I don’t know how they came up with their numbers but media outlets seem to be confident quoting their figures. Also I found this written by a Tory who was an MP and is now in the House of Lords:

The latest estimates are that Brexit reduced GDP by 6 to 8 per cent by 2025, with business investment down 12 to 18 per cent.

If I were to see news articles saying that Brexit is having a fantastically positive effect on the British economy then maybe I’ll look at Brexit as being somewhat beneficial. But I haven’t seen that. Also like I said, I think having close ties with Europe can have some benefits beyond just easing international trade. It means Europe together can stand up against big countries who dislike Europe and want to harm Europe.

Maybe we won’t agree though. I guess you think Brexit is going to be a good thing for the UK in the long-term? I guess I’m not so convinced about that.

I linked to the OBR and I find their statements interesting because they’re saying the UK’s productivity will be 4% lower than if the UK remained in the EU. You say the UK had productivity problems while the UK was in the EU. Let’s assume for a second that’s true. Then what the OBR is saying is that there is an additional factor negatively affecting British productivity; that factor is Brexit.

Also I think closer ties with Europe would be good because a united Europe can more effectively stand up to big global powers like the US, Russia, and China. I don’t want to see the UK bending over backwards to accommodate Trump and his illiberal colleagues. Europe together has real weight to push back against the US. E.g. if the UK alone were to tariff American goods then it wouldn’t affect the US too much, but if all of Europe did the same thing together, it would affect the US much more.

This view might be controversial but here goes. If someone is suspected of a major crime (rape, serious assault, murder, major theft), maybe it’s okay for law enforcement to gain access to that person’s online accounts.

People might say “but if the government has the power to do that, one day they could do it to you, or they could use those powers to oppress anybody who criticises the government”. But isn’t that like saying “if you build prisons then one day an authoritarian government might put any critic of the government in those prisons”?

My understanding of the situation, in steps:

1. American billionaires want to make maximum money
2. This requires minimum regulations
3. The EU imposes regulations
4. Therefore American billionaires and their political party (Republicans) want to break up the EU

I don’t know if the right solution is a customs union, or participation in some areas of the single market, or something else. I just read that the UK’s post-Brexit arrangements “will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU”, so presumably if we boost trade with Europe in certain ways, it should increase British productivity

Related to your post: I’ve seen people from Lemmy.ml defend imperialist behaviour from Russia and China. Surely the left is supposed to oppose imperialism - whether it’s from the US, Europe, Russia, China, or anywhere else.

Increasing our trade with Europe (whether it’s with a customs union or some other measure) would be good for two reasons:

1. It would grow the British economy, create more good jobs, increase wages, and increase the amount of money raised in taxes for public services
2. It would annoy Brexiteers

There are many affordable goods that can be bought from countries that aren’t the US or China. I actually think I would rather buy things that aren’t from the US or China. Both of those countries don’t seem to like Europe or the UK very much.

Actually it’s your post that doesn’t matter. If you actually read my posts, you’ll see that I originally was responding to this post:

Lol, I wonder when Ukrainians will connect the dots that they’re in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain.

I’m saying Ukraine’s current position is not “solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”. Two reasons for this:

1. Even if you think “western powers” haven’t fulfilled “their side of the bargain”, this wouldn’t be the sole reason for Ukraine’s position. Another probably more important reason is that Russia chose to invade Ukraine.
2. Arguably “western powers”, under the Budapest Memorandum, did fulfil “their side of the bargain”. The US and the UK (parties to the Budapest Memorandum) didn’t seem to commit to fighting a war if Ukraine came under attack. That being said, I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine at the moment.

Now do you understand it?

Edit: I was rude in this post originally but I’ve taken away some of the rudeness. To be honest, the post I’m responding to is incredibly rude. Clearly the person who wrote that DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE.

Sure, if Ukraine had kept their nukes and maintained them, they might not be in this current position.

But anyway, I was responding to the post that said “they’re [Ukraine] in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”.

In my view that just isn’t true. Their current position is not “solely” because they put faith into western powers who haven’t delivered. Their current position is happening because the Kremlin decided to invade Ukraine. I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine, but western powers didn’t make Russia invade Ukraine. It also seems to me that western powers probably have upheld “their side of the bargain” under the Budapest Memorandum, although like I say, I hope western powers do more to help Ukraine.

I’m talking about what was actually agreed to. To me it seems that Russia quite clearly abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t think you can say that the US and the UK did, unless you’re saying that those two countries didn’t do enough within the UN Security Council to back Ukraine.

Surely the primary country to blame for this situation is Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Western countries didn’t invade Ukraine.

I looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The main commitments seem to be a commitment to not use force against Ukraine, and a commitment to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”.

I absolutely hope that every country supports Ukraine and helps them at the moment. I’m just saying that it seems to me that Russia is the one who has abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t know if you can say that the US and the UK have (Wikipedia says that France and China gave assurances in separate documents, not in the Budapest Memorandum). Although I absolutely hope that the US will take a more pro-Ukraine stance as soon as possible.

I just looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The US, the UK, and Russia all agreed in that memorandum to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.

Russia is the country who broke that commitment, when they invaded Ukraine in 2014. I wouldn’t say that the US or the UK broke that commitment, because they haven’t used force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

There’s another commitment in there saying that the US, the UK, and Russia will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”. It seems there were UNSC meetings - like this one - shortly after Russia sent troops into Crimea. If you think the US and UK didn’t do enough in this regard then fair enough, but I don’t their actions were as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

When did western powers promise that they would stop Putin invading Ukraine?

Ukraine is in their current position because Putin decided to invade Ukraine

Nice to see a reminder that the law doesn’t apply to you if you’re famous and influential

I see, thanks for the info. Anyway it’s good to see Canada wanting to buy defence equipment from Europe instead of the now unreliable US.

Interesting. I wonder why they’re considering the Gripen instead of the Eurofighter Typhoon (German/British/Italian/Spanish) or Dassault Rafale (French). To be honest I really don’t know what the differences would be.

I find it ironic that Vance has talked about Europe supposedly not being democratic and supposedly not listening to the will of the people. Hillary Clinton in 2016 (whether you like her or not) got more votes than Trump. If the US respected the will of the people, they’d get rid of the electoral college, and they would have inaugurated Hillary as president.

Well I can see things that are obviously true and you apparently can’t, so I guess I’m not as daft as you

I didn’t say they had exercised force, I said they’re likely planning the use of force to take over Taiwan, whether the people of Taiwan want that or not. I would regard that as imperialistic. I think it would be more humane to respect the wishes of Taiwan - if they want to join the PRC then okay, but if they don’t then perhaps that should be respected.