Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It's a weak argument certainly.
I can see a case to be made that the EU has focused spending in areas traditionally neglected by Westminster, Wales being an example, and these areas voted Leave. These areas are not having the subsequent shortfall in EU money safeguarded from Westminster either despite suggestions they would during the campaign (from the magical £350 million).
I didn't like this argument as a defense of the EU though because at best it's an argument that Westminster government is so poor that we need the EU to override it which isn't a great place from which to start.
The arguments I believed in and continue to believe in is that the economic benefit of the single market outweighs the downside and certainly wipes out the £350 million a week. Although I don't see the point of starting that debate again.  |
If these matters are handled properly there's no reason why the economic benefit of enhanced trade with the rest of the world won't in turn dwarf anything lost directly (if indeed that winds up happening) as a result of a different relationship with the EU. As the EU carries on into decline and chaos, membership of that club is looking less appealing and we need to remember that when we negotiate because if the situations were reversed they'd be letting us know in no uncertain terms that they need us less than we need them.