Please note that this sub is for civil discussion. You are requested to familiarise yourself with the [subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/wiki/index) before participation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do I love a good list. Let's go!
> 1. From a trade deal perspective, the UK previously had access to around 43 active trade deals as part of EU membership – a membership that, as one of the largest net contributors it paid billions each year for. The UK has replicated all but 3 of these (Bosnia, Montenegro, Algeria) and no longer has to pay the EU a subscription fee to access any of them.
The benefit is three fewer trade deals, and the rest being rollover deals. The only benefit is no longer paying EU membership fees, which would only be a benefit is leaving had set those off, which it hasn't.
> 2. Since leaving the EU, the UK has improved the rolled over deals with Japan, Singapore and Ukraine - and is in the process of improvement with Canada, Mexico, Switzerland and Israel. As well as striking completely new deals with Australia and New Zealand, the UK is also close to completion on FTA negotiations with India and the six-nation GCC – all not possible within the EU.
The Australia and New Zealand trade deals favour those countries, not the UK. I can't speak on how "improved" those three deals are, but I'll reserve judgement on the upcoming ones to see whether they actually happen, and whether they will again be deals done for political rather than economic reasons.
> 3. By leaving the EU, the UK has been able to align with those markets projecting the highest growth over the coming decades (the so-called Indo-Pacific tilt), as opposed to being tied to a bloc projected to see declining relevance and stagnation. UK CPTPP accession was signed earlier this year, with ratification expected by Q4 2024.
That by itself doesn't mean anything. Part of the reason why the countries with the highest-growing GDP rates now are Pacific island nations is because they start from a low point. This is also a false dichotomy - you should trade with your nearest neighbours and with outside markets. Which is what the EU does, because it already has agreements with all CPTPP countries except Malaysia.
> 4. As an EU member state, 75% of *all* customs revenue (it was 80% when UK was a member) goes to the budget of the EU. Now outside of the EU, the UK HMRC gets 100% of that revenue to spend on public services, currently around £3bn extra a year.
Doesn't offset the losses from leaving the EU.
> 5. Since 2019, EU members have been unable to trade in Swiss equities due to a ban having been put in place. Outside of the EU, the UK was able to return this trading, which is worth about £1.6bn a day, and so about £8m a day to HMRC. That's just over £2bn a year in additional tax revenue, to spend on public services.
Doesn't offset the losses from leaving the EU. Also, why do you assume this money will be used on public services and not end up in the pockets of Tory crony? Have you had a look at the Tory government?
> 6. Latest available figures show that in the year to March 2022, the Department for International Trade resolved 192 trade barriers in 79 countries. Just 45 of these alone were estimated to be worth around £5 billion to businesses across the UK over the next five years. That's £1bn a year of extra revenue for UK businesses, just from these 45 trade barrier removals, thanks to leaving the EU.
Where's the evidence this could not have ben done as an EU member?
> 7. In the FY ending March 2023, in the LATAM region alone, the UK was able to remove a further 34 trade barriers to UK exporters - with 24 of these having been forecast to be worth £1.3 billion to the UK economy. These changes would not be possible from inside the EU.
Why not? The UK could have asked the EU Commission to do this.
> 8. In April this year the UK put into place its Developing Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS), which has seen the UK able to provide aid through encouraging trade with 65 developing nations across the globe - going further than EU GSP+ and EBA schemes. This was simply not possible to do from within the EU.
You *just said* that the EU has a similar scheme, so it is possible. [Also, the scheme is projected to save £770 million](https://www.reuters.com/business/britain-launches-preferential-trade-scheme-with-developing-countries-2023-06-19/) - minus whatever the UK would have saved via the EU scheme - so it is again unlikely to offset the losses from leaving the EU.
> 9. As of this summer, the departure from the EU had allowed the UK to remove tariffs completely on 47% of all product lines entering the UK, making products cheaper for UK consumers.
I can't find out where this number comes from.
> 10. As a consequence of leaving EU, the UK has been able to reduce trade barriers with its global partners, meaning it now has less barriers to trade than it did as an EU member. As a consequence, the UK jumped to 4th place in the 2021 trade barriers index for how free its trade is.
This is just the previous points again - unless you really want to be on that list. Also, wonder why they took the number from 2021? [Because now, the UK is on spot 8](https://www.tradebarrierindex.org/), just head of the Netherlands i.e. and EU member.
> 11. In 2019, as a member of the EU, the UK wasn't even in the top 10 OECD countries on their Services Trade Restrictiveness Index. In 2022, having been able to liberalise in multiple sectors outside of the EU, the UK is now ranking 2nd only to Japan.
Looking at the list [here](https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=STRI#) - taking the all-sector average - the UK is once more just ahead of the Netherlands (and also the Czech Republic). Scores differ notably between EU members, showing that Brexit wasn't necessary to achieve this.
> 12. On migration - leaving the EU has allowed the UK to offer a truly fair points-based immigration policy, that does not unduly favour predominantly white Europeans over those from other nations. UK policy now treats everyone the same, irrespective of their country of birth.
No, it doesn't. The system still privileges Irish people, Commonwealth citizens, Maltese people, and, via the post-Brexit schemes, EU citizens.
> 13. Staying with migration - the new points-based system as implemented has resulted in the UK having a significantly higher as regards attractiveness for highly skilled workers from the OECD, "owing to changes to the migration regime introduced after Brexit" - that the UK was only able to do, having left the EU.
[The UK is behind Luxembourg, and EU member, on that list,](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1712076301379530967.html) showing yet again that this is not a Brexit benefit.
> 14. Sticking with global rankings - on leaving the EU, the UK soft power rating increased, and is now second only to the USA. On leaving the EU, the UK score on Governance went from 9th up to 4th, leapfrogging Germany in the process.
It didn't - the UK already had that spot.
> 14. Leaving the EU has made the UK a more important strategic ally in terms of geopolitics, not less. Not my words, those of economist and former Special Advisor to the US President, Pippa Malmgren.
It's one line from one person on a podcast. I can promise you that when that person talks to the Japanese foreign minister or French president or whatever, they will respectively be a key ally.
> 16. The UK has rolled out an Advance Valuation Ruling Service (AVRS), giving importers legal certainty that their chosen customs valuation method are correct, and "reducing their administrative burden". This would not be possible inside the EU Customs Union.
The scheme has supposedly [been mocked by traders](https://theloadstar.com/uk-hmrcs-latest-digital-wheeze-greeted-by-broker-derision/) and been described as pointless.
> 17. Leaving the EU has allowed the UK to develop fully digitised international trade solutions with like-minded partners in the CPTPP such as Singapore, culminating in the world first accomplishment only weeks ago. These changes will make trading cheaper, easier and more secure for UK businesses.
I couldn't find a source that confirmed that this is only possible due to Brexit.
> 18. As found by the NFFO "Brexit Balance Sheet" report in September 2021, the UK fishing industry as a whole is now better off by over £50 million a year, than it was when inside the EU. With this figure increasing with each year that passes, as more quotas are returned to the UK fishing fleet.
[Based on the latest government report on fisheries from December 2023](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/654e277cce0b3a000d491530/UK_Sea_Fisheries_Statistics_2022_101123.pdf), the amount of fish caught is about even with the previous year, [and only slightly higher than in 2019](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/920679/UK_Sea_Fisheries_Statistics_2019_-_access_checked-002.pdf). The value of the fish has indeed increased, but as the report states, that is due to an increase in prices. I haven't seen evidence this wouldn't have happened without Brexit.
> 19. In March of 2022, the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that VAT would be reduced to zero on green energy purchases such as solar panels and heat pumps. A member state could not independently implement such a VAT policy from within the EU. Would not be possible due to EU rules on VAT and taxation.
Interesting that they link to FullFact, who state that EU VAT on solar panels can be 0%. The minimum on heat pumps, however, is still 5%, so there we go. A benefit!
> 20. Leaving the EU allowed for the UK to implement proper full-blooded freeports across the country - providing various tax and customs reliefs, simplified import and export procedures, enhanced trade promotion, and additional support for innovation. Increasing the attractiveness to both domestic and international businesses.
Freeports are possible for EU members, [and their utility is dubious.](https://www.ft.com/content/75b06669-7098-4b40-85ef-20f3cd0fa3b6)
> 21. As recently covered in an article in Reuters, those at the lower end of salaried workers in the UK have seen improvements in both salaries and working conditions due to leaving the EU, and the resultant tightening of available resources with the removal of Freedom of Movement.
The article literally states wage rises are below inflation.
> 22. Companies like Mazda are now shipping directly to the UK instead of to a central hub in Belgium to be reshipped later from there - and in the process, provides more jobs to UK citizens, reduced lead times, more choice, higher reliability and better service to their customers.
Unless it was illegal to ship directly to the UK before, this is not a Brexit benefit.
> 23. Removing a regulation that the EU itself says is pointless, will save consumers upwards of 5-10% off an average bottle of sparkling wine. Removing the pointless regulation will see upto 50p saved on manufacturing costs, per bottle.
A prediction from The Sun - let's see how this one plays out.
> 24. Outside of the EU CAP, which mainly benefitted very large landowners with subsidies, the UK system is being changed to encourage better stewardship of farmland as animal habitats, and will spread the subsidies better amongst smaller farms.
[Yes, UK farmers are doing so great.](https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/26/slaughtered-uk-farmers-protest-post-brexit-rules-and-trade-deals)
> 25. As recently covered by The Spectator, a partnership on cancer treatment R&D between the UK govt and BioNTech is only possible due to the post-Brexit regulatory environment that we have been able to foster and develop.
That's not what the article states. It states that the UK could reduce regulation. It's a hypothetical, and not directly related to the UK-BioNTech partnership. The article itself makes fun of the fact that it took years and years to find such a *potential* benefit.
> 26. The Shark Fins Bill, which seeks to end the import and export of shark fins, received Royal Assent back in June and so is now UK law. This move to protect sharks from this ghastly trade is only possible because we left the EU.
No, it isn't. [The EU is in the process of likewise banning that.](https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/european-commission-calls-evidence-potential-ban-sales-and-trade-loose-shark-fins-2024-02-21_en)
> 27. With the return of sovereignty to the UK for multiple areas of government policy and UK Law, the ability to petition your representative - and to remove them when they are ineffective in areas you care about - has not been as possible as it is now since the 1970s.
I don*t understand this point. The EU doesn't regulate recall legislation. Current UK recall legislation is from 2015 i.e. pre-Brexit vote. "Petitioning" just means writing your MP or MEP an email - anyone can do that.
> 28. Even before the DCTS was announced, the UK Global Tariff (UKGT) had already made improvements.
That could be an actual benefit. Let's wait for something more substantial than an op-ed in a pro-Brexit news outlet.
> 29. A CJEU ruling in 2022 has resulted in member states having to shut down open registers of corporate ownership, reducing transparency and increasing the risk of corruption. As the UK is outside of the EU and the CJEU, the UK continues with this transparent approach.
I do agree that this is a bad ruling, and I'm unconvinced that the UK fares better as long as the Channel Island and various other tax havens exist.
> 30. To wrap up the list of 30 - Our independence from the EU has allowed the UK to take a leading independent role in supporting Ukraine. Though EU member states have followed suit, they did so weeks later, which could've literally been the difference between victory and defeat.
Even as an EU members, the UK could have sent whatever aid it wanted. Also, the claim is a lie - [both UK and EU sanctions hit within less than 24h of one another.](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/podcasts/mediatalk-s2-ep-07)
TLDR: Most benefits are either fictional, don't offset the cost of Brexit, boil down to celery now being 2% cheaper or whatever, or are spots on some lists on websites. Curiously, none are the ones to be found on, say, the website of the Leave campaign.
Good point. My best guess is that the person running that account is mildly anti-vaxx, as they were making fun of a woman tweeting about her COVID booster shots (see [here](https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1710970875254587746)). Just a guess, however - I don't follow that account.
I really like how he keeps throwing numbers around that are essentially meaningless if you think about them from one second. "X trade barriers removed", really? Between the false dichotomies, dodgy metrics and non sequiturs, there doesn't seem to be any valid argument here.
Of course, having any real arguments isn't really necessary. The whole point of this is to assure people who voted for Brexit for other reasons (of none at all) that they were right to do so. To that end, the latter will accept any lie no matter how transparent and reward anyone who hands them a fig leaf that they can use to justify their choices. That's all that matters, in the end.
Imagine if someone spent a million quid on lottery tickets, and then naturally found one of them to be a £10 win, and then went around loudy claiming to be a winner and boasting about the £10 he won, and did a twitter list about the stuff he could by.
Thats the essence and spirit of this list. It’s not legitimate to mention economic rewards without mentioning what was initially spent in order to get them.
I have recently cut off my foot. Now I have loads of benefits from it:
1. I no longer need to buy socks or shoes for that foot.
2. Only one foot can be stinky. (less soap needed to wash it)
3. I no longer need to walk everywhere like a loser, I hop to all the places I want to visit as that is way cooler.
4. I lost a lot of weight! Thanks u/RidingRedHare for that one.
5. I am now able to claim disability benefits that I would not have received under the burdensome two-footed system. Thanks u/bunnnythor for this one.
6. I never put on different colored socks any more. All socks that I wear are the right color. Thanks u/jeanpaulmars
7. My socks last twice as long due to decrease in wear. Thanks u/jeanpaulmars
I am sure there are like 30 tangible benefits to having cut off my foot. If you can think of one, please let me know then I will add it to my list.
What I have done for now is footxit in name only... I am thinking of cutting off the other foot as well to finally achieve full footxit and increase all the benefits!
You can no longer put a different color sock on your left and right foot, it’s always the right color.
Added bonus: your socks last twice as long die to decrease in wear and tear.
If many of these trade barriers were so beneficial, how come folk who have relatives living in the EU end up getting a bill from Royal Mail for VAT and an extortionate admin fee to rub salt on the wound when they get a present in the post?
People like me living in Europe get fees regardless of how much the gift is that we’re receiving.
There could’ve been Brexit with remaining in the Customs Union, that in itself is one hell of an own goal.
Practically all these so called “benefits” only get seen by companies, not by the everyday person so trying to sell this to the average Joe as any sorts of benefits is poppycock.
Again, people got duped by Farage like they did by Gary Glitter and Savile in the 70s.
I would like to point out that our car industry was a casualty of Brexit, Honda and Nissan only came to the UK to benefit from the UK's membership of the EEC and have since left. None of the promises the leave campaign made have been honoured, particularly to the farming sector regarding subsidies.
Most of the money paid to the EU came back in various forms, and much of it was spent in depressed areas and a Treasury report made in 2016 put the benefits of being in the EU as £2,600 per week whilst paying in £137 million per week, i have a graph that i found on Quora that am going to post as it should be seen.
Nobody wants to invest in the UK unless it comes with major taxpayer cash attached, even those scumbag billionaire businessmen who promoted brexit, like James Ratcliffe and James Dyson amongst others.
I think a part of the problem is that it was easy to point out the money being paid to the EU. It was harder to point out where it was coming back.
Same for non-monetary costs and benefits.
This was definitely a failure of the Remain campaign. They didn’t manage to convert what the benefits of membership really were. The things that were just seen as being a part of the (British) system that were actually inherited from being in the EU.
It wasn’t until we left that people realised what we got out of it. And, worse, they interpreted losing these as being a punishment for leaving, rather than being no longer eligible for a benefit of staying.
Your submission has been removed due to the use of unacceptable pejorative language.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please note that this sub is for civil discussion. You are requested to familiarise yourself with the [subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/wiki/index) before participation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do I love a good list. Let's go! > 1. From a trade deal perspective, the UK previously had access to around 43 active trade deals as part of EU membership – a membership that, as one of the largest net contributors it paid billions each year for. The UK has replicated all but 3 of these (Bosnia, Montenegro, Algeria) and no longer has to pay the EU a subscription fee to access any of them. The benefit is three fewer trade deals, and the rest being rollover deals. The only benefit is no longer paying EU membership fees, which would only be a benefit is leaving had set those off, which it hasn't. > 2. Since leaving the EU, the UK has improved the rolled over deals with Japan, Singapore and Ukraine - and is in the process of improvement with Canada, Mexico, Switzerland and Israel. As well as striking completely new deals with Australia and New Zealand, the UK is also close to completion on FTA negotiations with India and the six-nation GCC – all not possible within the EU. The Australia and New Zealand trade deals favour those countries, not the UK. I can't speak on how "improved" those three deals are, but I'll reserve judgement on the upcoming ones to see whether they actually happen, and whether they will again be deals done for political rather than economic reasons. > 3. By leaving the EU, the UK has been able to align with those markets projecting the highest growth over the coming decades (the so-called Indo-Pacific tilt), as opposed to being tied to a bloc projected to see declining relevance and stagnation. UK CPTPP accession was signed earlier this year, with ratification expected by Q4 2024. That by itself doesn't mean anything. Part of the reason why the countries with the highest-growing GDP rates now are Pacific island nations is because they start from a low point. This is also a false dichotomy - you should trade with your nearest neighbours and with outside markets. Which is what the EU does, because it already has agreements with all CPTPP countries except Malaysia. > 4. As an EU member state, 75% of *all* customs revenue (it was 80% when UK was a member) goes to the budget of the EU. Now outside of the EU, the UK HMRC gets 100% of that revenue to spend on public services, currently around £3bn extra a year. Doesn't offset the losses from leaving the EU. > 5. Since 2019, EU members have been unable to trade in Swiss equities due to a ban having been put in place. Outside of the EU, the UK was able to return this trading, which is worth about £1.6bn a day, and so about £8m a day to HMRC. That's just over £2bn a year in additional tax revenue, to spend on public services. Doesn't offset the losses from leaving the EU. Also, why do you assume this money will be used on public services and not end up in the pockets of Tory crony? Have you had a look at the Tory government? > 6. Latest available figures show that in the year to March 2022, the Department for International Trade resolved 192 trade barriers in 79 countries. Just 45 of these alone were estimated to be worth around £5 billion to businesses across the UK over the next five years. That's £1bn a year of extra revenue for UK businesses, just from these 45 trade barrier removals, thanks to leaving the EU. Where's the evidence this could not have ben done as an EU member? > 7. In the FY ending March 2023, in the LATAM region alone, the UK was able to remove a further 34 trade barriers to UK exporters - with 24 of these having been forecast to be worth £1.3 billion to the UK economy. These changes would not be possible from inside the EU. Why not? The UK could have asked the EU Commission to do this. > 8. In April this year the UK put into place its Developing Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS), which has seen the UK able to provide aid through encouraging trade with 65 developing nations across the globe - going further than EU GSP+ and EBA schemes. This was simply not possible to do from within the EU. You *just said* that the EU has a similar scheme, so it is possible. [Also, the scheme is projected to save £770 million](https://www.reuters.com/business/britain-launches-preferential-trade-scheme-with-developing-countries-2023-06-19/) - minus whatever the UK would have saved via the EU scheme - so it is again unlikely to offset the losses from leaving the EU. > 9. As of this summer, the departure from the EU had allowed the UK to remove tariffs completely on 47% of all product lines entering the UK, making products cheaper for UK consumers. I can't find out where this number comes from. > 10. As a consequence of leaving EU, the UK has been able to reduce trade barriers with its global partners, meaning it now has less barriers to trade than it did as an EU member. As a consequence, the UK jumped to 4th place in the 2021 trade barriers index for how free its trade is. This is just the previous points again - unless you really want to be on that list. Also, wonder why they took the number from 2021? [Because now, the UK is on spot 8](https://www.tradebarrierindex.org/), just head of the Netherlands i.e. and EU member. > 11. In 2019, as a member of the EU, the UK wasn't even in the top 10 OECD countries on their Services Trade Restrictiveness Index. In 2022, having been able to liberalise in multiple sectors outside of the EU, the UK is now ranking 2nd only to Japan. Looking at the list [here](https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=STRI#) - taking the all-sector average - the UK is once more just ahead of the Netherlands (and also the Czech Republic). Scores differ notably between EU members, showing that Brexit wasn't necessary to achieve this. > 12. On migration - leaving the EU has allowed the UK to offer a truly fair points-based immigration policy, that does not unduly favour predominantly white Europeans over those from other nations. UK policy now treats everyone the same, irrespective of their country of birth. No, it doesn't. The system still privileges Irish people, Commonwealth citizens, Maltese people, and, via the post-Brexit schemes, EU citizens. > 13. Staying with migration - the new points-based system as implemented has resulted in the UK having a significantly higher as regards attractiveness for highly skilled workers from the OECD, "owing to changes to the migration regime introduced after Brexit" - that the UK was only able to do, having left the EU. [The UK is behind Luxembourg, and EU member, on that list,](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1712076301379530967.html) showing yet again that this is not a Brexit benefit. > 14. Sticking with global rankings - on leaving the EU, the UK soft power rating increased, and is now second only to the USA. On leaving the EU, the UK score on Governance went from 9th up to 4th, leapfrogging Germany in the process. It didn't - the UK already had that spot. > 14. Leaving the EU has made the UK a more important strategic ally in terms of geopolitics, not less. Not my words, those of economist and former Special Advisor to the US President, Pippa Malmgren. It's one line from one person on a podcast. I can promise you that when that person talks to the Japanese foreign minister or French president or whatever, they will respectively be a key ally.
> 16. The UK has rolled out an Advance Valuation Ruling Service (AVRS), giving importers legal certainty that their chosen customs valuation method are correct, and "reducing their administrative burden". This would not be possible inside the EU Customs Union. The scheme has supposedly [been mocked by traders](https://theloadstar.com/uk-hmrcs-latest-digital-wheeze-greeted-by-broker-derision/) and been described as pointless. > 17. Leaving the EU has allowed the UK to develop fully digitised international trade solutions with like-minded partners in the CPTPP such as Singapore, culminating in the world first accomplishment only weeks ago. These changes will make trading cheaper, easier and more secure for UK businesses. I couldn't find a source that confirmed that this is only possible due to Brexit. > 18. As found by the NFFO "Brexit Balance Sheet" report in September 2021, the UK fishing industry as a whole is now better off by over £50 million a year, than it was when inside the EU. With this figure increasing with each year that passes, as more quotas are returned to the UK fishing fleet. [Based on the latest government report on fisheries from December 2023](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/654e277cce0b3a000d491530/UK_Sea_Fisheries_Statistics_2022_101123.pdf), the amount of fish caught is about even with the previous year, [and only slightly higher than in 2019](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/920679/UK_Sea_Fisheries_Statistics_2019_-_access_checked-002.pdf). The value of the fish has indeed increased, but as the report states, that is due to an increase in prices. I haven't seen evidence this wouldn't have happened without Brexit. > 19. In March of 2022, the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that VAT would be reduced to zero on green energy purchases such as solar panels and heat pumps. A member state could not independently implement such a VAT policy from within the EU. Would not be possible due to EU rules on VAT and taxation. Interesting that they link to FullFact, who state that EU VAT on solar panels can be 0%. The minimum on heat pumps, however, is still 5%, so there we go. A benefit! > 20. Leaving the EU allowed for the UK to implement proper full-blooded freeports across the country - providing various tax and customs reliefs, simplified import and export procedures, enhanced trade promotion, and additional support for innovation. Increasing the attractiveness to both domestic and international businesses. Freeports are possible for EU members, [and their utility is dubious.](https://www.ft.com/content/75b06669-7098-4b40-85ef-20f3cd0fa3b6) > 21. As recently covered in an article in Reuters, those at the lower end of salaried workers in the UK have seen improvements in both salaries and working conditions due to leaving the EU, and the resultant tightening of available resources with the removal of Freedom of Movement. The article literally states wage rises are below inflation. > 22. Companies like Mazda are now shipping directly to the UK instead of to a central hub in Belgium to be reshipped later from there - and in the process, provides more jobs to UK citizens, reduced lead times, more choice, higher reliability and better service to their customers. Unless it was illegal to ship directly to the UK before, this is not a Brexit benefit. > 23. Removing a regulation that the EU itself says is pointless, will save consumers upwards of 5-10% off an average bottle of sparkling wine. Removing the pointless regulation will see upto 50p saved on manufacturing costs, per bottle. A prediction from The Sun - let's see how this one plays out. > 24. Outside of the EU CAP, which mainly benefitted very large landowners with subsidies, the UK system is being changed to encourage better stewardship of farmland as animal habitats, and will spread the subsidies better amongst smaller farms. [Yes, UK farmers are doing so great.](https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/26/slaughtered-uk-farmers-protest-post-brexit-rules-and-trade-deals) > 25. As recently covered by The Spectator, a partnership on cancer treatment R&D between the UK govt and BioNTech is only possible due to the post-Brexit regulatory environment that we have been able to foster and develop. That's not what the article states. It states that the UK could reduce regulation. It's a hypothetical, and not directly related to the UK-BioNTech partnership. The article itself makes fun of the fact that it took years and years to find such a *potential* benefit. > 26. The Shark Fins Bill, which seeks to end the import and export of shark fins, received Royal Assent back in June and so is now UK law. This move to protect sharks from this ghastly trade is only possible because we left the EU. No, it isn't. [The EU is in the process of likewise banning that.](https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/european-commission-calls-evidence-potential-ban-sales-and-trade-loose-shark-fins-2024-02-21_en) > 27. With the return of sovereignty to the UK for multiple areas of government policy and UK Law, the ability to petition your representative - and to remove them when they are ineffective in areas you care about - has not been as possible as it is now since the 1970s. I don*t understand this point. The EU doesn't regulate recall legislation. Current UK recall legislation is from 2015 i.e. pre-Brexit vote. "Petitioning" just means writing your MP or MEP an email - anyone can do that. > 28. Even before the DCTS was announced, the UK Global Tariff (UKGT) had already made improvements. That could be an actual benefit. Let's wait for something more substantial than an op-ed in a pro-Brexit news outlet. > 29. A CJEU ruling in 2022 has resulted in member states having to shut down open registers of corporate ownership, reducing transparency and increasing the risk of corruption. As the UK is outside of the EU and the CJEU, the UK continues with this transparent approach. I do agree that this is a bad ruling, and I'm unconvinced that the UK fares better as long as the Channel Island and various other tax havens exist. > 30. To wrap up the list of 30 - Our independence from the EU has allowed the UK to take a leading independent role in supporting Ukraine. Though EU member states have followed suit, they did so weeks later, which could've literally been the difference between victory and defeat. Even as an EU members, the UK could have sent whatever aid it wanted. Also, the claim is a lie - [both UK and EU sanctions hit within less than 24h of one another.](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/podcasts/mediatalk-s2-ep-07)
TLDR: Most benefits are either fictional, don't offset the cost of Brexit, boil down to celery now being 2% cheaper or whatever, or are spots on some lists on websites. Curiously, none are the ones to be found on, say, the website of the Leave campaign.
This is brilliant 🤩 Thankyou
Stop, stop he's dead.
I'm surprised the vaccine roll out isn't in the list
Good point. My best guess is that the person running that account is mildly anti-vaxx, as they were making fun of a woman tweeting about her COVID booster shots (see [here](https://twitter.com/TerraOrBust/status/1710970875254587746)). Just a guess, however - I don't follow that account.
I really like how he keeps throwing numbers around that are essentially meaningless if you think about them from one second. "X trade barriers removed", really? Between the false dichotomies, dodgy metrics and non sequiturs, there doesn't seem to be any valid argument here. Of course, having any real arguments isn't really necessary. The whole point of this is to assure people who voted for Brexit for other reasons (of none at all) that they were right to do so. To that end, the latter will accept any lie no matter how transparent and reward anyone who hands them a fig leaf that they can use to justify their choices. That's all that matters, in the end.
Imagine if someone spent a million quid on lottery tickets, and then naturally found one of them to be a £10 win, and then went around loudy claiming to be a winner and boasting about the £10 he won, and did a twitter list about the stuff he could by. Thats the essence and spirit of this list. It’s not legitimate to mention economic rewards without mentioning what was initially spent in order to get them.
I have recently cut off my foot. Now I have loads of benefits from it: 1. I no longer need to buy socks or shoes for that foot. 2. Only one foot can be stinky. (less soap needed to wash it) 3. I no longer need to walk everywhere like a loser, I hop to all the places I want to visit as that is way cooler. 4. I lost a lot of weight! Thanks u/RidingRedHare for that one. 5. I am now able to claim disability benefits that I would not have received under the burdensome two-footed system. Thanks u/bunnnythor for this one. 6. I never put on different colored socks any more. All socks that I wear are the right color. Thanks u/jeanpaulmars 7. My socks last twice as long due to decrease in wear. Thanks u/jeanpaulmars I am sure there are like 30 tangible benefits to having cut off my foot. If you can think of one, please let me know then I will add it to my list. What I have done for now is footxit in name only... I am thinking of cutting off the other foot as well to finally achieve full footxit and increase all the benefits!
You lost a lot of weight!
You are now able to claim certain disability benefits that you would not have received under the burdensome two-footed system.
You can no longer put a different color sock on your left and right foot, it’s always the right color. Added bonus: your socks last twice as long die to decrease in wear and tear.
The Aussies were laughing at how bad the trade deal was with the UK, I dont think its equivalent to the old eu deal, is this whole article fulla BS?
Yes, it's overflowing with the brown stuff...
If many of these trade barriers were so beneficial, how come folk who have relatives living in the EU end up getting a bill from Royal Mail for VAT and an extortionate admin fee to rub salt on the wound when they get a present in the post? People like me living in Europe get fees regardless of how much the gift is that we’re receiving. There could’ve been Brexit with remaining in the Customs Union, that in itself is one hell of an own goal. Practically all these so called “benefits” only get seen by companies, not by the everyday person so trying to sell this to the average Joe as any sorts of benefits is poppycock. Again, people got duped by Farage like they did by Gary Glitter and Savile in the 70s.
I’ve seen this guy before. Absolutely laughable
I would like to point out that our car industry was a casualty of Brexit, Honda and Nissan only came to the UK to benefit from the UK's membership of the EEC and have since left. None of the promises the leave campaign made have been honoured, particularly to the farming sector regarding subsidies. Most of the money paid to the EU came back in various forms, and much of it was spent in depressed areas and a Treasury report made in 2016 put the benefits of being in the EU as £2,600 per week whilst paying in £137 million per week, i have a graph that i found on Quora that am going to post as it should be seen. Nobody wants to invest in the UK unless it comes with major taxpayer cash attached, even those scumbag billionaire businessmen who promoted brexit, like James Ratcliffe and James Dyson amongst others.
I think a part of the problem is that it was easy to point out the money being paid to the EU. It was harder to point out where it was coming back. Same for non-monetary costs and benefits. This was definitely a failure of the Remain campaign. They didn’t manage to convert what the benefits of membership really were. The things that were just seen as being a part of the (British) system that were actually inherited from being in the EU. It wasn’t until we left that people realised what we got out of it. And, worse, they interpreted losing these as being a punishment for leaving, rather than being no longer eligible for a benefit of staying.
They are so tangible indeed.
But he's "done his research"....
Unrelated: AI can't draw a UK flag right.
I'd like to read their argument on MFN clauses.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed due to the use of unacceptable pejorative language. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*