Arts in the UK post-Brexit

[MrGongGong]

Exactly, the problems are being created by leaving the EU.

With no benefit to Art, Culture, Science or Education
but probably lots to Spiv businesses

So if the choice is between aligning our society with the views of Mr Attenborough or mr Banks (and i'm not talking about Iain, Tony or Gordon) I know which I would choose.

[Richard Barrett]

... because what looks like a "successful" Brexit from a Tory point of view is going to be something where EU countries will be undercut on world markets by a UK which abandons European regulations on health and safety, workers' protections and so on in favour of a US-style way of doing things, and where they will be able to fulfil the wish they've had since 1945 of doing away with the NHS and replacing it with the kind of private system that many Tory politicians have personal financial interests in. At the same time the UK would become more economically dependent on the USA which currently is being run by a lunatic. A "successful" Brexit, in these terms, is something that to coin a phrase would work for the few, not the many. Not to mention the understandable worries that many touring artists have, as we've seen here, about the inevitable difficulties associated with the ending of free movement which, according to our resident convinced Leaver, might well have solutions; or they may not. One doesn't have to be a diehard Remainer to hold the aforementioned opinions.

There's another issue which might be interesting to touch on. Many Leavers claim that one of the reasons for their opinions is a wish for the UK to think more globally rather than limiting itself to Europe. One argument against that way of thinking is that actually it's even more limited, in concentrating on what is supposed to be good for the UK to the expense of others. I don't think it's necessary to buy into the jingoistic nation-state narrative put out by most governments most of the time. There are some serious problems in the EU at the moment connected with xenophobic tendencies taking power in Poland, Hungary, Italy and no doubt eventually elsewhere if current trends continue. These trends must eventually have a detrimental effect on society that goes far beyond the borders of the countries concerned. Do we care about having some influence on them, in order perhaps to help those adversely affected by this authoritarianism? Or do we pull up the drawbridge and say sorry mate, not our problem? (Until it is.)

Lat, you aren't making much sense. Maybe take a deep breath and try to express whatever it is you're saying more clearly?

[french frank]

There's another issue which might be interesting to touch on. Many Leavers claim that one of the reasons for their opinions is a wish for the UK to think more globally rather than limiting itself to Europe.

The EU itself already thinks globally - as the biggest donor of international aid (compare with Mr Rees-Mogg who handed The Daily Express's petition into Number Ten, urging the government to cut overseas aid); and with an extensive development programme targeted on the poorer countries. And its trade agreements - if that's what the Prime Minister means by 'thinking globally' - are with countries around the globe. It will be challenging for the UK to replicate all the existing agreements, still less those in the pipeline. Also, compare Trump's unwillingness to halt sales of arms to Saudi Arabia (while condemning the Saudis over the Khashoggi affair) with Merkel, 'hamstrung' by a dictatorial EU, who has already announced an end to Germany's arms sales. The US will make a fine partner if you close your eyes to its internal and foreign policies.

[Lat-Literal]

... because what looks like a "successful" Brexit from a Tory point of view is going to be something where EU countries will be undercut on world markets by a UK which abandons European regulations on health and safety, workers' protections and so on in favour of a US-style way of doing things, and where they will be able to fulfil the wish they've had since 1945 of doing away with the NHS and replacing it with the kind of private system that many Tory politicians have personal financial interests in. At the same time the UK would become more economically dependent on the USA which currently is being run by a lunatic. A "successful" Brexit, in these terms, is something that to coin a phrase would work for the few, not the many. Not to mention the understandable worries that many touring artists have, as we've seen here, about the inevitable difficulties associated with the ending of free movement which, according to our resident convinced Leaver, might well have solutions; or they may not. One doesn't have to be a diehard Remainer to hold the aforementioned opinions.

There's another issue which might be interesting to touch on. Many Leavers claim that one of the reasons for their opinions is a wish for the UK to think more globally rather than limiting itself to Europe. One argument against that way of thinking is that actually it's even more limited, in concentrating on what is supposed to be good for the UK to the expense of others. I don't think it's necessary to buy into the jingoistic nation-state narrative put out by most governments most of the time. There are some serious problems in the EU at the moment connected with xenophobic tendencies taking power in Poland, Hungary, Italy and no doubt eventually elsewhere if current trends continue. These trends must eventually have a detrimental effect on society that goes far beyond the borders of the countries concerned. Do we care about having some influence on them, in order perhaps to help those adversely affected by this authoritarianism? Or do we pull up the drawbridge and say sorry mate, not our problem? (Until it is.)

Lat, you aren't making much sense. Maybe take a deep breath and try to express whatever it is you're saying more clearly?

As it wasn't understandable to you I have deleted it.

[Beef Oven!]

Exactly, the problems are being created by leaving the EU.

That's the strating point. We're leaving the EU. The view is, at least from Brexiteers, that the benefits will outway the discomfort.

[Beef Oven!]

... because what looks like a "successful" Brexit from a Tory point of view is going to be something where EU countries will be undercut on world markets by a UK which abandons European regulations on health and safety, workers' protections and so on in favour of a US-style way of doing things, and where they will be able to fulfil the wish they've had since 1945 of doing away with the NHS and replacing it with the kind of private system that many Tory politicians have personal financial interests in. At the same time the UK would become more economically dependent on the USA which currently is being run by a lunatic. A "successful" Brexit, in these terms, is something that to coin a phrase would work for the few, not the many. Not to mention the understandable worries that many touring artists have, as we've seen here, about the inevitable difficulties associated with the ending of free movement which, according to our resident convinced Leaver, might well have solutions; or they may not. One doesn't have to be a diehard Remainer to hold the aforementioned opinions.

There's another issue which might be interesting to touch on. Many Leavers claim that one of the reasons for their opinions is a wish for the UK to think more globally rather than limiting itself to Europe. One argument against that way of thinking is that actually it's even more limited, in concentrating on what is supposed to be good for the UK to the expense of others. I don't think it's necessary to buy into the jingoistic nation-state narrative put out by most governments most of the time. There are some serious problems in the EU at the moment connected with xenophobic tendencies taking power in Poland, Hungary, Italy and no doubt eventually elsewhere if current trends continue. These trends must eventually have a detrimental effect on society that goes far beyond the borders of the countries concerned. Do we care about having some influence on them, in order perhaps to help those adversely affected by this authoritarianism? Or do we pull up the drawbridge and say sorry mate, not our problem? (Until it is.)

Please, "according to Beef Oven!" will do, if it's all the same with you.

[ahinton]

That's the strating point. We're leaving the EU. The view is, at least from Brexiteers, that the benefits will outway the discomfort.

Perhaps, but then many people are not Brexiteers but those who aren't will face the same discomfort as almost everone else and the benefits are at best dubious.

[teamsaint]

The EU itself already thinks globally - as the biggest donor of international aid (compare with Mr Rees-Mogg who handed The Daily Express's petition into Number Ten, urging the government to cut overseas aid); and with an extensive development programme targeted on the poorer countries. And its trade agreements - if that's what the Prime Minister means by 'thinking globally' - are with countries around the globe. It will be challenging for the UK to replicate all the existing agreements, still less those in the pipeline. Also, compare Trump's unwillingness to halt sales of arms to Saudi Arabia (while condemning the Saudis over the Khashoggi affair) with Merkel, 'hamstrung' by a dictatorial EU, who has already announced an end to Germany's arms sales. The US will make a fine partner if you close your eyes to its internal and foreign policies.

What the EU spends on foreign aid/ develoment assistance ( and of course that money comes mostly from the larger contributors) is rather tricky to disentangle.

As a comparison, the UK, one of the most “generous” developed nations achieves its own aim 0.7% of GNI, whereas the EU budget is 0.5%.

But the raw figures are only part of the story, because, as we know, some aid ( EU. As well as national ) ends up in the wrong places or in dubious places, or spent on projects that principally benefit the donor.

But in this , and despite undoubted negative views and actions by the current government, the UK has led by example.
Which is not to suggest that both national and EU aid aren’t needed.

[Richard Barrett]

The EU itself already thinks globally - as the biggest donor of international aid

That's not what I meant at all though, I was suggesting that Leavers might rather narrow-mindedly have only the future of the UK in mind when deciding that Brexit is a good idea, rather than thinking about people in other European countries who could well suffer from the departure of an important country which could act as a counterbalance the tendency towards far-right authoritarianism. The rise of xenophobia and far-right populism around Europe can only be accelerated by the departure of the UK.

[french frank]

That's not what I meant at all though, I was suggesting that Leavers might rather narrow-mindedly have only the future of the UK in mind when deciding that Brexit is a good idea, rather than thinking about people in other European countries who could well suffer from the departure of an important country which could act as a counterbalance the tendency towards far-right authoritarianism. The rise of xenophobia and far-right populism around Europe can only be accelerated by the departure of the UK.

That certainly. Weighed in the balance and found wanting there.

[french frank]

As a comparison, the UK, one of the most “generous” developed nations achieves its own aim 0.7% of GNI, whereas the EU budget is 0.5%.

Enshrined in law in 2015 under the Coalition, when the Lib Dems introduced a Private Members' Bill, though it was opposed by some Conservatives. [Just sayin' ]

But the raw figures are only part of the story, because, as we know, some aid ( EU. As well as national ) ends up in the wrong places or in dubious places, or spent on projects that principally benefit the donor.

True. That's the argument for cutting our international aid.

[teamsaint]

Enshrined in law in 2015 under the Coalition, when the Lib Dems introduced a Private Members' Bill, though it was opposed by some Conservatives. [Just sayin'






True. That's the argument for cutting our international aid.

Sorry, my point was meant to flag up that EU aid is no less susceptible to this , from what I have read, than national aid.

But the emphasis in criticism in the media is always about money ending up in corrupt pockets , rather than examining how donor countries and their organisations are not always whiter than white with how funds are used, directed, and who ultimately benefits.

[french frank]

Sorry, my point was meant to flag up that EU aid is no less susceptible to this , from what I have read, than national aid.

Indeed it is, as a full member of the Development Assistance Committee. But 0.5% of a very large budget is not to be sniffed at.

people in other European countries who could well suffer from the departure of an important country which could act as a counterbalance the tendency towards far-right authoritarianism.

Second thoughts: would the Brexiteers want to be a counterbalance to far right populism?

[Demetrius]

Indeed it is, as a full member of the Development Assistance Committee. But 0.5% of a very large budget is not to be sniffed at.

Also, is it 0,5 % of the EU Budget or 0,5 % of all combined budgets of EU countries? Meaning: is that money coming on top of the money member countries spend on their own or is it the average that EU countries spend?

Edit: looked it up, its 0,5 on top. So the UK's share of that would presumably be substantial, since it makes up about 16 % of the EU's GDP. 16% of the EU foreign aid would come to 2 billion US Dollars. Who will cover that in the future?

[MrGongGong]

Maybe one important thing to bear in mind
is that those politicians who seem to be the most ardent supporters of Brexit are also those who want to stop the UK giving money in aid
they are also the most keen supporters of the likes of Orban and co

Not the sort of people we should be snuggling up to at all