ranty, so I'm not sure it would be a good fit as a comment, either.

          – 0xdd
          14 hours ago











        • Immigrants pay tax. Economic studies of the effects of immigration invariably find a positive effect on the country's budget, as the increase in tax revenue outweighs any increase in spending.

          – phoog
          10 hours ago


















        0














        More control over immigration



        This is the most quoted reason by leavers for leaving the EU. With reduced immigration, the probability of you meeting someone who doesn't speak perfect English or the probability of segregated communities (i.e. in Bradford) being created are decreased. Secondly, reduced immigration will lead to a slowdown in the increase of the population - more land will be available per person (so less homes will need to be built on greenfield land) and less demand will be placed on public services (schools, hospitals etc.). Finally, the immigration policy of Britain can better represent the economic needs of the country - due to the reduced immigration from the EU, we might be able to relax immigration restrictions from the rest of the world.



        British sovereignty over laws and trade



        The available options for parliament to legislate will drastically increase. Britain will be able to pass very left wing budgets (of the likes of Italy's) or pass very right wing programmes of reducing product safety standards or workers rights and not have the EU interfering. Britain will also be allowed to enforce its own tariffs on goods from abroad, which is a good thing if you are a protectionist.



        No money going to the EU budget



        Some money (not as much as claimed) will be available to spend as we will not be contributing it to the EU budget.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.



























          0














          No consensus. All claimed benefits are strongly disputed.



          However, claimed benefits include:



          Increased independence of action.
          Increased political and economic nationalism.
          Lower immigration.
          Less ‘red tape’.
          Lower contributions to European budgets.
          Being able to make trade deals.
          Laws are proposed by people elected by the people
          Other more ironic ‘benefits’ include:



          Britons coming to see what the EU actually does.
          The collapse of UKIP.
          ‘Rebalancing’ the economy away from financial services.
          Lower house prices, more tourists, and other consequences of a weak currency/economy.
          Europe running more smoothly without the awkward British.
          Less competition for European companies.
          Jobs for lawyers.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


























            11 Answers
            11






            active

            oldest

            votes








            11 Answers
            11






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            81














            In decreasing order of certainty:



            1. If you're a staunch nationalist (or even more surely if you're a xenophobe), you'll feel (a lot) better about yourself. Psychological well-being is important.

            2. If you work (or intend to work) in a field dealing with border/customs/phytosanitary etc., Brexit may have new job opportunities.

            3. If your job/income was somehow threatened by potential immigrants from the EU, it might be less so.


            4. If national legislation on environment or other business regulations gets streamlined relative to the EU-inherited one, you might benefit if you're in a business that can take advantage of that streamlining.


            5. If you work in a field that the UK government will be more protectionist of (in terms of imports), you might make more money.

            6. Something similar for subsidized exports.

            Those last two or three items are more contingent on no-deal Brexit, in which the UK will be completely unencumbered by EU with any sort of customs union sooner.



            As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1, 3 & 4 are based on that. I'm not sure if "not sending money to the EU" (another reason why some voted for Brexit) will translate into any personal financial benefits, given the potential for an economic downturn that might offset any gains from that non-contribution. But one could phrase that as a conditional benefit as well.



            The elephant in the room is of course how will British economy react (in the short run, since this is focus of the OP's question) to whatever flavor of Brexit passes. Unless you choose to trust the arch-Brexiteers' positive forecasts, the prognostic from more established sources is negative, e.g. Standard & Poors predicted UK recession until 2020 in case of a no-deal Brexit




            S&P's analysis sees a recession lasting four to five quarters should there be no deal before the exit date on 29 March.



            It sees the economy shrinking 1.2% in 2019 and 1.5% in 2020, and returning to only moderate growth the following year so that by 2021 economic output would still be 5.5% lower than in the event of an "orderly exit and transition period".




            Of course analysts aren't infaillible. But in this case I haven't heard from a non-politicized body saying UK will shrug it off.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 7





              I don't think I'm nationalistic, but I do consider myself to be patriotic, and it makes me feel sick with worry that leaving the EU might leave the country that I'm fiercely proud of much reduced both domestically and internationally. This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 4





              @EvilDogPie: I didn't mean to imply you personally fit in any of these categories. As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1 & 3 are there basically. csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

              – Fizz
              yesterday







            • 2





              Downvoted for "if you're a xenophobe", implying that only xenophobes support Brexit or that all xenophobes support it.

              – JonathanReez
              yesterday






            • 51





              @JonathanReez: The answer does not say that only xenophobes support Brexit. I'm not sure if we're even reading the same text, since the version I see goes to quite some lengths not to even imply it. It does imply that all (or at least most, depending on whether you read "even more surely" as expressing absolute or relative certainty) xenophobes support Brexit, which is not the same thing. And while there probably is at least one xenophobe somewhere in Britain who's against Brexit, I'm not aware of any substantial anti-Brexit sentiment among either self-identified or alleged xenophobes.

              – Ilmari Karonen
              yesterday






            • 8





              @EvilDogPie Since you said "This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to", everyone objective will tell you that there is no benefit apart from being on your own and not have to bother to take part in the EU.

              – Paradox
              yesterday















            81














            In decreasing order of certainty:



            1. If you're a staunch nationalist (or even more surely if you're a xenophobe), you'll feel (a lot) better about yourself. Psychological well-being is important.

            2. If you work (or intend to work) in a field dealing with border/customs/phytosanitary etc., Brexit may have new job opportunities.

            3. If your job/income was somehow threatened by potential immigrants from the EU, it might be less so.


            4. If national legislation on environment or other business regulations gets streamlined relative to the EU-inherited one, you might benefit if you're in a business that can take advantage of that streamlining.


            5. If you work in a field that the UK government will be more protectionist of (in terms of imports), you might make more money.

            6. Something similar for subsidized exports.

            Those last two or three items are more contingent on no-deal Brexit, in which the UK will be completely unencumbered by EU with any sort of customs union sooner.



            As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1, 3 & 4 are based on that. I'm not sure if "not sending money to the EU" (another reason why some voted for Brexit) will translate into any personal financial benefits, given the potential for an economic downturn that might offset any gains from that non-contribution. But one could phrase that as a conditional benefit as well.



            The elephant in the room is of course how will British economy react (in the short run, since this is focus of the OP's question) to whatever flavor of Brexit passes. Unless you choose to trust the arch-Brexiteers' positive forecasts, the prognostic from more established sources is negative, e.g. Standard & Poors predicted UK recession until 2020 in case of a no-deal Brexit




            S&P's analysis sees a recession lasting four to five quarters should there be no deal before the exit date on 29 March.



            It sees the economy shrinking 1.2% in 2019 and 1.5% in 2020, and returning to only moderate growth the following year so that by 2021 economic output would still be 5.5% lower than in the event of an "orderly exit and transition period".




            Of course analysts aren't infaillible. But in this case I haven't heard from a non-politicized body saying UK will shrug it off.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 7





              I don't think I'm nationalistic, but I do consider myself to be patriotic, and it makes me feel sick with worry that leaving the EU might leave the country that I'm fiercely proud of much reduced both domestically and internationally. This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 4





              @EvilDogPie: I didn't mean to imply you personally fit in any of these categories. As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1 & 3 are there basically. csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

              – Fizz
              yesterday







            • 2





              Downvoted for "if you're a xenophobe", implying that only xenophobes support Brexit or that all xenophobes support it.

              – JonathanReez
              yesterday






            • 51





              @JonathanReez: The answer does not say that only xenophobes support Brexit. I'm not sure if we're even reading the same text, since the version I see goes to quite some lengths not to even imply it. It does imply that all (or at least most, depending on whether you read "even more surely" as expressing absolute or relative certainty) xenophobes support Brexit, which is not the same thing. And while there probably is at least one xenophobe somewhere in Britain who's against Brexit, I'm not aware of any substantial anti-Brexit sentiment among either self-identified or alleged xenophobes.

              – Ilmari Karonen
              yesterday






            • 8





              @EvilDogPie Since you said "This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to", everyone objective will tell you that there is no benefit apart from being on your own and not have to bother to take part in the EU.

              – Paradox
              yesterday













            81












            81








            81







            In decreasing order of certainty:



            1. If you're a staunch nationalist (or even more surely if you're a xenophobe), you'll feel (a lot) better about yourself. Psychological well-being is important.

            2. If you work (or intend to work) in a field dealing with border/customs/phytosanitary etc., Brexit may have new job opportunities.

            3. If your job/income was somehow threatened by potential immigrants from the EU, it might be less so.


            4. If national legislation on environment or other business regulations gets streamlined relative to the EU-inherited one, you might benefit if you're in a business that can take advantage of that streamlining.


            5. If you work in a field that the UK government will be more protectionist of (in terms of imports), you might make more money.

            6. Something similar for subsidized exports.

            Those last two or three items are more contingent on no-deal Brexit, in which the UK will be completely unencumbered by EU with any sort of customs union sooner.



            As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1, 3 & 4 are based on that. I'm not sure if "not sending money to the EU" (another reason why some voted for Brexit) will translate into any personal financial benefits, given the potential for an economic downturn that might offset any gains from that non-contribution. But one could phrase that as a conditional benefit as well.



            The elephant in the room is of course how will British economy react (in the short run, since this is focus of the OP's question) to whatever flavor of Brexit passes. Unless you choose to trust the arch-Brexiteers' positive forecasts, the prognostic from more established sources is negative, e.g. Standard & Poors predicted UK recession until 2020 in case of a no-deal Brexit




            S&P's analysis sees a recession lasting four to five quarters should there be no deal before the exit date on 29 March.



            It sees the economy shrinking 1.2% in 2019 and 1.5% in 2020, and returning to only moderate growth the following year so that by 2021 economic output would still be 5.5% lower than in the event of an "orderly exit and transition period".




            Of course analysts aren't infaillible. But in this case I haven't heard from a non-politicized body saying UK will shrug it off.






            share|improve this answer















            In decreasing order of certainty:



            1. If you're a staunch nationalist (or even more surely if you're a xenophobe), you'll feel (a lot) better about yourself. Psychological well-being is important.

            2. If you work (or intend to work) in a field dealing with border/customs/phytosanitary etc., Brexit may have new job opportunities.

            3. If your job/income was somehow threatened by potential immigrants from the EU, it might be less so.


            4. If national legislation on environment or other business regulations gets streamlined relative to the EU-inherited one, you might benefit if you're in a business that can take advantage of that streamlining.


            5. If you work in a field that the UK government will be more protectionist of (in terms of imports), you might make more money.

            6. Something similar for subsidized exports.

            Those last two or three items are more contingent on no-deal Brexit, in which the UK will be completely unencumbered by EU with any sort of customs union sooner.



            As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1, 3 & 4 are based on that. I'm not sure if "not sending money to the EU" (another reason why some voted for Brexit) will translate into any personal financial benefits, given the potential for an economic downturn that might offset any gains from that non-contribution. But one could phrase that as a conditional benefit as well.



            The elephant in the room is of course how will British economy react (in the short run, since this is focus of the OP's question) to whatever flavor of Brexit passes. Unless you choose to trust the arch-Brexiteers' positive forecasts, the prognostic from more established sources is negative, e.g. Standard & Poors predicted UK recession until 2020 in case of a no-deal Brexit




            S&P's analysis sees a recession lasting four to five quarters should there be no deal before the exit date on 29 March.



            It sees the economy shrinking 1.2% in 2019 and 1.5% in 2020, and returning to only moderate growth the following year so that by 2021 economic output would still be 5.5% lower than in the event of an "orderly exit and transition period".




            Of course analysts aren't infaillible. But in this case I haven't heard from a non-politicized body saying UK will shrug it off.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered yesterday









            FizzFizz

            12k12977




            12k12977







            • 7





              I don't think I'm nationalistic, but I do consider myself to be patriotic, and it makes me feel sick with worry that leaving the EU might leave the country that I'm fiercely proud of much reduced both domestically and internationally. This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 4





              @EvilDogPie: I didn't mean to imply you personally fit in any of these categories. As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1 & 3 are there basically. csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

              – Fizz
              yesterday







            • 2





              Downvoted for "if you're a xenophobe", implying that only xenophobes support Brexit or that all xenophobes support it.

              – JonathanReez
              yesterday






            • 51





              @JonathanReez: The answer does not say that only xenophobes support Brexit. I'm not sure if we're even reading the same text, since the version I see goes to quite some lengths not to even imply it. It does imply that all (or at least most, depending on whether you read "even more surely" as expressing absolute or relative certainty) xenophobes support Brexit, which is not the same thing. And while there probably is at least one xenophobe somewhere in Britain who's against Brexit, I'm not aware of any substantial anti-Brexit sentiment among either self-identified or alleged xenophobes.

              – Ilmari Karonen
              yesterday






            • 8





              @EvilDogPie Since you said "This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to", everyone objective will tell you that there is no benefit apart from being on your own and not have to bother to take part in the EU.

              – Paradox
              yesterday












            • 7





              I don't think I'm nationalistic, but I do consider myself to be patriotic, and it makes me feel sick with worry that leaving the EU might leave the country that I'm fiercely proud of much reduced both domestically and internationally. This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 4





              @EvilDogPie: I didn't mean to imply you personally fit in any of these categories. As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1 & 3 are there basically. csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

              – Fizz
              yesterday







            • 2





              Downvoted for "if you're a xenophobe", implying that only xenophobes support Brexit or that all xenophobes support it.

              – JonathanReez
              yesterday






            • 51





              @JonathanReez: The answer does not say that only xenophobes support Brexit. I'm not sure if we're even reading the same text, since the version I see goes to quite some lengths not to even imply it. It does imply that all (or at least most, depending on whether you read "even more surely" as expressing absolute or relative certainty) xenophobes support Brexit, which is not the same thing. And while there probably is at least one xenophobe somewhere in Britain who's against Brexit, I'm not aware of any substantial anti-Brexit sentiment among either self-identified or alleged xenophobes.

              – Ilmari Karonen
              yesterday






            • 8





              @EvilDogPie Since you said "This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to", everyone objective will tell you that there is no benefit apart from being on your own and not have to bother to take part in the EU.

              – Paradox
              yesterday







            7




            7





            I don't think I'm nationalistic, but I do consider myself to be patriotic, and it makes me feel sick with worry that leaving the EU might leave the country that I'm fiercely proud of much reduced both domestically and internationally. This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to.

            – Evil Dog Pie
            yesterday





            I don't think I'm nationalistic, but I do consider myself to be patriotic, and it makes me feel sick with worry that leaving the EU might leave the country that I'm fiercely proud of much reduced both domestically and internationally. This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to.

            – Evil Dog Pie
            yesterday




            4




            4





            @EvilDogPie: I didn't mean to imply you personally fit in any of these categories. As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1 & 3 are there basically. csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

            – Fizz
            yesterday






            @EvilDogPie: I didn't mean to imply you personally fit in any of these categories. As you can see I can't envisage unconditional benefits. If you look at the reasons why people voted for Brexit, you'll see that my 1 & 3 are there basically. csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

            – Fizz
            yesterday





            2




            2





            Downvoted for "if you're a xenophobe", implying that only xenophobes support Brexit or that all xenophobes support it.

            – JonathanReez
            yesterday





            Downvoted for "if you're a xenophobe", implying that only xenophobes support Brexit or that all xenophobes support it.

            – JonathanReez
            yesterday




            51




            51





            @JonathanReez: The answer does not say that only xenophobes support Brexit. I'm not sure if we're even reading the same text, since the version I see goes to quite some lengths not to even imply it. It does imply that all (or at least most, depending on whether you read "even more surely" as expressing absolute or relative certainty) xenophobes support Brexit, which is not the same thing. And while there probably is at least one xenophobe somewhere in Britain who's against Brexit, I'm not aware of any substantial anti-Brexit sentiment among either self-identified or alleged xenophobes.

            – Ilmari Karonen
            yesterday





            @JonathanReez: The answer does not say that only xenophobes support Brexit. I'm not sure if we're even reading the same text, since the version I see goes to quite some lengths not to even imply it. It does imply that all (or at least most, depending on whether you read "even more surely" as expressing absolute or relative certainty) xenophobes support Brexit, which is not the same thing. And while there probably is at least one xenophobe somewhere in Britain who's against Brexit, I'm not aware of any substantial anti-Brexit sentiment among either self-identified or alleged xenophobes.

            – Ilmari Karonen
            yesterday




            8




            8





            @EvilDogPie Since you said "This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to", everyone objective will tell you that there is no benefit apart from being on your own and not have to bother to take part in the EU.

            – Paradox
            yesterday





            @EvilDogPie Since you said "This is one of the reasons that I would like to see some clear and undeniable benefits; things that I can pin my pride to", everyone objective will tell you that there is no benefit apart from being on your own and not have to bother to take part in the EU.

            – Paradox
            yesterday











            36














            There will be no immediate benefits, or even in the short term.



            It may be possible to do trade deals with other countries that the EU would take longer to complete, but they are likely to be unfavourable to the UK due to the difficult situation and reduced bargaining power post-brexit. Also, any benefit from them will only come once they have offset whatever is lost when the UK leaves the EU and the Common Market / customs union.



            There may be some small gains in sovereignty, in that the UK could pass some laws that are currently incompatible with EU regulations. Practically it won't want to make major changes that make trading more difficult. It will also be under pressure to accept rules from other countries in exchange for trade deals (mutual recognition of rules is the basis of trade deals), or to make its economy more competitive with non-EU economies (e.g. by removing worker's rights).



            The UK will be able to control immigration from the EU. It already has full control of non-EU immigration. Demands to reduce immigration will cause worker shortages and economic loss. While some may regard reduced immigration as a benefit, it's a largely intangible one where as the monetary losses are very real.



            There may be some benefits for certain parts of the UK. For example, Scotland may be able to achieve independence due to increased support after being forced to leave the EU against its collective will. There will be considerable disruption during the process but in the medium term it may have benefits. It's difficult to tell as there are so many unknowns.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 5





              I appreciate your answer, but I'm not sure that any of the points are clear benefits. If we do make trade agreements with other countries (including the EU) we will still have to accept legislative and regulatory changes, but they will be from third parties that we have no democratic authority over (unlike the EU, where we elect MEPs). I fail to see how trading EU citizens for Commonwealth citizens will help control immigration (even if immigration were a concern of mine). As for losing territorial sovereignty over Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, that's certainly not a benefit to the UK.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 43





              @EvilDogPie That's the point. All purported benefits are extremely unlikely to materialize.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 8





              The UK also currently has a reasonable level of control over EU immigration that it has chosen not to use. "European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC ... allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/…

              – Player One
              yesterday







            • 3





              This is simply untrue. For example, the UK's exports of Scotch Whisky will almost certain double as soon as the (EU-led) export tariffs to India and other parts of the world are removed or lowered. They want to buy more and we want to sell more, hence the Scotch Whisky Association strongly favouring Brexit - "...the draft Withdrawal Agreement and accompanying Political Declaration on the Future UK-EU Relationship stand up well against the Scotch Whisky industry’s Brexit priorities" - scotsman.com/news/politics/…

              – Valorum
              23 hours ago







            • 5





              @PlayerOne Also the UK didn't use the controls allowed to restrict immigration from the A8 countries in the accession transition period. The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for UK government decisions about the exercise of its immigration powers.

              – Lag
              22 hours ago















            36














            There will be no immediate benefits, or even in the short term.



            It may be possible to do trade deals with other countries that the EU would take longer to complete, but they are likely to be unfavourable to the UK due to the difficult situation and reduced bargaining power post-brexit. Also, any benefit from them will only come once they have offset whatever is lost when the UK leaves the EU and the Common Market / customs union.



            There may be some small gains in sovereignty, in that the UK could pass some laws that are currently incompatible with EU regulations. Practically it won't want to make major changes that make trading more difficult. It will also be under pressure to accept rules from other countries in exchange for trade deals (mutual recognition of rules is the basis of trade deals), or to make its economy more competitive with non-EU economies (e.g. by removing worker's rights).



            The UK will be able to control immigration from the EU. It already has full control of non-EU immigration. Demands to reduce immigration will cause worker shortages and economic loss. While some may regard reduced immigration as a benefit, it's a largely intangible one where as the monetary losses are very real.



            There may be some benefits for certain parts of the UK. For example, Scotland may be able to achieve independence due to increased support after being forced to leave the EU against its collective will. There will be considerable disruption during the process but in the medium term it may have benefits. It's difficult to tell as there are so many unknowns.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 5





              I appreciate your answer, but I'm not sure that any of the points are clear benefits. If we do make trade agreements with other countries (including the EU) we will still have to accept legislative and regulatory changes, but they will be from third parties that we have no democratic authority over (unlike the EU, where we elect MEPs). I fail to see how trading EU citizens for Commonwealth citizens will help control immigration (even if immigration were a concern of mine). As for losing territorial sovereignty over Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, that's certainly not a benefit to the UK.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 43





              @EvilDogPie That's the point. All purported benefits are extremely unlikely to materialize.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 8





              The UK also currently has a reasonable level of control over EU immigration that it has chosen not to use. "European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC ... allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/…

              – Player One
              yesterday







            • 3





              This is simply untrue. For example, the UK's exports of Scotch Whisky will almost certain double as soon as the (EU-led) export tariffs to India and other parts of the world are removed or lowered. They want to buy more and we want to sell more, hence the Scotch Whisky Association strongly favouring Brexit - "...the draft Withdrawal Agreement and accompanying Political Declaration on the Future UK-EU Relationship stand up well against the Scotch Whisky industry’s Brexit priorities" - scotsman.com/news/politics/…

              – Valorum
              23 hours ago







            • 5





              @PlayerOne Also the UK didn't use the controls allowed to restrict immigration from the A8 countries in the accession transition period. The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for UK government decisions about the exercise of its immigration powers.

              – Lag
              22 hours ago













            36












            36








            36







            There will be no immediate benefits, or even in the short term.



            It may be possible to do trade deals with other countries that the EU would take longer to complete, but they are likely to be unfavourable to the UK due to the difficult situation and reduced bargaining power post-brexit. Also, any benefit from them will only come once they have offset whatever is lost when the UK leaves the EU and the Common Market / customs union.



            There may be some small gains in sovereignty, in that the UK could pass some laws that are currently incompatible with EU regulations. Practically it won't want to make major changes that make trading more difficult. It will also be under pressure to accept rules from other countries in exchange for trade deals (mutual recognition of rules is the basis of trade deals), or to make its economy more competitive with non-EU economies (e.g. by removing worker's rights).



            The UK will be able to control immigration from the EU. It already has full control of non-EU immigration. Demands to reduce immigration will cause worker shortages and economic loss. While some may regard reduced immigration as a benefit, it's a largely intangible one where as the monetary losses are very real.



            There may be some benefits for certain parts of the UK. For example, Scotland may be able to achieve independence due to increased support after being forced to leave the EU against its collective will. There will be considerable disruption during the process but in the medium term it may have benefits. It's difficult to tell as there are so many unknowns.






            share|improve this answer













            There will be no immediate benefits, or even in the short term.



            It may be possible to do trade deals with other countries that the EU would take longer to complete, but they are likely to be unfavourable to the UK due to the difficult situation and reduced bargaining power post-brexit. Also, any benefit from them will only come once they have offset whatever is lost when the UK leaves the EU and the Common Market / customs union.



            There may be some small gains in sovereignty, in that the UK could pass some laws that are currently incompatible with EU regulations. Practically it won't want to make major changes that make trading more difficult. It will also be under pressure to accept rules from other countries in exchange for trade deals (mutual recognition of rules is the basis of trade deals), or to make its economy more competitive with non-EU economies (e.g. by removing worker's rights).



            The UK will be able to control immigration from the EU. It already has full control of non-EU immigration. Demands to reduce immigration will cause worker shortages and economic loss. While some may regard reduced immigration as a benefit, it's a largely intangible one where as the monetary losses are very real.



            There may be some benefits for certain parts of the UK. For example, Scotland may be able to achieve independence due to increased support after being forced to leave the EU against its collective will. There will be considerable disruption during the process but in the medium term it may have benefits. It's difficult to tell as there are so many unknowns.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            useruser

            9,63732139




            9,63732139







            • 5





              I appreciate your answer, but I'm not sure that any of the points are clear benefits. If we do make trade agreements with other countries (including the EU) we will still have to accept legislative and regulatory changes, but they will be from third parties that we have no democratic authority over (unlike the EU, where we elect MEPs). I fail to see how trading EU citizens for Commonwealth citizens will help control immigration (even if immigration were a concern of mine). As for losing territorial sovereignty over Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, that's certainly not a benefit to the UK.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 43





              @EvilDogPie That's the point. All purported benefits are extremely unlikely to materialize.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 8





              The UK also currently has a reasonable level of control over EU immigration that it has chosen not to use. "European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC ... allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/…

              – Player One
              yesterday







            • 3





              This is simply untrue. For example, the UK's exports of Scotch Whisky will almost certain double as soon as the (EU-led) export tariffs to India and other parts of the world are removed or lowered. They want to buy more and we want to sell more, hence the Scotch Whisky Association strongly favouring Brexit - "...the draft Withdrawal Agreement and accompanying Political Declaration on the Future UK-EU Relationship stand up well against the Scotch Whisky industry’s Brexit priorities" - scotsman.com/news/politics/…

              – Valorum
              23 hours ago







            • 5





              @PlayerOne Also the UK didn't use the controls allowed to restrict immigration from the A8 countries in the accession transition period. The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for UK government decisions about the exercise of its immigration powers.

              – Lag
              22 hours ago












            • 5





              I appreciate your answer, but I'm not sure that any of the points are clear benefits. If we do make trade agreements with other countries (including the EU) we will still have to accept legislative and regulatory changes, but they will be from third parties that we have no democratic authority over (unlike the EU, where we elect MEPs). I fail to see how trading EU citizens for Commonwealth citizens will help control immigration (even if immigration were a concern of mine). As for losing territorial sovereignty over Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, that's certainly not a benefit to the UK.

              – Evil Dog Pie
              yesterday






            • 43





              @EvilDogPie That's the point. All purported benefits are extremely unlikely to materialize.

              – user
              yesterday






            • 8





              The UK also currently has a reasonable level of control over EU immigration that it has chosen not to use. "European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC ... allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/…

              – Player One
              yesterday







            • 3





              This is simply untrue. For example, the UK's exports of Scotch Whisky will almost certain double as soon as the (EU-led) export tariffs to India and other parts of the world are removed or lowered. They want to buy more and we want to sell more, hence the Scotch Whisky Association strongly favouring Brexit - "...the draft Withdrawal Agreement and accompanying Political Declaration on the Future UK-EU Relationship stand up well against the Scotch Whisky industry’s Brexit priorities" - scotsman.com/news/politics/…

              – Valorum
              23 hours ago







            • 5





              @PlayerOne Also the UK didn't use the controls allowed to restrict immigration from the A8 countries in the accession transition period. The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for UK government decisions about the exercise of its immigration powers.

              – Lag
              22 hours ago







            5




            5





            I appreciate your answer, but I'm not sure that any of the points are clear benefits. If we do make trade agreements with other countries (including the EU) we will still have to accept legislative and regulatory changes, but they will be from third parties that we have no democratic authority over (unlike the EU, where we elect MEPs). I fail to see how trading EU citizens for Commonwealth citizens will help control immigration (even if immigration were a concern of mine). As for losing territorial sovereignty over Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, that's certainly not a benefit to the UK.

            – Evil Dog Pie
            yesterday





            I appreciate your answer, but I'm not sure that any of the points are clear benefits. If we do make trade agreements with other countries (including the EU) we will still have to accept legislative and regulatory changes, but they will be from third parties that we have no democratic authority over (unlike the EU, where we elect MEPs). I fail to see how trading EU citizens for Commonwealth citizens will help control immigration (even if immigration were a concern of mine). As for losing territorial sovereignty over Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, that's certainly not a benefit to the UK.

            – Evil Dog Pie
            yesterday




            43




            43





            @EvilDogPie That's the point. All purported benefits are extremely unlikely to materialize.

            – user
            yesterday





            @EvilDogPie That's the point. All purported benefits are extremely unlikely to materialize.

            – user
            yesterday




            8




            8





            The UK also currently has a reasonable level of control over EU immigration that it has chosen not to use. "European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC ... allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/…

            – Player One
            yesterday






            The UK also currently has a reasonable level of control over EU immigration that it has chosen not to use. "European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC ... allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/…

            – Player One
            yesterday





            3




            3





            This is simply untrue. For example, the UK's exports of Scotch Whisky will almost certain double as soon as the (EU-led) export tariffs to India and other parts of the world are removed or lowered. They want to buy more and we want to sell more, hence the Scotch Whisky Association strongly favouring Brexit - "...the draft Withdrawal Agreement and accompanying Political Declaration on the Future UK-EU Relationship stand up well against the Scotch Whisky industry’s Brexit priorities" - scotsman.com/news/politics/…

            – Valorum
            23 hours ago






            This is simply untrue. For example, the UK's exports of Scotch Whisky will almost certain double as soon as the (EU-led) export tariffs to India and other parts of the world are removed or lowered. They want to buy more and we want to sell more, hence the Scotch Whisky Association strongly favouring Brexit - "...the draft Withdrawal Agreement and accompanying Political Declaration on the Future UK-EU Relationship stand up well against the Scotch Whisky industry’s Brexit priorities" - scotsman.com/news/politics/…

            – Valorum
            23 hours ago





            5




            5





            @PlayerOne Also the UK didn't use the controls allowed to restrict immigration from the A8 countries in the accession transition period. The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for UK government decisions about the exercise of its immigration powers.

            – Lag
            22 hours ago





            @PlayerOne Also the UK didn't use the controls allowed to restrict immigration from the A8 countries in the accession transition period. The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for UK government decisions about the exercise of its immigration powers.

            – Lag
            22 hours ago











            23














            As I'm sure you've probably worked out, there's no definitive, general answer to this question. For evidence, I'll simply point to the fact that, if there was, it would have been shouted from the rooftops by pro-Brexit campaigners.



            However, it's possible to sketch out some of the likely consequences but you'll have to work out for yourself if you consider them net positive or not.



            Firstly, assuming we don't remain in the customs union, we'll be able to negotiate bi-lateral trade deals. Short term, this is unlikely to have much effect. The reason being that there are a lot to complete so most are being negotiated on a like for like basis i.e. the same as our current EU ones. Just for stability.



            In the medium term (and 5 years is probably there or thereabouts) we'd be expecting to close final version of some of the bigger ones e.g. US, EU, China, Switzerland. It's unlikely that the EU trade agreement will be net positive for the UK because they'll keep their usual red lines and we'll have our own, different, ones.



            For the others, though, there are opportunities. For example, the EU tends to negotiate very complex agricultural tariffs. This is because of CAP and the general strength of the agricultural lobby in the EU. The downside is that the EU often has to give up some advantage in other areas to maintain this subsidy regime. For the UK, agriculture is substantially less significant, politically. So we may well end up agreeing trade deals that are net negative for our agriculture industry, compared to now, but beneficial to other industries e.g. manufacturing or services. If you're farming rape seed today this could be an issue. If you work in advertising (to pick a random occupation), it could be positive.



            No deal has equivalent but different concerns. We'd be under WTO rules. However, the exact tariff regime we'd come up with hasn't been agreed (or at least publicised). Once the initial confusion has died down, there are likely to be winners and losers relative to existing tariffs. My educated guess is that agriculture and services will take a hit which manufacturing may well do better. But it's just a guess at this stage.



            Secondly, assuming we don't stay in the single market, there'll be no freedom of movement with the EU. Now, it's highly debatable what level of immigration we'll have post-Brexit. In fact, it's economically questionable if it should be much lower than now. However, what is fairly indisputable is that freedom of movement makes immigration levels difficult to predict and, worse, dependent on circumstances outside of the UK's control. So, if you found your children in schools where there was a substantial increase in pupils, but without the equivalent timely investment, this is less likely to occur in future (whether the school investment will be at an appropriate level in future is a separate question).



            Thirdly, the EU has strict rules on state subsidies. Outside of the EU, we are free to choose what we subsidise (ok, probably not completely free as we will likely be constrained by trade agreements but how we are constrained will be our choice). This is something that the current Labour leadership are very keen on as they would like to invest heavily in public ownership. So, if you consider, say, rail nationalisation a positive move then this sort of thing is much easier outside the EU.



            And fourthly, don't discount independence considerations. There are plenty of people that do consider a united Ireland or independent Scotland a positive thing. For the former, where once the considerations were primarily religious, post-Brexit, there are likely to be very good economic arguments for uniting Ireland. Would it swing a vote sufficiently? Probably not given the depth of feeling but a major UK recession could affect that.



            Similarly in Scotland, there's a much stronger case for a second referendum if Brexit happens than if it didn't. Moreover, the EU was dead against a break up of an EU country. They may well look very differently at a Scotland coming in from the cold, as it were. If Scotland also wanted to join the Euro (toxic during the first referendum, less so now), the EU may be very amenable. This could easily be enough to swing a vote.






            share|improve this answer



























              23














              As I'm sure you've probably worked out, there's no definitive, general answer to this question. For evidence, I'll simply point to the fact that, if there was, it would have been shouted from the rooftops by pro-Brexit campaigners.



              However, it's possible to sketch out some of the likely consequences but you'll have to work out for yourself if you consider them net positive or not.



              Firstly, assuming we don't remain in the customs union, we'll be able to negotiate bi-lateral trade deals. Short term, this is unlikely to have much effect. The reason being that there are a lot to complete so most are being negotiated on a like for like basis i.e. the same as our current EU ones. Just for stability.



              In the medium term (and 5 years is probably there or thereabouts) we'd be expecting to close final version of some of the bigger ones e.g. US, EU, China, Switzerland. It's unlikely that the EU trade agreement will be net positive for the UK because they'll keep their usual red lines and we'll have our own, different, ones.



              For the others, though, there are opportunities. For example, the EU tends to negotiate very complex agricultural tariffs. This is because of CAP and the general strength of the agricultural lobby in the EU. The downside is that the EU often has to give up some advantage in other areas to maintain this subsidy regime. For the UK, agriculture is substantially less significant, politically. So we may well end up agreeing trade deals that are net negative for our agriculture industry, compared to now, but beneficial to other industries e.g. manufacturing or services. If you're farming rape seed today this could be an issue. If you work in advertising (to pick a random occupation), it could be positive.



              No deal has equivalent but different concerns. We'd be under WTO rules. However, the exact tariff regime we'd come up with hasn't been agreed (or at least publicised). Once the initial confusion has died down, there are likely to be winners and losers relative to existing tariffs. My educated guess is that agriculture and services will take a hit which manufacturing may well do better. But it's just a guess at this stage.



              Secondly, assuming we don't stay in the single market, there'll be no freedom of movement with the EU. Now, it's highly debatable what level of immigration we'll have post-Brexit. In fact, it's economically questionable if it should be much lower than now. However, what is fairly indisputable is that freedom of movement makes immigration levels difficult to predict and, worse, dependent on circumstances outside of the UK's control. So, if you found your children in schools where there was a substantial increase in pupils, but without the equivalent timely investment, this is less likely to occur in future (whether the school investment will be at an appropriate level in future is a separate question).



              Thirdly, the EU has strict rules on state subsidies. Outside of the EU, we are free to choose what we subsidise (ok, probably not completely free as we will likely be constrained by trade agreements but how we are constrained will be our choice). This is something that the current Labour leadership are very keen on as they would like to invest heavily in public ownership. So, if you consider, say, rail nationalisation a positive move then this sort of thing is much easier outside the EU.



              And fourthly, don't discount independence considerations. There are plenty of people that do consider a united Ireland or independent Scotland a positive thing. For the former, where once the considerations were primarily religious, post-Brexit, there are likely to be very good economic arguments for uniting Ireland. Would it swing a vote sufficiently? Probably not given the depth of feeling but a major UK recession could affect that.



              Similarly in Scotland, there's a much stronger case for a second referendum if Brexit happens than if it didn't. Moreover, the EU was dead against a break up of an EU country. They may well look very differently at a Scotland coming in from the cold, as it were. If Scotland also wanted to join the Euro (toxic during the first referendum, less so now), the EU may be very amenable. This could easily be enough to swing a vote.






              share|improve this answer

























                23












                23








                23







                As I'm sure you've probably worked out, there's no definitive, general answer to this question. For evidence, I'll simply point to the fact that, if there was, it would have been shouted from the rooftops by pro-Brexit campaigners.



                However, it's possible to sketch out some of the likely consequences but you'll have to work out for yourself if you consider them net positive or not.



                Firstly, assuming we don't remain in the customs union, we'll be able to negotiate bi-lateral trade deals. Short term, this is unlikely to have much effect. The reason being that there are a lot to complete so most are being negotiated on a like for like basis i.e. the same as our current EU ones. Just for stability.



                In the medium term (and 5 years is probably there or thereabouts) we'd be expecting to close final version of some of the bigger ones e.g. US, EU, China, Switzerland. It's unlikely that the EU trade agreement will be net positive for the UK because they'll keep their usual red lines and we'll have our own, different, ones.



                For the others, though, there are opportunities. For example, the EU tends to negotiate very complex agricultural tariffs. This is because of CAP and the general strength of the agricultural lobby in the EU. The downside is that the EU often has to give up some advantage in other areas to maintain this subsidy regime. For the UK, agriculture is substantially less significant, politically. So we may well end up agreeing trade deals that are net negative for our agriculture industry, compared to now, but beneficial to other industries e.g. manufacturing or services. If you're farming rape seed today this could be an issue. If you work in advertising (to pick a random occupation), it could be positive.



                No deal has equivalent but different concerns. We'd be under WTO rules. However, the exact tariff regime we'd come up with hasn't been agreed (or at least publicised). Once the initial confusion has died down, there are likely to be winners and losers relative to existing tariffs. My educated guess is that agriculture and services will take a hit which manufacturing may well do better. But it's just a guess at this stage.



                Secondly, assuming we don't stay in the single market, there'll be no freedom of movement with the EU. Now, it's highly debatable what level of immigration we'll have post-Brexit. In fact, it's economically questionable if it should be much lower than now. However, what is fairly indisputable is that freedom of movement makes immigration levels difficult to predict and, worse, dependent on circumstances outside of the UK's control. So, if you found your children in schools where there was a substantial increase in pupils, but without the equivalent timely investment, this is less likely to occur in future (whether the school investment will be at an appropriate level in future is a separate question).



                Thirdly, the EU has strict rules on state subsidies. Outside of the EU, we are free to choose what we subsidise (ok, probably not completely free as we will likely be constrained by trade agreements but how we are constrained will be our choice). This is something that the current Labour leadership are very keen on as they would like to invest heavily in public ownership. So, if you consider, say, rail nationalisation a positive move then this sort of thing is much easier outside the EU.



                And fourthly, don't discount independence considerations. There are plenty of people that do consider a united Ireland or independent Scotland a positive thing. For the former, where once the considerations were primarily religious, post-Brexit, there are likely to be very good economic arguments for uniting Ireland. Would it swing a vote sufficiently? Probably not given the depth of feeling but a major UK recession could affect that.



                Similarly in Scotland, there's a much stronger case for a second referendum if Brexit happens than if it didn't. Moreover, the EU was dead against a break up of an EU country. They may well look very differently at a Scotland coming in from the cold, as it were. If Scotland also wanted to join the Euro (toxic during the first referendum, less so now), the EU may be very amenable. This could easily be enough to swing a vote.






                share|improve this answer













                As I'm sure you've probably worked out, there's no definitive, general answer to this question. For evidence, I'll simply point to the fact that, if there was, it would have been shouted from the rooftops by pro-Brexit campaigners.



                However, it's possible to sketch out some of the likely consequences but you'll have to work out for yourself if you consider them net positive or not.



                Firstly, assuming we don't remain in the customs union, we'll be able to negotiate bi-lateral trade deals. Short term, this is unlikely to have much effect. The reason being that there are a lot to complete so most are being negotiated on a like for like basis i.e. the same as our current EU ones. Just for stability.



                In the medium term (and 5 years is probably there or thereabouts) we'd be expecting to close final version of some of the bigger ones e.g. US, EU, China, Switzerland. It's unlikely that the EU trade agreement will be net positive for the UK because they'll keep their usual red lines and we'll have our own, different, ones.



                For the others, though, there are opportunities. For example, the EU tends to negotiate very complex agricultural tariffs. This is because of CAP and the general strength of the agricultural lobby in the EU. The downside is that the EU often has to give up some advantage in other areas to maintain this subsidy regime. For the UK, agriculture is substantially less significant, politically. So we may well end up agreeing trade deals that are net negative for our agriculture industry, compared to now, but beneficial to other industries e.g. manufacturing or services. If you're farming rape seed today this could be an issue. If you work in advertising (to pick a random occupation), it could be positive.



                No deal has equivalent but different concerns. We'd be under WTO rules. However, the exact tariff regime we'd come up with hasn't been agreed (or at least publicised). Once the initial confusion has died down, there are likely to be winners and losers relative to existing tariffs. My educated guess is that agriculture and services will take a hit which manufacturing may well do better. But it's just a guess at this stage.



                Secondly, assuming we don't stay in the single market, there'll be no freedom of movement with the EU. Now, it's highly debatable what level of immigration we'll have post-Brexit. In fact, it's economically questionable if it should be much lower than now. However, what is fairly indisputable is that freedom of movement makes immigration levels difficult to predict and, worse, dependent on circumstances outside of the UK's control. So, if you found your children in schools where there was a substantial increase in pupils, but without the equivalent timely investment, this is less likely to occur in future (whether the school investment will be at an appropriate level in future is a separate question).



                Thirdly, the EU has strict rules on state subsidies. Outside of the EU, we are free to choose what we subsidise (ok, probably not completely free as we will likely be constrained by trade agreements but how we are constrained will be our choice). This is something that the current Labour leadership are very keen on as they would like to invest heavily in public ownership. So, if you consider, say, rail nationalisation a positive move then this sort of thing is much easier outside the EU.



                And fourthly, don't discount independence considerations. There are plenty of people that do consider a united Ireland or independent Scotland a positive thing. For the former, where once the considerations were primarily religious, post-Brexit, there are likely to be very good economic arguments for uniting Ireland. Would it swing a vote sufficiently? Probably not given the depth of feeling but a major UK recession could affect that.



                Similarly in Scotland, there's a much stronger case for a second referendum if Brexit happens than if it didn't. Moreover, the EU was dead against a break up of an EU country. They may well look very differently at a Scotland coming in from the cold, as it were. If Scotland also wanted to join the Euro (toxic during the first referendum, less so now), the EU may be very amenable. This could easily be enough to swing a vote.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                AlexAlex

                4,3701222




                4,3701222





















                    16














                    The Brexiters have made multiple claims about benefits... None of them had much merit IMHO, but the main ones were:



                    Reclaim full sovereignty



                    There are two main gripes here:



                    The first is that Brussels produces laws that apply as is (Regulations) or that set a minimum standard that must get transcribed into national law (Directives). EU citizens have a say on them by virtue of the EP; the UK government has some form of say on them by virtue of the EU Council and how EU commissioners get appointed; the UK's (or any other member's) national parliament has no say. The net result of this setup is that EU institutions tend to be viewed as not democratic enough.



                    A corollary argument that latches on to this first point is that, without these apparently annoying EU regulations -- that prevent you from e.g. eating chlorinated chicken, working 60 hour weeks, drinking polluted water, or buying lead-laced toys -- the UK could improve the living standards of its poorer population by working more and lowering its standards to cut the cost of goods. You can hear this lower cost of goods argument being made straight from Rees-Mogg's mouth, albeit without the part that makes explicit that it would involve cutting standards and corners.



                    The other is that the European Court of Justice supersedes all national law according to the ECJ. In practice it's a bit murkier, because the constitutional courts of at least one member state (France [FR]) have politely begged to differ with the ECJ and held that their constitution trumped EU law should a test arise.



                    At any rate, the threat to sovereignty should be fairly clear if you're concerned that an EU high court, set up to be the arbiter of EU treaties (that your government signed and your MPs approved) and laws (that you're involved in making through the EP), with one judge appointed by each member state, actually does its job and enforces that an EU treaty or law (part of international public law) might supersede your national law (as it should, bar your Constitution).



                    Independent trade deal policy



                    The gripe here is simple: the EU is currently responsible for negotiating international trade deals on its members' behalf. And the UK would like to make its own deals. The UK's silver-tongued negotiators can presumably do much better. They're reputably so outstanding, and the UK's economy is so important, that negotiating new trade deals will be the easiest thing ever.



                    Snark aside, an indicator that things might not go as planned here is Turkey: by virtue of having a customs arrangement with the EU, Turkey reportedly has a hard time finding trading partners who want to negotiate deals with it. The reason is that, as a would-be trading partner, you're better off negotiating with the EU instead, giving you access to a much bigger market, while snatching a de facto deal with Turkey as a bonus without the latter having much if any say on it.



                    That, you might be thinking, is an excellent reason to not stay in the Customs Union, on top of the pesky problem of not having any independent trade policy if you're in it to begin with. But then you'd also introduce a lot of trade friction with the world's largest market, and risk a return of The Troubles by introducing a hard border at the Irish border.



                    EU contributions



                    This argument was famously advanced on London buses, but it's been so debunked and ridiculed by now (to say nothing about retracted the day after the Brexit poll) that I hope you don't need any convincing it was hogwash.



                    Still, I would raise in passing that whether the UK continues to pay into EU contributions or not in the future (which it might, if it ultimately opts for a Norway type of deal), there are financial commitments that need to be honored short of having wide ranging implications for UK retirees (former EU civil servants), UK students (Erasmus), UK research programs and infrastructure projects that rely on EU grants and subsidies, and so forth.



                    Border control



                    Until now the UK already had control over its borders when it came to non-EU migration. So what we're actually talking about here is preventing the proverbial Polish plumber from settling in the UK, or the UK doing its part to absorb the millions of Syrians that poured into the EU owing to a crisis that the UK played its part in fueling.



                    IMHO this might actually be the only tangible benefit -- provided that you view that as a good thing, and think that having no freedom of movement for UK citizens within the EU is an acceptable cost.






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • 3





                      Those "millions of Syrians" would not have the freedom of movement to settle in the EU until they naturalise as citizens of a EU member state (by which time they have already been absorbed elsewhere). Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens.

                      – gerrit
                      20 hours ago












                    • As far as I am aware, a country's obligations to refugees are due to international law, even when those laws are reinforced by EU legislation. The ECHR is independent of the EU and we're not leaving that, so our obligations to take and look after refugees will be unaffected by Brexit, won't it?

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      19 hours ago






                    • 2





                      @EvilDogPie: Best I'm aware, under international law, the country that the refugees enter through is responsible for processing them, and refugees usually enter Europe through southern and eastern European countries. Leaving aside that Syrian refugees arguably should have stopped in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, the burden sharing within the EU that comes after they enter through Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc. is an EU thing insofar as I'm aware.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      19 hours ago











                    • @DenisdeBernardy The burden sharing is an EU thing that happens to be totally failing. There is no burden sharing in practice, certainly not mandatory burden sharing.

                      – gerrit
                      14 hours ago












                    • @gerrit: Agreed. I wanted to add a note that it wasn't working at all, but I lacked characters to do so.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      14 hours ago















                    16














                    The Brexiters have made multiple claims about benefits... None of them had much merit IMHO, but the main ones were:



                    Reclaim full sovereignty



                    There are two main gripes here:



                    The first is that Brussels produces laws that apply as is (Regulations) or that set a minimum standard that must get transcribed into national law (Directives). EU citizens have a say on them by virtue of the EP; the UK government has some form of say on them by virtue of the EU Council and how EU commissioners get appointed; the UK's (or any other member's) national parliament has no say. The net result of this setup is that EU institutions tend to be viewed as not democratic enough.



                    A corollary argument that latches on to this first point is that, without these apparently annoying EU regulations -- that prevent you from e.g. eating chlorinated chicken, working 60 hour weeks, drinking polluted water, or buying lead-laced toys -- the UK could improve the living standards of its poorer population by working more and lowering its standards to cut the cost of goods. You can hear this lower cost of goods argument being made straight from Rees-Mogg's mouth, albeit without the part that makes explicit that it would involve cutting standards and corners.



                    The other is that the European Court of Justice supersedes all national law according to the ECJ. In practice it's a bit murkier, because the constitutional courts of at least one member state (France [FR]) have politely begged to differ with the ECJ and held that their constitution trumped EU law should a test arise.



                    At any rate, the threat to sovereignty should be fairly clear if you're concerned that an EU high court, set up to be the arbiter of EU treaties (that your government signed and your MPs approved) and laws (that you're involved in making through the EP), with one judge appointed by each member state, actually does its job and enforces that an EU treaty or law (part of international public law) might supersede your national law (as it should, bar your Constitution).



                    Independent trade deal policy



                    The gripe here is simple: the EU is currently responsible for negotiating international trade deals on its members' behalf. And the UK would like to make its own deals. The UK's silver-tongued negotiators can presumably do much better. They're reputably so outstanding, and the UK's economy is so important, that negotiating new trade deals will be the easiest thing ever.



                    Snark aside, an indicator that things might not go as planned here is Turkey: by virtue of having a customs arrangement with the EU, Turkey reportedly has a hard time finding trading partners who want to negotiate deals with it. The reason is that, as a would-be trading partner, you're better off negotiating with the EU instead, giving you access to a much bigger market, while snatching a de facto deal with Turkey as a bonus without the latter having much if any say on it.



                    That, you might be thinking, is an excellent reason to not stay in the Customs Union, on top of the pesky problem of not having any independent trade policy if you're in it to begin with. But then you'd also introduce a lot of trade friction with the world's largest market, and risk a return of The Troubles by introducing a hard border at the Irish border.



                    EU contributions



                    This argument was famously advanced on London buses, but it's been so debunked and ridiculed by now (to say nothing about retracted the day after the Brexit poll) that I hope you don't need any convincing it was hogwash.



                    Still, I would raise in passing that whether the UK continues to pay into EU contributions or not in the future (which it might, if it ultimately opts for a Norway type of deal), there are financial commitments that need to be honored short of having wide ranging implications for UK retirees (former EU civil servants), UK students (Erasmus), UK research programs and infrastructure projects that rely on EU grants and subsidies, and so forth.



                    Border control



                    Until now the UK already had control over its borders when it came to non-EU migration. So what we're actually talking about here is preventing the proverbial Polish plumber from settling in the UK, or the UK doing its part to absorb the millions of Syrians that poured into the EU owing to a crisis that the UK played its part in fueling.



                    IMHO this might actually be the only tangible benefit -- provided that you view that as a good thing, and think that having no freedom of movement for UK citizens within the EU is an acceptable cost.






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • 3





                      Those "millions of Syrians" would not have the freedom of movement to settle in the EU until they naturalise as citizens of a EU member state (by which time they have already been absorbed elsewhere). Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens.

                      – gerrit
                      20 hours ago












                    • As far as I am aware, a country's obligations to refugees are due to international law, even when those laws are reinforced by EU legislation. The ECHR is independent of the EU and we're not leaving that, so our obligations to take and look after refugees will be unaffected by Brexit, won't it?

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      19 hours ago






                    • 2





                      @EvilDogPie: Best I'm aware, under international law, the country that the refugees enter through is responsible for processing them, and refugees usually enter Europe through southern and eastern European countries. Leaving aside that Syrian refugees arguably should have stopped in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, the burden sharing within the EU that comes after they enter through Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc. is an EU thing insofar as I'm aware.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      19 hours ago











                    • @DenisdeBernardy The burden sharing is an EU thing that happens to be totally failing. There is no burden sharing in practice, certainly not mandatory burden sharing.

                      – gerrit
                      14 hours ago












                    • @gerrit: Agreed. I wanted to add a note that it wasn't working at all, but I lacked characters to do so.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      14 hours ago













                    16












                    16








                    16







                    The Brexiters have made multiple claims about benefits... None of them had much merit IMHO, but the main ones were:



                    Reclaim full sovereignty



                    There are two main gripes here:



                    The first is that Brussels produces laws that apply as is (Regulations) or that set a minimum standard that must get transcribed into national law (Directives). EU citizens have a say on them by virtue of the EP; the UK government has some form of say on them by virtue of the EU Council and how EU commissioners get appointed; the UK's (or any other member's) national parliament has no say. The net result of this setup is that EU institutions tend to be viewed as not democratic enough.



                    A corollary argument that latches on to this first point is that, without these apparently annoying EU regulations -- that prevent you from e.g. eating chlorinated chicken, working 60 hour weeks, drinking polluted water, or buying lead-laced toys -- the UK could improve the living standards of its poorer population by working more and lowering its standards to cut the cost of goods. You can hear this lower cost of goods argument being made straight from Rees-Mogg's mouth, albeit without the part that makes explicit that it would involve cutting standards and corners.



                    The other is that the European Court of Justice supersedes all national law according to the ECJ. In practice it's a bit murkier, because the constitutional courts of at least one member state (France [FR]) have politely begged to differ with the ECJ and held that their constitution trumped EU law should a test arise.



                    At any rate, the threat to sovereignty should be fairly clear if you're concerned that an EU high court, set up to be the arbiter of EU treaties (that your government signed and your MPs approved) and laws (that you're involved in making through the EP), with one judge appointed by each member state, actually does its job and enforces that an EU treaty or law (part of international public law) might supersede your national law (as it should, bar your Constitution).



                    Independent trade deal policy



                    The gripe here is simple: the EU is currently responsible for negotiating international trade deals on its members' behalf. And the UK would like to make its own deals. The UK's silver-tongued negotiators can presumably do much better. They're reputably so outstanding, and the UK's economy is so important, that negotiating new trade deals will be the easiest thing ever.



                    Snark aside, an indicator that things might not go as planned here is Turkey: by virtue of having a customs arrangement with the EU, Turkey reportedly has a hard time finding trading partners who want to negotiate deals with it. The reason is that, as a would-be trading partner, you're better off negotiating with the EU instead, giving you access to a much bigger market, while snatching a de facto deal with Turkey as a bonus without the latter having much if any say on it.



                    That, you might be thinking, is an excellent reason to not stay in the Customs Union, on top of the pesky problem of not having any independent trade policy if you're in it to begin with. But then you'd also introduce a lot of trade friction with the world's largest market, and risk a return of The Troubles by introducing a hard border at the Irish border.



                    EU contributions



                    This argument was famously advanced on London buses, but it's been so debunked and ridiculed by now (to say nothing about retracted the day after the Brexit poll) that I hope you don't need any convincing it was hogwash.



                    Still, I would raise in passing that whether the UK continues to pay into EU contributions or not in the future (which it might, if it ultimately opts for a Norway type of deal), there are financial commitments that need to be honored short of having wide ranging implications for UK retirees (former EU civil servants), UK students (Erasmus), UK research programs and infrastructure projects that rely on EU grants and subsidies, and so forth.



                    Border control



                    Until now the UK already had control over its borders when it came to non-EU migration. So what we're actually talking about here is preventing the proverbial Polish plumber from settling in the UK, or the UK doing its part to absorb the millions of Syrians that poured into the EU owing to a crisis that the UK played its part in fueling.



                    IMHO this might actually be the only tangible benefit -- provided that you view that as a good thing, and think that having no freedom of movement for UK citizens within the EU is an acceptable cost.






                    share|improve this answer















                    The Brexiters have made multiple claims about benefits... None of them had much merit IMHO, but the main ones were:



                    Reclaim full sovereignty



                    There are two main gripes here:



                    The first is that Brussels produces laws that apply as is (Regulations) or that set a minimum standard that must get transcribed into national law (Directives). EU citizens have a say on them by virtue of the EP; the UK government has some form of say on them by virtue of the EU Council and how EU commissioners get appointed; the UK's (or any other member's) national parliament has no say. The net result of this setup is that EU institutions tend to be viewed as not democratic enough.



                    A corollary argument that latches on to this first point is that, without these apparently annoying EU regulations -- that prevent you from e.g. eating chlorinated chicken, working 60 hour weeks, drinking polluted water, or buying lead-laced toys -- the UK could improve the living standards of its poorer population by working more and lowering its standards to cut the cost of goods. You can hear this lower cost of goods argument being made straight from Rees-Mogg's mouth, albeit without the part that makes explicit that it would involve cutting standards and corners.



                    The other is that the European Court of Justice supersedes all national law according to the ECJ. In practice it's a bit murkier, because the constitutional courts of at least one member state (France [FR]) have politely begged to differ with the ECJ and held that their constitution trumped EU law should a test arise.



                    At any rate, the threat to sovereignty should be fairly clear if you're concerned that an EU high court, set up to be the arbiter of EU treaties (that your government signed and your MPs approved) and laws (that you're involved in making through the EP), with one judge appointed by each member state, actually does its job and enforces that an EU treaty or law (part of international public law) might supersede your national law (as it should, bar your Constitution).



                    Independent trade deal policy



                    The gripe here is simple: the EU is currently responsible for negotiating international trade deals on its members' behalf. And the UK would like to make its own deals. The UK's silver-tongued negotiators can presumably do much better. They're reputably so outstanding, and the UK's economy is so important, that negotiating new trade deals will be the easiest thing ever.



                    Snark aside, an indicator that things might not go as planned here is Turkey: by virtue of having a customs arrangement with the EU, Turkey reportedly has a hard time finding trading partners who want to negotiate deals with it. The reason is that, as a would-be trading partner, you're better off negotiating with the EU instead, giving you access to a much bigger market, while snatching a de facto deal with Turkey as a bonus without the latter having much if any say on it.



                    That, you might be thinking, is an excellent reason to not stay in the Customs Union, on top of the pesky problem of not having any independent trade policy if you're in it to begin with. But then you'd also introduce a lot of trade friction with the world's largest market, and risk a return of The Troubles by introducing a hard border at the Irish border.



                    EU contributions



                    This argument was famously advanced on London buses, but it's been so debunked and ridiculed by now (to say nothing about retracted the day after the Brexit poll) that I hope you don't need any convincing it was hogwash.



                    Still, I would raise in passing that whether the UK continues to pay into EU contributions or not in the future (which it might, if it ultimately opts for a Norway type of deal), there are financial commitments that need to be honored short of having wide ranging implications for UK retirees (former EU civil servants), UK students (Erasmus), UK research programs and infrastructure projects that rely on EU grants and subsidies, and so forth.



                    Border control



                    Until now the UK already had control over its borders when it came to non-EU migration. So what we're actually talking about here is preventing the proverbial Polish plumber from settling in the UK, or the UK doing its part to absorb the millions of Syrians that poured into the EU owing to a crisis that the UK played its part in fueling.



                    IMHO this might actually be the only tangible benefit -- provided that you view that as a good thing, and think that having no freedom of movement for UK citizens within the EU is an acceptable cost.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 19 hours ago

























                    answered yesterday









                    Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

                    13.3k33756




                    13.3k33756







                    • 3





                      Those "millions of Syrians" would not have the freedom of movement to settle in the EU until they naturalise as citizens of a EU member state (by which time they have already been absorbed elsewhere). Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens.

                      – gerrit
                      20 hours ago












                    • As far as I am aware, a country's obligations to refugees are due to international law, even when those laws are reinforced by EU legislation. The ECHR is independent of the EU and we're not leaving that, so our obligations to take and look after refugees will be unaffected by Brexit, won't it?

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      19 hours ago






                    • 2





                      @EvilDogPie: Best I'm aware, under international law, the country that the refugees enter through is responsible for processing them, and refugees usually enter Europe through southern and eastern European countries. Leaving aside that Syrian refugees arguably should have stopped in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, the burden sharing within the EU that comes after they enter through Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc. is an EU thing insofar as I'm aware.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      19 hours ago











                    • @DenisdeBernardy The burden sharing is an EU thing that happens to be totally failing. There is no burden sharing in practice, certainly not mandatory burden sharing.

                      – gerrit
                      14 hours ago












                    • @gerrit: Agreed. I wanted to add a note that it wasn't working at all, but I lacked characters to do so.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      14 hours ago












                    • 3





                      Those "millions of Syrians" would not have the freedom of movement to settle in the EU until they naturalise as citizens of a EU member state (by which time they have already been absorbed elsewhere). Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens.

                      – gerrit
                      20 hours ago












                    • As far as I am aware, a country's obligations to refugees are due to international law, even when those laws are reinforced by EU legislation. The ECHR is independent of the EU and we're not leaving that, so our obligations to take and look after refugees will be unaffected by Brexit, won't it?

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      19 hours ago






                    • 2





                      @EvilDogPie: Best I'm aware, under international law, the country that the refugees enter through is responsible for processing them, and refugees usually enter Europe through southern and eastern European countries. Leaving aside that Syrian refugees arguably should have stopped in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, the burden sharing within the EU that comes after they enter through Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc. is an EU thing insofar as I'm aware.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      19 hours ago











                    • @DenisdeBernardy The burden sharing is an EU thing that happens to be totally failing. There is no burden sharing in practice, certainly not mandatory burden sharing.

                      – gerrit
                      14 hours ago












                    • @gerrit: Agreed. I wanted to add a note that it wasn't working at all, but I lacked characters to do so.

                      – Denis de Bernardy
                      14 hours ago







                    3




                    3





                    Those "millions of Syrians" would not have the freedom of movement to settle in the EU until they naturalise as citizens of a EU member state (by which time they have already been absorbed elsewhere). Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens.

                    – gerrit
                    20 hours ago






                    Those "millions of Syrians" would not have the freedom of movement to settle in the EU until they naturalise as citizens of a EU member state (by which time they have already been absorbed elsewhere). Freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens.

                    – gerrit
                    20 hours ago














                    As far as I am aware, a country's obligations to refugees are due to international law, even when those laws are reinforced by EU legislation. The ECHR is independent of the EU and we're not leaving that, so our obligations to take and look after refugees will be unaffected by Brexit, won't it?

                    – Evil Dog Pie
                    19 hours ago





                    As far as I am aware, a country's obligations to refugees are due to international law, even when those laws are reinforced by EU legislation. The ECHR is independent of the EU and we're not leaving that, so our obligations to take and look after refugees will be unaffected by Brexit, won't it?

                    – Evil Dog Pie
                    19 hours ago




                    2




                    2





                    @EvilDogPie: Best I'm aware, under international law, the country that the refugees enter through is responsible for processing them, and refugees usually enter Europe through southern and eastern European countries. Leaving aside that Syrian refugees arguably should have stopped in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, the burden sharing within the EU that comes after they enter through Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc. is an EU thing insofar as I'm aware.

                    – Denis de Bernardy
                    19 hours ago





                    @EvilDogPie: Best I'm aware, under international law, the country that the refugees enter through is responsible for processing them, and refugees usually enter Europe through southern and eastern European countries. Leaving aside that Syrian refugees arguably should have stopped in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, the burden sharing within the EU that comes after they enter through Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc. is an EU thing insofar as I'm aware.

                    – Denis de Bernardy
                    19 hours ago













                    @DenisdeBernardy The burden sharing is an EU thing that happens to be totally failing. There is no burden sharing in practice, certainly not mandatory burden sharing.

                    – gerrit
                    14 hours ago






                    @DenisdeBernardy The burden sharing is an EU thing that happens to be totally failing. There is no burden sharing in practice, certainly not mandatory burden sharing.

                    – gerrit
                    14 hours ago














                    @gerrit: Agreed. I wanted to add a note that it wasn't working at all, but I lacked characters to do so.

                    – Denis de Bernardy
                    14 hours ago





                    @gerrit: Agreed. I wanted to add a note that it wasn't working at all, but I lacked characters to do so.

                    – Denis de Bernardy
                    14 hours ago











                    11














                    The problem with seeing benefits is that the main benefit of Brexit is that it gives more power to our politicians to decide things themselves, for good or bad. This means that any benefits are only as good as the politicians making them, and may also be impacted by any deal we strike with the EU.



                    Also, in the short term (which for something of this scale probably means 3-5 years), the costs of change may outweigh benefits. Also, as in any change, benefits will be distributed unequally across the population; if your job relies on the EU, then you'll probably lose, but if it depends on non-EU connections, you may gain.



                    Sadly, it's often the poorest who are least able to adapt to change (due to a lack of cash reserves and/or difficulties in reskilling, finding new work, etc.), so – baring government policies to the contrary – the benefits are naturally more likely to go to the better-off. Note that this isn't unique to Brexit; this is the case for any change.



                    Unfortunately, whilst there's many possible immediate benefits, neither Tories nor Labour have made it clear what they'd actually do with their new freedoms, so the rest of this is more suggestions rather than actual policies anyone's suggested. I suspect that both parties have ideas, but don't want to publicise them yet as they don't want to be seen as pro-brexit, and as they don't want to show their cards to the EU until any deal is sealed.



                    We could, for example, drop import tarifs on a wide range of goods from food to technology, dropping their prices instantly. However, it's unlikely that politicians will do this as it looks like we'll either be in a customs union, or some similar equivalent, to ease the NI issue.



                    Trade deals (which would help our exports) unfortunately will take time, and the EU exit rules prevent us negotiating new deals until after we leave (which does seem unfair – imagine not being allowed to look for a new job / flat until after you'd left your old one...!), so unless there's been some behind-the-scenes negotiating, those will take time, particularly those with larger nations (though Trump might on a whim tweet us one immediately...!).



                    Staffing in hospitals etc. won't be directly affected, as those with jobs will continue to have them (though they may decide to leave themselves). However, this is one area where we should be able to show benefits within a few years. If we have more control over immigration, we could for maintain/reduce overall immigration, but prioritise health workers from anywhere in the world over EU workers in any industry. This requires political willpower, but would probably be a political win – they would be able to bring in more health workers whilst also reducing immigration.



                    We could pass stricter rules on health/safety on food and goods, but this would make it harder to import goods (in particular, if our rules are stricter than the EU, then most EU producers would need to adapt to meet them), so is unlikely to happen. It's more likely we may relax some over-strict rules to allow cheaper imports from a wider range of countries; but no politician wants to be seen to be relaxing H&S rules, so it's not hugely likely.



                    One significant benefit is that we may be spared the Eurovision song contest...






                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.















                    • 10





                      I don't think the Eurovision song contest is restricted to the EU. Last time I checked Australia isn't in the EU. ;)

                      – JJJ
                      yesterday






                    • 4





                      Note that the UK can (and does try to, with some small success, there was a question about that here recently) negotiate trade deals, as long as they don't come into effect while the UK is still in the EU.

                      – Graipher
                      yesterday












                    • Comments deleted. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the answer and do not go on off-topic tangents.

                      – Philipp
                      16 hours ago











                    • The EU has not prevented the UK from granting immigration to health workers from outside the EU -- there are many of them. There has recently been a limit on the number of non-EU doctors immigrating to the UK, but that limit was established by the Home Office, not by the EU.

                      – phoog
                      10 hours ago















                    11














                    The problem with seeing benefits is that the main benefit of Brexit is that it gives more power to our politicians to decide things themselves, for good or bad. This means that any benefits are only as good as the politicians making them, and may also be impacted by any deal we strike with the EU.



                    Also, in the short term (which for something of this scale probably means 3-5 years), the costs of change may outweigh benefits. Also, as in any change, benefits will be distributed unequally across the population; if your job relies on the EU, then you'll probably lose, but if it depends on non-EU connections, you may gain.



                    Sadly, it's often the poorest who are least able to adapt to change (due to a lack of cash reserves and/or difficulties in reskilling, finding new work, etc.), so – baring government policies to the contrary – the benefits are naturally more likely to go to the better-off. Note that this isn't unique to Brexit; this is the case for any change.



                    Unfortunately, whilst there's many possible immediate benefits, neither Tories nor Labour have made it clear what they'd actually do with their new freedoms, so the rest of this is more suggestions rather than actual policies anyone's suggested. I suspect that both parties have ideas, but don't want to publicise them yet as they don't want to be seen as pro-brexit, and as they don't want to show their cards to the EU until any deal is sealed.



                    We could, for example, drop import tarifs on a wide range of goods from food to technology, dropping their prices instantly. However, it's unlikely that politicians will do this as it looks like we'll either be in a customs union, or some similar equivalent, to ease the NI issue.



                    Trade deals (which would help our exports) unfortunately will take time, and the EU exit rules prevent us negotiating new deals until after we leave (which does seem unfair – imagine not being allowed to look for a new job / flat until after you'd left your old one...!), so unless there's been some behind-the-scenes negotiating, those will take time, particularly those with larger nations (though Trump might on a whim tweet us one immediately...!).



                    Staffing in hospitals etc. won't be directly affected, as those with jobs will continue to have them (though they may decide to leave themselves). However, this is one area where we should be able to show benefits within a few years. If we have more control over immigration, we could for maintain/reduce overall immigration, but prioritise health workers from anywhere in the world over EU workers in any industry. This requires political willpower, but would probably be a political win – they would be able to bring in more health workers whilst also reducing immigration.



                    We could pass stricter rules on health/safety on food and goods, but this would make it harder to import goods (in particular, if our rules are stricter than the EU, then most EU producers would need to adapt to meet them), so is unlikely to happen. It's more likely we may relax some over-strict rules to allow cheaper imports from a wider range of countries; but no politician wants to be seen to be relaxing H&S rules, so it's not hugely likely.



                    One significant benefit is that we may be spared the Eurovision song contest...






                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.















                    • 10





                      I don't think the Eurovision song contest is restricted to the EU. Last time I checked Australia isn't in the EU. ;)

                      – JJJ
                      yesterday






                    • 4





                      Note that the UK can (and does try to, with some small success, there was a question about that here recently) negotiate trade deals, as long as they don't come into effect while the UK is still in the EU.

                      – Graipher
                      yesterday












                    • Comments deleted. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the answer and do not go on off-topic tangents.

                      – Philipp
                      16 hours ago











                    • The EU has not prevented the UK from granting immigration to health workers from outside the EU -- there are many of them. There has recently been a limit on the number of non-EU doctors immigrating to the UK, but that limit was established by the Home Office, not by the EU.

                      – phoog
                      10 hours ago













                    11












                    11








                    11







                    The problem with seeing benefits is that the main benefit of Brexit is that it gives more power to our politicians to decide things themselves, for good or bad. This means that any benefits are only as good as the politicians making them, and may also be impacted by any deal we strike with the EU.



                    Also, in the short term (which for something of this scale probably means 3-5 years), the costs of change may outweigh benefits. Also, as in any change, benefits will be distributed unequally across the population; if your job relies on the EU, then you'll probably lose, but if it depends on non-EU connections, you may gain.



                    Sadly, it's often the poorest who are least able to adapt to change (due to a lack of cash reserves and/or difficulties in reskilling, finding new work, etc.), so – baring government policies to the contrary – the benefits are naturally more likely to go to the better-off. Note that this isn't unique to Brexit; this is the case for any change.



                    Unfortunately, whilst there's many possible immediate benefits, neither Tories nor Labour have made it clear what they'd actually do with their new freedoms, so the rest of this is more suggestions rather than actual policies anyone's suggested. I suspect that both parties have ideas, but don't want to publicise them yet as they don't want to be seen as pro-brexit, and as they don't want to show their cards to the EU until any deal is sealed.



                    We could, for example, drop import tarifs on a wide range of goods from food to technology, dropping their prices instantly. However, it's unlikely that politicians will do this as it looks like we'll either be in a customs union, or some similar equivalent, to ease the NI issue.



                    Trade deals (which would help our exports) unfortunately will take time, and the EU exit rules prevent us negotiating new deals until after we leave (which does seem unfair – imagine not being allowed to look for a new job / flat until after you'd left your old one...!), so unless there's been some behind-the-scenes negotiating, those will take time, particularly those with larger nations (though Trump might on a whim tweet us one immediately...!).



                    Staffing in hospitals etc. won't be directly affected, as those with jobs will continue to have them (though they may decide to leave themselves). However, this is one area where we should be able to show benefits within a few years. If we have more control over immigration, we could for maintain/reduce overall immigration, but prioritise health workers from anywhere in the world over EU workers in any industry. This requires political willpower, but would probably be a political win – they would be able to bring in more health workers whilst also reducing immigration.



                    We could pass stricter rules on health/safety on food and goods, but this would make it harder to import goods (in particular, if our rules are stricter than the EU, then most EU producers would need to adapt to meet them), so is unlikely to happen. It's more likely we may relax some over-strict rules to allow cheaper imports from a wider range of countries; but no politician wants to be seen to be relaxing H&S rules, so it's not hugely likely.



                    One significant benefit is that we may be spared the Eurovision song contest...






                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.










                    The problem with seeing benefits is that the main benefit of Brexit is that it gives more power to our politicians to decide things themselves, for good or bad. This means that any benefits are only as good as the politicians making them, and may also be impacted by any deal we strike with the EU.



                    Also, in the short term (which for something of this scale probably means 3-5 years), the costs of change may outweigh benefits. Also, as in any change, benefits will be distributed unequally across the population; if your job relies on the EU, then you'll probably lose, but if it depends on non-EU connections, you may gain.



                    Sadly, it's often the poorest who are least able to adapt to change (due to a lack of cash reserves and/or difficulties in reskilling, finding new work, etc.), so – baring government policies to the contrary – the benefits are naturally more likely to go to the better-off. Note that this isn't unique to Brexit; this is the case for any change.



                    Unfortunately, whilst there's many possible immediate benefits, neither Tories nor Labour have made it clear what they'd actually do with their new freedoms, so the rest of this is more suggestions rather than actual policies anyone's suggested. I suspect that both parties have ideas, but don't want to publicise them yet as they don't want to be seen as pro-brexit, and as they don't want to show their cards to the EU until any deal is sealed.



                    We could, for example, drop import tarifs on a wide range of goods from food to technology, dropping their prices instantly. However, it's unlikely that politicians will do this as it looks like we'll either be in a customs union, or some similar equivalent, to ease the NI issue.



                    Trade deals (which would help our exports) unfortunately will take time, and the EU exit rules prevent us negotiating new deals until after we leave (which does seem unfair – imagine not being allowed to look for a new job / flat until after you'd left your old one...!), so unless there's been some behind-the-scenes negotiating, those will take time, particularly those with larger nations (though Trump might on a whim tweet us one immediately...!).



                    Staffing in hospitals etc. won't be directly affected, as those with jobs will continue to have them (though they may decide to leave themselves). However, this is one area where we should be able to show benefits within a few years. If we have more control over immigration, we could for maintain/reduce overall immigration, but prioritise health workers from anywhere in the world over EU workers in any industry. This requires political willpower, but would probably be a political win – they would be able to bring in more health workers whilst also reducing immigration.



                    We could pass stricter rules on health/safety on food and goods, but this would make it harder to import goods (in particular, if our rules are stricter than the EU, then most EU producers would need to adapt to meet them), so is unlikely to happen. It's more likely we may relax some over-strict rules to allow cheaper imports from a wider range of countries; but no politician wants to be seen to be relaxing H&S rules, so it's not hugely likely.



                    One significant benefit is that we may be spared the Eurovision song contest...







                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited yesterday









                    JJJ

                    5,04222244




                    5,04222244






                    New contributor




                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered yesterday









                    Dan WDan W

                    2272




                    2272




                    New contributor




                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Dan W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.







                    • 10





                      I don't think the Eurovision song contest is restricted to the EU. Last time I checked Australia isn't in the EU. ;)

                      – JJJ
                      yesterday






                    • 4





                      Note that the UK can (and does try to, with some small success, there was a question about that here recently) negotiate trade deals, as long as they don't come into effect while the UK is still in the EU.

                      – Graipher
                      yesterday












                    • Comments deleted. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the answer and do not go on off-topic tangents.

                      – Philipp
                      16 hours ago











                    • The EU has not prevented the UK from granting immigration to health workers from outside the EU -- there are many of them. There has recently been a limit on the number of non-EU doctors immigrating to the UK, but that limit was established by the Home Office, not by the EU.

                      – phoog
                      10 hours ago












                    • 10





                      I don't think the Eurovision song contest is restricted to the EU. Last time I checked Australia isn't in the EU. ;)

                      – JJJ
                      yesterday






                    • 4





                      Note that the UK can (and does try to, with some small success, there was a question about that here recently) negotiate trade deals, as long as they don't come into effect while the UK is still in the EU.

                      – Graipher
                      yesterday












                    • Comments deleted. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the answer and do not go on off-topic tangents.

                      – Philipp
                      16 hours ago











                    • The EU has not prevented the UK from granting immigration to health workers from outside the EU -- there are many of them. There has recently been a limit on the number of non-EU doctors immigrating to the UK, but that limit was established by the Home Office, not by the EU.

                      – phoog
                      10 hours ago







                    10




                    10





                    I don't think the Eurovision song contest is restricted to the EU. Last time I checked Australia isn't in the EU. ;)

                    – JJJ
                    yesterday





                    I don't think the Eurovision song contest is restricted to the EU. Last time I checked Australia isn't in the EU. ;)

                    – JJJ
                    yesterday




                    4




                    4





                    Note that the UK can (and does try to, with some small success, there was a question about that here recently) negotiate trade deals, as long as they don't come into effect while the UK is still in the EU.

                    – Graipher
                    yesterday






                    Note that the UK can (and does try to, with some small success, there was a question about that here recently) negotiate trade deals, as long as they don't come into effect while the UK is still in the EU.

                    – Graipher
                    yesterday














                    Comments deleted. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the answer and do not go on off-topic tangents.

                    – Philipp
                    16 hours ago





                    Comments deleted. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the answer and do not go on off-topic tangents.

                    – Philipp
                    16 hours ago













                    The EU has not prevented the UK from granting immigration to health workers from outside the EU -- there are many of them. There has recently been a limit on the number of non-EU doctors immigrating to the UK, but that limit was established by the Home Office, not by the EU.

                    – phoog
                    10 hours ago





                    The EU has not prevented the UK from granting immigration to health workers from outside the EU -- there are many of them. There has recently been a limit on the number of non-EU doctors immigrating to the UK, but that limit was established by the Home Office, not by the EU.

                    – phoog
                    10 hours ago











                    6














                    Some potential benefits that may be unlikely to materialise:



                    State aid and nationalisation



                    There are Brexit supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. A socialist Brexit supporter might tell you that the end of European Union competition law, in particular against State aid to privately owned companies. For example, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said:




                    We cannot be afraid of intervening directly to support supply chains and new industries, any deal with the EU must recognise that the old state aid rules are no longer valid




                    Likewise, a major programme of nationalising the means of production is likely to cause objection within the European Union.



                    Of course, many people would question whether this is a benefit.



                    The socialist newspaper Morning Star supports Brexit for this reason.



                    Rewilding



                    If the Common Agricultural Policy ends and UK farmers will lose their subsidies, many UK farms will disappear, in particular unprofitable sheep farming. This is even more true if tariffs are slashed, such has has been proposed. This means sheep would disappear from the hills in the UK, which would open up opportunities for a major rewilding programme, with forests returning where overgrazing currently prevents them. Note that true rewilding would take more than just removing the sheep, but supporters of rewilding may find that opposition to other proposals (such as a reintroduction of predators including wolves) would be less powerful if sheep farmers are history.



                    I'm not aware of anyone explicitly supporting Brexit for this reason, nor am I aware of anyone who has proposed the policy to effectively end British sheep/hill farming, but it may be an unintended side effect which some people may consider beneficial.



                    Needless to say, most people would consider it a strong negative point if British farms disappeared, and most likely post-Brexit domestic policy would ensure that they don't.




                    Comment: Although some on the (far) left support Brexit, in practice the Brexit agenda is being set by pro-free market, anti-immigration, nationalist forces, that are rather associated with the political right than with the political left. It is probably unlikely that the above points will actually materialise.






                    share|improve this answer

























                    • This is an interesting perspective, one that I'd not previously considered. I suspect that land that was freed from agricultural purposes is more likely to be earmarked for development, but one can hope.

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      20 hours ago











                    • Personally I'd like to see more wilderness but unsurprisingly this is the first time I've seen that put forward as a beneft, or any sort of result. It would be trivially easy to spin that as a negative. "So you think farms failing and going back to the wild is a good thing? Perhaps you'll be happhy when our town centres are derelict, homes for urban foxes and deer!".

                      – Eric Nolan
                      19 hours ago











                    • @EricNolan Of course, most people would see British farms will vanish as a negative. I've added a line to point that out.

                      – gerrit
                      19 hours ago












                    • You can bet the sheep farmers will lobby the government for subsidies. Or block roads otherwise (as the French goat farmers used to do).

                      – Fizz
                      16 hours ago












                    • @Fizz Roads blocked by sheep? That would be great fun! Definitely a benefit in my books. Something to look forward to. :-)

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      15 hours ago















                    6














                    Some potential benefits that may be unlikely to materialise:



                    State aid and nationalisation



                    There are Brexit supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. A socialist Brexit supporter might tell you that the end of European Union competition law, in particular against State aid to privately owned companies. For example, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said:




                    We cannot be afraid of intervening directly to support supply chains and new industries, any deal with the EU must recognise that the old state aid rules are no longer valid




                    Likewise, a major programme of nationalising the means of production is likely to cause objection within the European Union.



                    Of course, many people would question whether this is a benefit.



                    The socialist newspaper Morning Star supports Brexit for this reason.



                    Rewilding



                    If the Common Agricultural Policy ends and UK farmers will lose their subsidies, many UK farms will disappear, in particular unprofitable sheep farming. This is even more true if tariffs are slashed, such has has been proposed. This means sheep would disappear from the hills in the UK, which would open up opportunities for a major rewilding programme, with forests returning where overgrazing currently prevents them. Note that true rewilding would take more than just removing the sheep, but supporters of rewilding may find that opposition to other proposals (such as a reintroduction of predators including wolves) would be less powerful if sheep farmers are history.



                    I'm not aware of anyone explicitly supporting Brexit for this reason, nor am I aware of anyone who has proposed the policy to effectively end British sheep/hill farming, but it may be an unintended side effect which some people may consider beneficial.



                    Needless to say, most people would consider it a strong negative point if British farms disappeared, and most likely post-Brexit domestic policy would ensure that they don't.




                    Comment: Although some on the (far) left support Brexit, in practice the Brexit agenda is being set by pro-free market, anti-immigration, nationalist forces, that are rather associated with the political right than with the political left. It is probably unlikely that the above points will actually materialise.






                    share|improve this answer

























                    • This is an interesting perspective, one that I'd not previously considered. I suspect that land that was freed from agricultural purposes is more likely to be earmarked for development, but one can hope.

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      20 hours ago











                    • Personally I'd like to see more wilderness but unsurprisingly this is the first time I've seen that put forward as a beneft, or any sort of result. It would be trivially easy to spin that as a negative. "So you think farms failing and going back to the wild is a good thing? Perhaps you'll be happhy when our town centres are derelict, homes for urban foxes and deer!".

                      – Eric Nolan
                      19 hours ago











                    • @EricNolan Of course, most people would see British farms will vanish as a negative. I've added a line to point that out.

                      – gerrit
                      19 hours ago












                    • You can bet the sheep farmers will lobby the government for subsidies. Or block roads otherwise (as the French goat farmers used to do).

                      – Fizz
                      16 hours ago












                    • @Fizz Roads blocked by sheep? That would be great fun! Definitely a benefit in my books. Something to look forward to. :-)

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      15 hours ago













                    6












                    6








                    6







                    Some potential benefits that may be unlikely to materialise:



                    State aid and nationalisation



                    There are Brexit supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. A socialist Brexit supporter might tell you that the end of European Union competition law, in particular against State aid to privately owned companies. For example, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said:




                    We cannot be afraid of intervening directly to support supply chains and new industries, any deal with the EU must recognise that the old state aid rules are no longer valid




                    Likewise, a major programme of nationalising the means of production is likely to cause objection within the European Union.



                    Of course, many people would question whether this is a benefit.



                    The socialist newspaper Morning Star supports Brexit for this reason.



                    Rewilding



                    If the Common Agricultural Policy ends and UK farmers will lose their subsidies, many UK farms will disappear, in particular unprofitable sheep farming. This is even more true if tariffs are slashed, such has has been proposed. This means sheep would disappear from the hills in the UK, which would open up opportunities for a major rewilding programme, with forests returning where overgrazing currently prevents them. Note that true rewilding would take more than just removing the sheep, but supporters of rewilding may find that opposition to other proposals (such as a reintroduction of predators including wolves) would be less powerful if sheep farmers are history.



                    I'm not aware of anyone explicitly supporting Brexit for this reason, nor am I aware of anyone who has proposed the policy to effectively end British sheep/hill farming, but it may be an unintended side effect which some people may consider beneficial.



                    Needless to say, most people would consider it a strong negative point if British farms disappeared, and most likely post-Brexit domestic policy would ensure that they don't.




                    Comment: Although some on the (far) left support Brexit, in practice the Brexit agenda is being set by pro-free market, anti-immigration, nationalist forces, that are rather associated with the political right than with the political left. It is probably unlikely that the above points will actually materialise.






                    share|improve this answer















                    Some potential benefits that may be unlikely to materialise:



                    State aid and nationalisation



                    There are Brexit supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. A socialist Brexit supporter might tell you that the end of European Union competition law, in particular against State aid to privately owned companies. For example, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said:




                    We cannot be afraid of intervening directly to support supply chains and new industries, any deal with the EU must recognise that the old state aid rules are no longer valid




                    Likewise, a major programme of nationalising the means of production is likely to cause objection within the European Union.



                    Of course, many people would question whether this is a benefit.



                    The socialist newspaper Morning Star supports Brexit for this reason.



                    Rewilding



                    If the Common Agricultural Policy ends and UK farmers will lose their subsidies, many UK farms will disappear, in particular unprofitable sheep farming. This is even more true if tariffs are slashed, such has has been proposed. This means sheep would disappear from the hills in the UK, which would open up opportunities for a major rewilding programme, with forests returning where overgrazing currently prevents them. Note that true rewilding would take more than just removing the sheep, but supporters of rewilding may find that opposition to other proposals (such as a reintroduction of predators including wolves) would be less powerful if sheep farmers are history.



                    I'm not aware of anyone explicitly supporting Brexit for this reason, nor am I aware of anyone who has proposed the policy to effectively end British sheep/hill farming, but it may be an unintended side effect which some people may consider beneficial.



                    Needless to say, most people would consider it a strong negative point if British farms disappeared, and most likely post-Brexit domestic policy would ensure that they don't.




                    Comment: Although some on the (far) left support Brexit, in practice the Brexit agenda is being set by pro-free market, anti-immigration, nationalist forces, that are rather associated with the political right than with the political left. It is probably unlikely that the above points will actually materialise.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 14 hours ago

























                    answered 21 hours ago









                    gerritgerrit

                    19.8k881180




                    19.8k881180












                    • This is an interesting perspective, one that I'd not previously considered. I suspect that land that was freed from agricultural purposes is more likely to be earmarked for development, but one can hope.

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      20 hours ago











                    • Personally I'd like to see more wilderness but unsurprisingly this is the first time I've seen that put forward as a beneft, or any sort of result. It would be trivially easy to spin that as a negative. "So you think farms failing and going back to the wild is a good thing? Perhaps you'll be happhy when our town centres are derelict, homes for urban foxes and deer!".

                      – Eric Nolan
                      19 hours ago











                    • @EricNolan Of course, most people would see British farms will vanish as a negative. I've added a line to point that out.

                      – gerrit
                      19 hours ago












                    • You can bet the sheep farmers will lobby the government for subsidies. Or block roads otherwise (as the French goat farmers used to do).

                      – Fizz
                      16 hours ago












                    • @Fizz Roads blocked by sheep? That would be great fun! Definitely a benefit in my books. Something to look forward to. :-)

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      15 hours ago

















                    • This is an interesting perspective, one that I'd not previously considered. I suspect that land that was freed from agricultural purposes is more likely to be earmarked for development, but one can hope.

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      20 hours ago











                    • Personally I'd like to see more wilderness but unsurprisingly this is the first time I've seen that put forward as a beneft, or any sort of result. It would be trivially easy to spin that as a negative. "So you think farms failing and going back to the wild is a good thing? Perhaps you'll be happhy when our town centres are derelict, homes for urban foxes and deer!".

                      – Eric Nolan
                      19 hours ago











                    • @EricNolan Of course, most people would see British farms will vanish as a negative. I've added a line to point that out.

                      – gerrit
                      19 hours ago












                    • You can bet the sheep farmers will lobby the government for subsidies. Or block roads otherwise (as the French goat farmers used to do).

                      – Fizz
                      16 hours ago












                    • @Fizz Roads blocked by sheep? That would be great fun! Definitely a benefit in my books. Something to look forward to. :-)

                      – Evil Dog Pie
                      15 hours ago
















                    This is an interesting perspective, one that I'd not previously considered. I suspect that land that was freed from agricultural purposes is more likely to be earmarked for development, but one can hope.

                    – Evil Dog Pie
                    20 hours ago





                    This is an interesting perspective, one that I'd not previously considered. I suspect that land that was freed from agricultural purposes is more likely to be earmarked for development, but one can hope.

                    – Evil Dog Pie
                    20 hours ago













                    Personally I'd like to see more wilderness but unsurprisingly this is the first time I've seen that put forward as a beneft, or any sort of result. It would be trivially easy to spin that as a negative. "So you think farms failing and going back to the wild is a good thing? Perhaps you'll be happhy when our town centres are derelict, homes for urban foxes and deer!".

                    – Eric Nolan
                    19 hours ago





                    Personally I'd like to see more wilderness but unsurprisingly this is the first time I've seen that put forward as a beneft, or any sort of result. It would be trivially easy to spin that as a negative. "So you think farms failing and going back to the wild is a good thing? Perhaps you'll be happhy when our town centres are derelict, homes for urban foxes and deer!".

                    – Eric Nolan
                    19 hours ago













                    @EricNolan Of course, most people would see British farms will vanish as a negative. I've added a line to point that out.

                    – gerrit
                    19 hours ago






                    @EricNolan Of course, most people would see British farms will vanish as a negative. I've added a line to point that out.

                    – gerrit
                    19 hours ago














                    You can bet the sheep farmers will lobby the government for subsidies. Or block roads otherwise (as the French goat farmers used to do).

                    – Fizz
                    16 hours ago






                    You can bet the sheep farmers will lobby the government for subsidies. Or block roads otherwise (as the French goat farmers used to do).

                    – Fizz
                    16 hours ago














                    @Fizz Roads blocked by sheep? That would be great fun! Definitely a benefit in my books. Something to look forward to. :-)

                    – Evil Dog Pie
                    15 hours ago





                    @Fizz Roads blocked by sheep? That would be great fun! Definitely a benefit in my books. Something to look forward to. :-)

                    – Evil Dog Pie
                    15 hours ago











                    2














                    Until the terms of the exit are agreed to, it will be impossible to answer this concretely. What is certain is that many of the purported benefits were, at best, not fully thought-through and will never come to be. With anything relating to trade, the EU is the UK's primary trade partner, and the UK will still have to comply with EU regulations in order to export to EU countries. This will merely add complication and a layer of bureaucracy to the matter.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                      2














                      Until the terms of the exit are agreed to, it will be impossible to answer this concretely. What is certain is that many of the purported benefits were, at best, not fully thought-through and will never come to be. With anything relating to trade, the EU is the UK's primary trade partner, and the UK will still have to comply with EU regulations in order to export to EU countries. This will merely add complication and a layer of bureaucracy to the matter.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                        2












                        2








                        2







                        Until the terms of the exit are agreed to, it will be impossible to answer this concretely. What is certain is that many of the purported benefits were, at best, not fully thought-through and will never come to be. With anything relating to trade, the EU is the UK's primary trade partner, and the UK will still have to comply with EU regulations in order to export to EU countries. This will merely add complication and a layer of bureaucracy to the matter.






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                        Until the terms of the exit are agreed to, it will be impossible to answer this concretely. What is certain is that many of the purported benefits were, at best, not fully thought-through and will never come to be. With anything relating to trade, the EU is the UK's primary trade partner, and the UK will still have to comply with EU regulations in order to export to EU countries. This will merely add complication and a layer of bureaucracy to the matter.







                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer






                        New contributor




                        miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        answered yesterday









                        miles_bmiles_b

                        212




                        212




                        New contributor




                        miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                        New contributor





                        miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                        miles_b is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                            2














                            I think the economic consensus is that the UK will be economically worse off for leaving. We can be reasonably sure that a disorderly no-deal Brexit will be economically disastrous, so everyone reasonable wants to avoid that. Even the heterodox Economists for Brexit say UK manufacturing will have to be wound down like coal and steel were (which I sincerely hope doesn't come true). Of course the economy wasn't the sole factor in the vote to leave - although I think some Brexiteers were and are, shall we say, 'overly optimistic' about the post-Brexit economy.



                            The intangible benefits in principle are sovereignty - all our laws will be made domestically, we won't have to implement or abide by laws made by supranational entities - and control over immigration. But in practice our exercise of these benefits will be circumscribed by agreements and trade with other countries.



                            India for example wants easier immigration for Indian nationals to the UK in its trade deal with the UK. We can change our laws about goods and services but in international trade we must nevertheless meet the standards set out in the trade agreements. We will continue to be subject to non-domestic courts or arbitration bodies formed to adjudicate disputes per the conditions of our international agreements.



                            It is difficult to predict how such things will affect the individual citizen or household, particularly as there is no formal agreement yet. The only things on the table are the draft withdrawal agreement or no deal (i.e. trade under WTO rules).






                            share|improve this answer



























                              2














                              I think the economic consensus is that the UK will be economically worse off for leaving. We can be reasonably sure that a disorderly no-deal Brexit will be economically disastrous, so everyone reasonable wants to avoid that. Even the heterodox Economists for Brexit say UK manufacturing will have to be wound down like coal and steel were (which I sincerely hope doesn't come true). Of course the economy wasn't the sole factor in the vote to leave - although I think some Brexiteers were and are, shall we say, 'overly optimistic' about the post-Brexit economy.



                              The intangible benefits in principle are sovereignty - all our laws will be made domestically, we won't have to implement or abide by laws made by supranational entities - and control over immigration. But in practice our exercise of these benefits will be circumscribed by agreements and trade with other countries.



                              India for example wants easier immigration for Indian nationals to the UK in its trade deal with the UK. We can change our laws about goods and services but in international trade we must nevertheless meet the standards set out in the trade agreements. We will continue to be subject to non-domestic courts or arbitration bodies formed to adjudicate disputes per the conditions of our international agreements.



                              It is difficult to predict how such things will affect the individual citizen or household, particularly as there is no formal agreement yet. The only things on the table are the draft withdrawal agreement or no deal (i.e. trade under WTO rules).






                              share|improve this answer

























                                2












                                2








                                2







                                I think the economic consensus is that the UK will be economically worse off for leaving. We can be reasonably sure that a disorderly no-deal Brexit will be economically disastrous, so everyone reasonable wants to avoid that. Even the heterodox Economists for Brexit say UK manufacturing will have to be wound down like coal and steel were (which I sincerely hope doesn't come true). Of course the economy wasn't the sole factor in the vote to leave - although I think some Brexiteers were and are, shall we say, 'overly optimistic' about the post-Brexit economy.



                                The intangible benefits in principle are sovereignty - all our laws will be made domestically, we won't have to implement or abide by laws made by supranational entities - and control over immigration. But in practice our exercise of these benefits will be circumscribed by agreements and trade with other countries.



                                India for example wants easier immigration for Indian nationals to the UK in its trade deal with the UK. We can change our laws about goods and services but in international trade we must nevertheless meet the standards set out in the trade agreements. We will continue to be subject to non-domestic courts or arbitration bodies formed to adjudicate disputes per the conditions of our international agreements.



                                It is difficult to predict how such things will affect the individual citizen or household, particularly as there is no formal agreement yet. The only things on the table are the draft withdrawal agreement or no deal (i.e. trade under WTO rules).






                                share|improve this answer













                                I think the economic consensus is that the UK will be economically worse off for leaving. We can be reasonably sure that a disorderly no-deal Brexit will be economically disastrous, so everyone reasonable wants to avoid that. Even the heterodox Economists for Brexit say UK manufacturing will have to be wound down like coal and steel were (which I sincerely hope doesn't come true). Of course the economy wasn't the sole factor in the vote to leave - although I think some Brexiteers were and are, shall we say, 'overly optimistic' about the post-Brexit economy.



                                The intangible benefits in principle are sovereignty - all our laws will be made domestically, we won't have to implement or abide by laws made by supranational entities - and control over immigration. But in practice our exercise of these benefits will be circumscribed by agreements and trade with other countries.



                                India for example wants easier immigration for Indian nationals to the UK in its trade deal with the UK. We can change our laws about goods and services but in international trade we must nevertheless meet the standards set out in the trade agreements. We will continue to be subject to non-domestic courts or arbitration bodies formed to adjudicate disputes per the conditions of our international agreements.



                                It is difficult to predict how such things will affect the individual citizen or household, particularly as there is no formal agreement yet. The only things on the table are the draft withdrawal agreement or no deal (i.e. trade under WTO rules).







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered 18 hours ago









                                LagLag

                                39326




                                39326





















                                    2














                                    Wanting to control immigration doesn't make me a xenophobe. It means we have less tax consumers, we build less houses on greenfield sites, and we stress our health sevices and schools less.
                                    We need skilled workers, and we get these through grants of work visas.



                                    Surgeons, yes. Baristas and car washers, no.



                                    But, there's no will to control immigration- as it's seen as xenophobic to do so.
                                    So, we might as well stay if nobody is getting what they want.



                                    yes yes, I'm sure this will get deleted as it's bound to offend someone somewhere.






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                                    • That's perfectly possible from within the EU, right? For example, the Home Office hostile environment policy. Note that this does not seem to answer the question and may get deleted.

                                      – JJJ
                                      14 hours ago












                                    • The first line does not answer the question but is a comment. The rest of the first paragraph is an answer (it may not be an accurate answer, but it is an answer still). The third and fourth paragraphs are again commentary, not an answer.

                                      – gerrit
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • This is not an answer, and it's borderline ranty, so I'm not sure it would be a good fit as a comment, either.

                                      – 0xdd
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • Immigrants pay tax. Economic studies of the effects of immigration invariably find a positive effect on the country's budget, as the increase in tax revenue outweighs any increase in spending.

                                      – phoog
                                      10 hours ago















                                    2














                                    Wanting to control immigration doesn't make me a xenophobe. It means we have less tax consumers, we build less houses on greenfield sites, and we stress our health sevices and schools less.
                                    We need skilled workers, and we get these through grants of work visas.



                                    Surgeons, yes. Baristas and car washers, no.



                                    But, there's no will to control immigration- as it's seen as xenophobic to do so.
                                    So, we might as well stay if nobody is getting what they want.



                                    yes yes, I'm sure this will get deleted as it's bound to offend someone somewhere.






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                                    • That's perfectly possible from within the EU, right? For example, the Home Office hostile environment policy. Note that this does not seem to answer the question and may get deleted.

                                      – JJJ
                                      14 hours ago












                                    • The first line does not answer the question but is a comment. The rest of the first paragraph is an answer (it may not be an accurate answer, but it is an answer still). The third and fourth paragraphs are again commentary, not an answer.

                                      – gerrit
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • This is not an answer, and it's borderline ranty, so I'm not sure it would be a good fit as a comment, either.

                                      – 0xdd
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • Immigrants pay tax. Economic studies of the effects of immigration invariably find a positive effect on the country's budget, as the increase in tax revenue outweighs any increase in spending.

                                      – phoog
                                      10 hours ago













                                    2












                                    2








                                    2







                                    Wanting to control immigration doesn't make me a xenophobe. It means we have less tax consumers, we build less houses on greenfield sites, and we stress our health sevices and schools less.
                                    We need skilled workers, and we get these through grants of work visas.



                                    Surgeons, yes. Baristas and car washers, no.



                                    But, there's no will to control immigration- as it's seen as xenophobic to do so.
                                    So, we might as well stay if nobody is getting what they want.



                                    yes yes, I'm sure this will get deleted as it's bound to offend someone somewhere.






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                    Wanting to control immigration doesn't make me a xenophobe. It means we have less tax consumers, we build less houses on greenfield sites, and we stress our health sevices and schools less.
                                    We need skilled workers, and we get these through grants of work visas.



                                    Surgeons, yes. Baristas and car washers, no.



                                    But, there's no will to control immigration- as it's seen as xenophobic to do so.
                                    So, we might as well stay if nobody is getting what they want.



                                    yes yes, I'm sure this will get deleted as it's bound to offend someone somewhere.







                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer






                                    New contributor




                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                    answered 14 hours ago









                                    guestguest

                                    211




                                    211




                                    New contributor




                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                    New contributor





                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.












                                    • That's perfectly possible from within the EU, right? For example, the Home Office hostile environment policy. Note that this does not seem to answer the question and may get deleted.

                                      – JJJ
                                      14 hours ago












                                    • The first line does not answer the question but is a comment. The rest of the first paragraph is an answer (it may not be an accurate answer, but it is an answer still). The third and fourth paragraphs are again commentary, not an answer.

                                      – gerrit
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • This is not an answer, and it's borderline ranty, so I'm not sure it would be a good fit as a comment, either.

                                      – 0xdd
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • Immigrants pay tax. Economic studies of the effects of immigration invariably find a positive effect on the country's budget, as the increase in tax revenue outweighs any increase in spending.

                                      – phoog
                                      10 hours ago

















                                    • That's perfectly possible from within the EU, right? For example, the Home Office hostile environment policy. Note that this does not seem to answer the question and may get deleted.

                                      – JJJ
                                      14 hours ago












                                    • The first line does not answer the question but is a comment. The rest of the first paragraph is an answer (it may not be an accurate answer, but it is an answer still). The third and fourth paragraphs are again commentary, not an answer.

                                      – gerrit
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • This is not an answer, and it's borderline ranty, so I'm not sure it would be a good fit as a comment, either.

                                      – 0xdd
                                      14 hours ago











                                    • Immigrants pay tax. Economic studies of the effects of immigration invariably find a positive effect on the country's budget, as the increase in tax revenue outweighs any increase in spending.

                                      – phoog
                                      10 hours ago
















                                    That's perfectly possible from within the EU, right? For example, the Home Office hostile environment policy. Note that this does not seem to answer the question and may get deleted.

                                    – JJJ
                                    14 hours ago






                                    That's perfectly possible from within the EU, right? For example, the Home Office hostile environment policy. Note that this does not seem to answer the question and may get deleted.

                                    – JJJ
                                    14 hours ago














                                    The first line does not answer the question but is a comment. The rest of the first paragraph is an answer (it may not be an accurate answer, but it is an answer still). The third and fourth paragraphs are again commentary, not an answer.

                                    – gerrit
                                    14 hours ago





                                    The first line does not answer the question but is a comment. The rest of the first paragraph is an answer (it may not be an accurate answer, but it is an answer still). The third and fourth paragraphs are again commentary, not an answer.

                                    – gerrit
                                    14 hours ago













                                    This is not an answer, and it's borderline ranty, so I'm not sure it would be a good fit as a comment, either.

                                    – 0xdd
                                    14 hours ago





                                    This is not an answer, and it's borderline ranty, so I'm not sure it would be a good fit as a comment, either.

                                    – 0xdd
                                    14 hours ago













                                    Immigrants pay tax. Economic studies of the effects of immigration invariably find a positive effect on the country's budget, as the increase in tax revenue outweighs any increase in spending.

                                    – phoog
                                    10 hours ago





                                    Immigrants pay tax. Economic studies of the effects of immigration invariably find a positive effect on the country's budget, as the increase in tax revenue outweighs any increase in spending.

                                    – phoog
                                    10 hours ago











                                    0














                                    More control over immigration



                                    This is the most quoted reason by leavers for leaving the EU. With reduced immigration, the probability of you meeting someone who doesn't speak perfect English or the probability of segregated communities (i.e. in Bradford) being created are decreased. Secondly, reduced immigration will lead to a slowdown in the increase of the population - more land will be available per person (so less homes will need to be built on greenfield land) and less demand will be placed on public services (schools, hospitals etc.). Finally, the immigration policy of Britain can better represent the economic needs of the country - due to the reduced immigration from the EU, we might be able to relax immigration restrictions from the rest of the world.



                                    British sovereignty over laws and trade



                                    The available options for parliament to legislate will drastically increase. Britain will be able to pass very left wing budgets (of the likes of Italy's) or pass very right wing programmes of reducing product safety standards or workers rights and not have the EU interfering. Britain will also be allowed to enforce its own tariffs on goods from abroad, which is a good thing if you are a protectionist.



                                    No money going to the EU budget



                                    Some money (not as much as claimed) will be available to spend as we will not be contributing it to the EU budget.






                                    share|improve this answer










                                    New contributor




                                    Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                                      0














                                      More control over immigration



                                      This is the most quoted reason by leavers for leaving the EU. With reduced immigration, the probability of you meeting someone who doesn't speak perfect English or the probability of segregated communities (i.e. in Bradford) being created are decreased. Secondly, reduced immigration will lead to a slowdown in the increase of the population - more land will be available per person (so less homes will need to be built on greenfield land) and less demand will be placed on public services (schools, hospitals etc.). Finally, the immigration policy of Britain can better represent the economic needs of the country - due to the reduced immigration from the EU, we might be able to relax immigration restrictions from the rest of the world.



                                      British sovereignty over laws and trade



                                      The available options for parliament to legislate will drastically increase. Britain will be able to pass very left wing budgets (of the likes of Italy's) or pass very right wing programmes of reducing product safety standards or workers rights and not have the EU interfering. Britain will also be allowed to enforce its own tariffs on goods from abroad, which is a good thing if you are a protectionist.



                                      No money going to the EU budget



                                      Some money (not as much as claimed) will be available to spend as we will not be contributing it to the EU budget.






                                      share|improve this answer










                                      New contributor




                                      Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                        0












                                        0








                                        0







                                        More control over immigration



                                        This is the most quoted reason by leavers for leaving the EU. With reduced immigration, the probability of you meeting someone who doesn't speak perfect English or the probability of segregated communities (i.e. in Bradford) being created are decreased. Secondly, reduced immigration will lead to a slowdown in the increase of the population - more land will be available per person (so less homes will need to be built on greenfield land) and less demand will be placed on public services (schools, hospitals etc.). Finally, the immigration policy of Britain can better represent the economic needs of the country - due to the reduced immigration from the EU, we might be able to relax immigration restrictions from the rest of the world.



                                        British sovereignty over laws and trade



                                        The available options for parliament to legislate will drastically increase. Britain will be able to pass very left wing budgets (of the likes of Italy's) or pass very right wing programmes of reducing product safety standards or workers rights and not have the EU interfering. Britain will also be allowed to enforce its own tariffs on goods from abroad, which is a good thing if you are a protectionist.



                                        No money going to the EU budget



                                        Some money (not as much as claimed) will be available to spend as we will not be contributing it to the EU budget.






                                        share|improve this answer










                                        New contributor




                                        Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                        More control over immigration



                                        This is the most quoted reason by leavers for leaving the EU. With reduced immigration, the probability of you meeting someone who doesn't speak perfect English or the probability of segregated communities (i.e. in Bradford) being created are decreased. Secondly, reduced immigration will lead to a slowdown in the increase of the population - more land will be available per person (so less homes will need to be built on greenfield land) and less demand will be placed on public services (schools, hospitals etc.). Finally, the immigration policy of Britain can better represent the economic needs of the country - due to the reduced immigration from the EU, we might be able to relax immigration restrictions from the rest of the world.



                                        British sovereignty over laws and trade



                                        The available options for parliament to legislate will drastically increase. Britain will be able to pass very left wing budgets (of the likes of Italy's) or pass very right wing programmes of reducing product safety standards or workers rights and not have the EU interfering. Britain will also be allowed to enforce its own tariffs on goods from abroad, which is a good thing if you are a protectionist.



                                        No money going to the EU budget



                                        Some money (not as much as claimed) will be available to spend as we will not be contributing it to the EU budget.







                                        share|improve this answer










                                        New contributor




                                        Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer








                                        edited 7 hours ago









                                        JJJ

                                        5,04222244




                                        5,04222244






                                        New contributor




                                        Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                        answered 8 hours ago









                                        Thomas HickmanThomas Hickman

                                        1




                                        1




                                        New contributor




                                        Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                        New contributor





                                        Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                        Thomas Hickman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                                            0














                                            No consensus. All claimed benefits are strongly disputed.



                                            However, claimed benefits include:



                                            Increased independence of action.
                                            Increased political and economic nationalism.
                                            Lower immigration.
                                            Less ‘red tape’.
                                            Lower contributions to European budgets.
                                            Being able to make trade deals.
                                            Laws are proposed by people elected by the people
                                            Other more ironic ‘benefits’ include:



                                            Britons coming to see what the EU actually does.
                                            The collapse of UKIP.
                                            ‘Rebalancing’ the economy away from financial services.
                                            Lower house prices, more tourists, and other consequences of a weak currency/economy.
                                            Europe running more smoothly without the awkward British.
                                            Less competition for European companies.
                                            Jobs for lawyers.






                                            share|improve this answer










                                            New contributor




                                            Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                            Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                                              0














                                              No consensus. All claimed benefits are strongly disputed.



                                              However, claimed benefits include:



                                              Increased independence of action.
                                              Increased political and economic nationalism.
                                              Lower immigration.
                                              Less ‘red tape’.
                                              Lower contributions to European budgets.
                                              Being able to make trade deals.
                                              Laws are proposed by people elected by the people
                                              Other more ironic ‘benefits’ include:



                                              Britons coming to see what the EU actually does.
                                              The collapse of UKIP.
                                              ‘Rebalancing’ the economy away from financial services.
                                              Lower house prices, more tourists, and other consequences of a weak currency/economy.
                                              Europe running more smoothly without the awkward British.
                                              Less competition for European companies.
                                              Jobs for lawyers.






                                              share|improve this answer










                                              New contributor




                                              Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                                0












                                                0








                                                0







                                                No consensus. All claimed benefits are strongly disputed.



                                                However, claimed benefits include:



                                                Increased independence of action.
                                                Increased political and economic nationalism.
                                                Lower immigration.
                                                Less ‘red tape’.
                                                Lower contributions to European budgets.
                                                Being able to make trade deals.
                                                Laws are proposed by people elected by the people
                                                Other more ironic ‘benefits’ include:



                                                Britons coming to see what the EU actually does.
                                                The collapse of UKIP.
                                                ‘Rebalancing’ the economy away from financial services.
                                                Lower house prices, more tourists, and other consequences of a weak currency/economy.
                                                Europe running more smoothly without the awkward British.
                                                Less competition for European companies.
                                                Jobs for lawyers.






                                                share|improve this answer










                                                New contributor




                                                Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                                No consensus. All claimed benefits are strongly disputed.



                                                However, claimed benefits include:



                                                Increased independence of action.
                                                Increased political and economic nationalism.
                                                Lower immigration.
                                                Less ‘red tape’.
                                                Lower contributions to European budgets.
                                                Being able to make trade deals.
                                                Laws are proposed by people elected by the people
                                                Other more ironic ‘benefits’ include:



                                                Britons coming to see what the EU actually does.
                                                The collapse of UKIP.
                                                ‘Rebalancing’ the economy away from financial services.
                                                Lower house prices, more tourists, and other consequences of a weak currency/economy.
                                                Europe running more smoothly without the awkward British.
                                                Less competition for European companies.
                                                Jobs for lawyers.







                                                share|improve this answer










                                                New contributor




                                                Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer








                                                edited 1 hour ago









                                                Alexei

                                                17.4k2297176




                                                17.4k2297176






                                                New contributor




                                                Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                                answered 2 hours ago









                                                Athar BhatAthar Bhat

                                                1




                                                1




                                                New contributor




                                                Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                                New contributor





                                                Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                                Athar Bhat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                Check out our Code of Conduct.













                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

                                                    三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP