Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[Kieran00001]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The  Cornelis Vrolijk owns 23% of the UK fishing quota, foreign owns companies own 44% and just three companies own 61% of UK fishing quotas.

 

The 'ownership' is under UK property law and absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

 

And don't be so cocksure on where the fish are landed.

 

Last month (April 2016) Conservative MP Peter Aldous brought a debate to the House of Commons about whether enough was being done to allocate quota fairly.

Aldous, who is MP for Lowestoft, complained that 68% of the quota fished in Lowestoft is actually landed in the Netherlands while 32% goes to Scotland. “Those boats… bring very little, if any economic and social benefit to Lowestoft.”

 

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-big-fish-quota-barons-squeeze-out-small-scale-fishermen/

 

 

Read your link again, it does not say 23% of UK, it says 23% of England's, it really is 6% of the UK quota.

 

I am sure I read before that they have to land catch in the UK but I see now that that is not true and this one lands in Holland.

 

Anyway, I'm in two minds about the issue, I don't really care than the owner is foreign as long as they pay their tax in the UK and employ from the UK, but it would certainly be a lot lot better if we processed the catch as well, but that would no doubt change after Brexit anyway, I cant see them wanting to go through customs when they can land in the UK without that.  And with regard to the size of the ship, that might be a good thing, sure people lose jobs when industries develop, but the industry gets safer and is easier to account for and if our aim is to ensure fish stocks increase then we need accountability and small boats makes that very difficult, also lots of small boats pollute more than one big one, the best really would be just several of these super trawlers for the whole of the UK and everything else banned, but that would mean the loss of thousands of jobs, which can't happen quickly, there would have to be a gradual change, perhaps like we have been seeing already happening.

 

[evadgib]

35 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

What?  and close all the borders and scrap all trade arrangements that had been in place for over forty years only to start again from scratch?  All on the Monday after the referendum.  What about all the EU citizens living in the UK and the Brits living in the EU.  Do they all just pack their bags and head for their home countries?

 

Makes about as much sense  as us all sticking our heads up our own a*ses and then farting.

The next country to leave will benefit considerably from UK's ABF 4017.

 

 (Safelane through a minefield!)

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by evadgib

[Kieran00001]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

For its time it was a Human Rights Bill but  as I have said not totally inclusive. Why would you expect it to be, time and tolerance have made the modified Modern Human Rights bills.

How can a document signed by Royal seal, which contains Writ Of Habeas Corpus  not be?  It is a Human Right.

WoHC is the fundamental principle of British justice, the basis of the United States Constitution and part of the law of all modern societies.

If its not a Human Right what is it? 

 

 

 

It gave one human right, the right to the rule of law, but it worded it in a way that it didn't reach all people, so even if the intention was for it to be a human rights charter, it failed.  Containing the Writ of Habeas Corpus was hardly worth a lot to the poor serfs of the day, freely bought and sold by the Lords of the Manor.  And what it really was about was taking away the kings absolute power, it was the start of democracy.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, soalbundy said:

oh ! look like we will be staying in the customs union according to the newspapers, brexit means br.... erm customs union. 

 

The BBC doesn't seem to think so.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43860453

 

 

[aright]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It gave one human right, the right to the rule of law, but it worded it in a way that it didn't reach all people, so even if the intention was for it to be a human rights charter, it failed.  Containing the Writ of Habeas Corpus was hardly worth a lot to the poor serfs of the day, freely bought and sold by the Lords of the Manor.  And what it really was about was taking away the kings absolute power, it was the start of democracy.

You have changed tac. I have never said the outcomes were brilliant.

Of course it was about taking away the Kings absolute power to give "Humans" in the community "Rights"

Of the 63 clauses in the document I don't recall one referencing democracy. Was there one in there that said the King could be voted out?  Over and out!

[dunroaming]

24 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The next country to leave will benefit considerably from UK's ABF 4017.

 

 (Safelane through a minefield!)

 

I am sure there a few countries watching closely at how Brexit pans out.  I am also pretty sure that Brexit will trigger reforms within the EU.  Which way that goes is yet to be seen but if we are out it is unlikely to benefit us at all.

 

However there will be some indication later this week when Brexit is raised again in Parliament.  The real test will come next month though and then we will see the depth of the descent in the Cabinet and Conservative members.

Edited April 23, 2018 by dunroaming

[Eloquent pilgrim]

8 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I am sure there a few countries watching closely at how Brexit pans out.  I am also pretty sure that Brexit will trigger reforms within the EU.  Which way that goes is yet to be seen but if we are out it is unlikely to benefit us at all.

 

I’m sure you're right, if reforms are not forthcoming tout suite, the Visegrád countries will be out the door, possibly followed by others; the irony is that if just 10% of the reforms that will now be needed to keep the EU together had been offered to Cameron, he would not have even called a referendum

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, aright said:

You have changed tac. I have never said the outcomes were brilliant.

Of course it was about taking away the Kings absolute power to give "Humans" in the community "Rights"

Of the 63 clauses in the document I don't recall one referencing democracy. Was there one in there that said the King could be voted out?  Over and out!

 

I said the start of democracy, it was still far from democratic after the charter, but sharing the power with the bishops and barons was the first step to sharing the power with the people.  In truth, it was no less the first move toward the human rights bill, so it is both the father of democracy and the human rights bill, but it was neither a charter of democracy nor a human rights charter itself.  When the Levellers campaigned for equality they claimed they had the legal right, but they did not know the charter, they were making it up based on their perception, the same perception people have today, and this perception was what led to the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the myth, the legacy.

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I’m sure you're right, if reforms are not forthcoming tout suite, the Visegrád countries will be out the door, possibly followed by others; the irony is that if just 10% of the reforms that will now be needed to keep the EU together had been offered to Cameron, he would not have even called a referendum

Maybe, just maybe, if the Brexit negotiators approached the EU (after the referendum) and said "If you agree to these changes then we will put it to the people again" rather than saying "We are leaving and this is what we want!"  Then a better outcome could have been reached.  It just seems now that Britain are backing themselves into a corner where a negative deal is inevitable.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

30 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Maybe, just maybe, if the Brexit negotiators approached the EU (after the referendum) and said "If you agree to these changes then we will put it to the people again" rather than saying "We are leaving and this is what we want!"  Then a better outcome could have been reached.  It just seems now that Britain are backing themselves into a corner where a negative deal is inevitable.

 

Surly the remit of the Brexit negotiators was to negotiate an exit from the EU under the most favourable terms possible, not to campaign for another referendum on small concessions from the EU. What if that failed, would you want them to go back and beg for more concessions so they could put it to the people for a third time  .... do I detect a hint of "let's keep voting until we get the result that I want" 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Eloquent pilgrim

[StreetCowboy]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

What?  and close all the borders and scrap all trade arrangements that had been in place for over forty years only to start again from scratch?  All on the Monday after the referendum.  What about all the EU citizens living in the UK and the Brits living in the EU.  Do they all just pack their bags and head for their home countries?

 

Makes about as much sense  as us all sticking our heads up our own a*ses and then farting.

Farts are like children; your own are not so unbearable.

[StreetCowboy]

26 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Surly the remit of the Brexit negotiators was to negotiate an exit from the EU under the most favourable terms possible, not to campaign for another referendum on small concessions from the EU. What if that failed, would you want them to go back and beg for more concessions so they could put it to the people for a third time  .... do I detect a hint of "let's keep voting until we get the result that I want" 

Who knows what remit the government gave them?  Perhaps they are working to an agenda other than that of the government.  Have they clearly defined their objectives and success criteria for the negotiations?  Perhaps there is a hidden agenda...

 

The referendum didn't really make clear what were the aspirations that might be achieved by leaving the EU.

 

Anyway, as far as I can tell, it all seems to be going swimmingly, and I can't believe all the carping about trawler quotas when there are bigger fish to fry - the quotas stuff seems to be a red herring brought up to distract attention, which seems a bit fishy.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

10 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Who knows what remit the government gave them?  Perhaps they are working to an agenda other than that of the government.  Have they clearly defined their objectives and success criteria for the negotiations?  Perhaps there is a hidden agenda...

 

The referendum didn't really make clear what were the aspirations that might be achieved by leaving the EU.

 

Anyway, as far as I can tell, it all seems to be going swimmingly, and I can't believe all the carping about trawler quotas when there are bigger fish to fry - the quotas stuff seems to be a red herring brought up to distract attention, which seems a bit fishy.

I'm on my second glass of Pinot Gris, so would you please confine yourself to one conspiracy theory per post .... ??  ??  ✌️✌️

[evadgib]

Opinion editorial by Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox published in the Sunday Express on 22 April 2018.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-jobs-brexit

Edited April 23, 2018 by evadgib

[dunroaming]

21 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Surly the remit of the Brexit negotiators was to negotiate an exit from the EU under the most favourable terms possible, not to campaign for another referendum on small concessions from the EU. What if that failed, would you want them to go back and beg for more concessions so they could put it to the people for a third time  .... do I detect a hint of "let's keep voting until we get the result that I want" 

No not at all.  I am just looking at the complete pigs ear that the Brexit negotiators are making of it.  They are failing the Brexiteers and the remainers.  They are constantly backing themselves into a corner and will have to keep making concessions that dilutes what they said at the outset.

 

I am not pitching for a second referendum because Parliament now gets a vote as to whether we accept the Brexit deal or throw it out.  To have a second referendum would be a dumb thing anyway because we would, just like last time, be voting blind.  Until we know just what Brexit consists then how could we give an informed vote?

 

My point is this.  Cameron went to try to negotiate a new deal with the EU and although he made some progress it wasn't enough, I agree with that, it wasn't enough.  At that point the only negotiating tool he had was that if he failed to get the deal we wanted then he would have to call a referendum.  Then Britain would vote whether to stay or go.  It was generally thought at that time that Britain would vote to stay.  In other words there wasn't a great incentive for the EU to sharpen their pencils.  At that time Cameron couldn't say "If I don't get my deal we will leave the EU". 

 

So we have a referendum and the people vote to leave.  May steps up and accepts the poisoned chalice as the others back off to sit on the sidelines.  May, being pushed from behind, comes out with a series of hard line rhetoric.  "Brexit means Brexit" she chanted but not saying what Brexit was.  She couldn't because she didn't know herself.  Nobody did but still she went on proclaiming that Britain was coming out of the single market and customs union without ever considering the consequences of that.  Slowly over time she has had to back down on many issues and continues to do so.

 

My "maybe" was about approaching the negotiations a different way.  To go back to Brussels after the referendum and say "The people of Britain have voted to leave because they feel the deal, as it is unfair".  That is a much stronger negotiating tool than Cameron had. "So if you don't want us to leave (and they don't) then we need to address the issues again and if we can then get an agreement that meets the original criteria then we could then put the new deal to the public.  They may or may not have responded to that but surely it was worth a try.  Take away the fears of the Brexiteers and then the vote could have been very different.

 

As it is now, everyone is angry and nothing is being achieved.  I am not banging a remain drum here, we are all being screwed! 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

50 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

No not at all.  I am just looking at the complete pigs ear that the Brexit negotiators are making of it.  They are failing the Brexiteers and the remainers.  They are constantly backing themselves into a corner and will have to keep making concessions that dilutes what they said at the outset.

 

I am not pitching for a second referendum because Parliament now gets a vote as to whether we accept the Brexit deal or throw it out.  To have a second referendum would be a dumb thing anyway because we would, just like last time, be voting blind.  Until we know just what Brexit consists then how could we give an informed vote?

 

My point is this.  Cameron went to try to negotiate a new deal with the EU and although he made some progress it wasn't enough, I agree with that, it wasn't enough.  At that point the only negotiating tool he had was that if he failed to get the deal we wanted then he would have to call a referendum.  Then Britain would vote whether to stay or go.  It was generally thought at that time that Britain would vote to stay.  In other words there wasn't a great incentive for the EU to sharpen their pencils.  At that time Cameron couldn't say "If I don't get my deal we will leave the EU". 

 

So we have a referendum and the people vote to leave.  May steps up and accepts the poisoned chalice as the others back off to sit on the sidelines.  May, being pushed from behind, comes out with a series of hard line rhetoric.  "Brexit means Brexit" she chanted but not saying what Brexit was.  She couldn't because she didn't know herself.  Nobody did but still she went on proclaiming that Britain was coming out of the single market and customs union without ever considering the consequences of that.  Slowly over time she has had to back down on many issues and continues to do so.

 

My "maybe" was about approaching the negotiations a different way.  To go back to Brussels after the referendum and say "The people of Britain have voted to leave because they feel the deal, as it is unfair".  That is a much stronger negotiating tool than Cameron had. "So if you don't want us to leave (and they don't) then we need to address the issues again and if we can then get an agreement that meets the original criteria then we could then put the new deal to the public.  They may or may not have responded to that but surely it was worth a try.  Take away the fears of the Brexiteers and then the vote could have been very different.

 

As it is now, everyone is angry and nothing is being achieved.  I am not banging a remain drum here, we are all being screwed! 

I find your sequence of comments extremely confusing, you keep contradicting yourself which makes it very difficult to follow any reasoning that you try to suggest. In your last comment you said

 

****Maybe, just maybe, if the Brexit negotiators approached the EU (after the referendum) and said "If you agree to these changes then we will put it to the people again”****

 

That is a rallying call for a second referendum, is it not. Now you say you are not pitching for a second referendum because it would be dumb.

 

Then by the end of your comment you revert to championing a second referendum by saying that we could have gone back to Brussels after the referendum and said “The people of Britain have voted to leave because they feel the deal, as is unfair” “So if you don't want us to leave (and they don't ) then we need to address the issues again and if we can then get an agreement that meets the original criteria then we could then put the new deal to the public” (for a 2nd, 3rd or however many referendums it takes)

 

What you are saying is that the UK government should have kept going back to the EU asking for more concessions on the basis that the public voted to leave because they were unhappy with the status quo, until enough concessions had been achieved to change the original vote ……. you finish by saying “everyone is angry and that you are not banging a remain drum” well I am positively not angry, and you are certainly mishandling the truth by saying that you are not banging that rather tiresome drum

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I find your sequence of comments extremely confusing, you keep contradicting yourself which makes it very difficult to follow any reasoning that you try to suggest. In your last comment you said

 

****Maybe, just maybe, if the Brexit negotiators approached the EU (after the referendum) and said "If you agree to these changes then we will put it to the people again”****

 

That is a rallying call for a second referendum, is it not. Now you say you are not pitching for a second referendum because it would be dumb.

 

Then by the end of your comment you revert to championing a second referendum by saying that we could have gone back to Brussels after the referendum and said “The people of Britain have voted to leave because they feel the deal, as is unfair” “So if you don't want us to leave (and they don't ) then we need to address the issues again and if we can then get an agreement that meets the original criteria then we could then put the new deal to the public” (for a 2nd, 3rd or however many referendums it takes)

 

What you are saying is that the UK government should have kept going back to the EU asking for more concessions on the basis that the public voted to leave because they were unhappy with the status quo, until enough concessions had been achieved to change the original vote ……. you finish by saying “everyone is angry and that you are not banging a remain drum” well I am positively not angry, and you are certainly mishandling the truth by saying that you are not banging that rather tiresome drum

Well it's clear enough to me.  Not suggesting a second or third referendum.  It was a comment about how the negotiations could have kicked off by not putting down red lines but instead address the concerns of the Brexit voters.  Only if that was achievable would you then say to the voters "We have now agreed that the things you were worried about are being resolved so do you still want to go ahead.  If the EU didn't agree to that then you carry on with Brexit because the reasons for leaving are valid.  There would only be an argument for a second vote IF the EU came up with the deal Cameron tried to get in the first place.  Not rocket science is it?

 

I accepted a long time ago that Brexit was going to happen and my argument, I feel is valid, in that having another referendum is useless because we would, once again be voting without knowing what we would be voting for.  As it stands the deals will be presented to parliament before the Brexit deadline and then it can be decided whether to accept or reject them.  That I agree with completely so once again I am not arguing for a second or third referendum.  It appears that you are the one confused because to me it is as clear as day.

 

Finally if you are not angry with the way the negotiations are progressing then I take my hat off to you.  You must feel that May and Davis are delivering what you voted for. Never met anyone who thought that before but good for you.

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I’m sure you're right, if reforms are not forthcoming tout suite, the Visegrád countries will be out the door, possibly followed by others; the irony is that if just 10% of the reforms that will now be needed to keep the EU together had been offered to Cameron, he would not have even called a referendum

Leaving if you have the Euro as a currency would make it an unappealing obstacle course which ought to frighten any politician to slience

[StreetCowboy]

12 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Well it's clear enough to me.  Not suggesting a second or third referendum.  It was a comment about how the negotiations could have kicked off by not putting down red lines but instead address the concerns of the Brexit voters.  Only if that was achievable would you then say to the voters "We have now agreed that the things you were worried about are being resolved so do you still want to go ahead.  If the EU didn't agree to that then you carry on with Brexit because the reasons for leaving are valid.  There would only be an argument for a second vote IF the EU came up with the deal Cameron tried to get in the first place.  Not rocket science is it?

 

I accepted a long time ago that Brexit was going to happen and my argument, I feel is valid, in that having another referendum is useless because we would, once again be voting without knowing what we would be voting for.  As it stands the deals will be presented to parliament before the Brexit deadline and then it can be decided whether to accept or reject them.  That I agree with completely so once again I am not arguing for a second or third referendum.  It appears that you are the one confused because to me it is as clear as day.

 

Finally if you are not angry with the way the negotiations are progressing then I take my hat off to you.  You must feel that May and Davis are delivering what you voted for. Never met anyone who thought that before but good for you.

I think he makes a fairly clear and lucid point.

 

I doubt the EU would have played ball, as that would pose a precedent of rewarding any country that held a referendum to leave.  

 

As it is, I am sure our parliament will not approve a deal that is not in our best interests, though I am not sure what is the alternative.

[StreetCowboy]

6 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Leaving if you have the Euro as a currency would make it an unappealing obstacle course which ought to frighten any politician to slience

Imagine: getting back your old doubloons! What an incentive! The opportunity for speculation, the ability to set punitive interest rates or to punish savers; What fun!

[CG1 Blue]

7 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Well it's clear enough to me.  Not suggesting a second or third referendum.  It was a comment about how the negotiations could have kicked off by not putting down red lines but instead address the concerns of the Brexit voters.  Only if that was achievable would you then say to the voters "We have now agreed that the things you were worried about are being resolved so do you still want to go ahead.  If the EU didn't agree to that then you carry on with Brexit because the reasons for leaving are valid.  There would only be an argument for a second vote IF the EU came up with the deal Cameron tried to get in the first place.  Not rocket science is it?

 

I accepted a long time ago that Brexit was going to happen and my argument, I feel is valid, in that having another referendum is useless because we would, once again be voting without knowing what we would be voting for.  As it stands the deals will be presented to parliament before the Brexit deadline and then it can be decided whether to accept or reject them.  That I agree with completely so once again I am not arguing for a second or third referendum.  It appears that you are the one confused because to me it is as clear as day.

 

Finally if you are not angry with the way the negotiations are progressing then I take my hat off to you.  You must feel that May and Davis are delivering what you voted for. Never met anyone who thought that before but good for you.

I sincerely doubt the EU would have agreed to a load of concessions after the referendum result. That would be losing face, and drifting away from their main aim which is ever closer union.

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

The BBC doesn't seem to think so.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43860453

 

 

One can always rely upon the BBC

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I’m sure you're right, if reforms are not forthcoming tout suite, the Visegrád countries will be out the door, possibly followed by others; the irony is that if just 10% of the reforms that will now be needed to keep the EU together had been offered to Cameron, he would not have even called a referendum

Can you list the reforms that were conceded? Not much but significant nevertheless.

 

We should be leading not leaving

[Eloquent pilgrim]

27 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Well it's clear enough to me.  Not suggesting a second or third referendum.  It was a comment about how the negotiations could have kicked off by not putting down red lines but instead address the concerns of the Brexit voters.  Only if that was achievable would you then say to the voters "We have now agreed that the things you were worried about are being resolved so do you still want to go ahead. 

Oh dear …. do you really not understand how you continually contradict yourself. You have just said that you don't want a second or third referendum, but that if the concerns of the Brexit voters could be addressed, and that the things they were worried about are being resolved, would they still want to go ahead; well it would entail another referendum to establish that, would it not.

 

This is where you really shuffle into another dimension; the referendum ballot paper asked people to vote for the UK to either leave or stay as a member of the EU, it did not ask for their concerns, worries or any other reason for voting either way, so how on earth could the concerns of 17 million people be addressed when they are unknown personal views

[StreetCowboy]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Can you list the reforms that were conceded? Not much but significant nevertheless.

 

We should be leading not leaving

He says reforms will be conceded after Brexit, just as dunroaming suggested that reforms might have been conceded if we offered the EU to hold a second referendum.

 

As it is, we offer ourselves as evidence of the perils of leaving.  

 

You may laugh, but it is us that will be laughing, all the way to the bank, as we establish trade deals with Russia and Trump, and the US, and China, and India.  Of course Switzerland, the Bahamas and BVI will be hardest-hit by the new competition as once again Britain becomes A Global Player, with our new, cost-effective workforce freed from the tyranny of the 48-hour working week and the European Court of Human Rights

[Eloquent pilgrim]

34 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Leaving if you have the Euro as a currency would make it an unappealing obstacle course which ought to frighten any politician to slience

 Well it certainly hasn't silenced Viktor Orban ...... economic uncertainty doesn't seem to bother the Hungarian population who have just elected Viktor Orban for a third consecutive 4 year term as Prime Minister

 

The Hungarians have a far more important concern about their future. Orban has warned of an infiltration by islamic invaders, and fresh from a landslide victory, he will continue to insist that Hungary, where less than six percent of the population is foreign-born, will never admit migrants “with different cultural characteristics and backgrounds.” Merkel,  Chakribati, Lilly Allen and that inanely grinning crisp salesman will hang some labels on him and the Hungarian population, but they will no doubt continue on their own exit path  

[Eloquent pilgrim]

35 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Can you list the reforms that were conceded? Not much but significant nevertheless.

 

We should be leading not leaving

I think you have misread me, I said reforms that would be needed, I did not say reforms that had been conceded .....

This is exactly what I said, perhaps you'd be kind enough to read it again

""the irony is that if just 10% of the reforms that will now be needed to keep the EU together had been offered to Cameron, he would not have even called a referendum""

Edited April 23, 2018 by Eloquent pilgrim

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 Well it certainly hasn't silenced Viktor Orban ...... economic uncertainty doesn't seem to bother the Hungarian population who have just elected Viktor Orban for a third consecutive 4 year term as Prime Minister

 

The Hungarians have a far more important concern about their future. Orban has warned of an infiltration by islamic invaders, and fresh from a landslide victory, he will continue to insist that Hungary, where less than six percent of the population is foreign-born, will never admit migrants “with different cultural characteristics and backgrounds.” Merkel,  Chakribati, Lilly Allen and that inanely grinning crisp salesman will hang some labels on him and the Hungarian population, but they will no doubt continue on their own exit path  

And give up all those EU subsidies? Hungary gets about 5 times as much from the EU as it gives.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/hungary_en

[Eloquent pilgrim]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And give up all those EU subsidies? Hungary gets about 5 times as much from the EU as it gives.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/hungary_en

Everybody's grandmother already knows that, and do not need a third party link for edification.

 

Did you not actually read my comment; I was stating that the Hungarian people (rightly or wrongly) have told the world that the protection of their culture and identity, and their steadfast refusal to allow that to be challenged by immigration, is far more important to them than their economic welfare. 

[aright]

EU ‘very pleased’ not to be negotiating Brexit with Rees-Mogg

 

“If Britain trades on WTO terms, we could potentially slap tariffs of up to 70 per cent on Irish beef,” he said.

“That could bankrupt Ireland, who export £800million of beef to us every year.”

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/eu-pleased-not-negotiating-brexit-rees-mogg-121954190.html