UKC

According to a Government report.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/governments-brexit-impact-study-shows-br...

But it’s not about the money. Think of the other benefits: the loss of power and influence, the surrender of sovereignty in the desperation for new trade deals. The lost decade of sorting this mess out when we should be sorting out the country’s problems (none of which have anything to do with the EU). Get with the programme remoner traitor  

Bizarrely, it is now government policy to make us poorer. Tory government policy...! If you don't support this you are a traitor and enemy of the people.

At least we'll be free of unelected eurocrats' meddling and if Trump decides we're one of his special friends he might exempt us from his tariffs.

I just can't wait for my dad's old pit to open again, The Beatles to reform and Engelbert Humperdink to be top of the charts. It was great then  I can't understand why remoaners can't see it. Get on board... The Future's the Past ! 

"GDP will shrink by at least 0.1 per cent in each of the four quarters after the referendum - bringing a year-long recession."

"After the referendum,  the jobless rate would be 1.6 per cent higher."

"By 2018, house prices would be at least 10 per cent lower and possibly fall by up to 18 per cent."

"Public sector borrowing rise by £12.2billion in 2016-17 "

"It is official. Figures for the past six months show that the forecasts of instant Brexit catastrophe from the Treasury and the Bank of England were garbage. The Bank’s economist, Andrew Haldane, admitted yesterday that it was a repeat of the failure to predict the 2008 crash. It was another “Michael Fish moment”, when meteorologists failed to forecast the 1987 hurricane."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/economists-economic-p...

You keep focusing on doom and gloom though Timmd mate, I'm sure sometime soon you'll get the downfall of the UK which you seem to crave. 

Why do brexit always say this. The downfall of the UK is an outcome that remainers are trying to avoid

Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then? Surely working towards the best outcome for the UK does not mean posting constant doom and gloom, but supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

Some seem to have pinned their hopes on a second referendum, which both main parties have said will not happen, and are looking for ways to show they were right to vote remain, rather than working within the current scenarios.

Perhaps it's a response to some of the posts on UKC that APPEAR to take delight in any evidence that Brexit is going to be "Bad" for the UK.

These posts COULD be interpreted by some as embracing any negativity as a way of being able to say "I told you so".

Just my interpretation.

Exactly. Any downfall will be the fault of the Remainers for not "getting behind Brexit"....apparently.

Yes, and we will all be forced to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before we go to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to go to work, and when we get home, our Dad will kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."

Dear god, you couldn't make up this sort of stuff!

I've asked this several times and never had an answer: What can I do to "support UK efforts to get the best deal" a.k.a. get behind Brexit? Other than 'put up and shut up', of course.

Seems to me that 'telling it like it is' isn't something very palatable to Leavers as the reality is distinctly unpalatable.

For once you are correct.

For the last 20 years the Leavers have been campaigning on  a platform that everything is negative and it is all the fault of the EU. During that time we have enjoyed strong growth with for a mature economy with so few natural resources. Now we are moving to a situation where we will, by the govts own admission, have worse growth but we Remainers are he ones accused of negativity . 

Please suggest one practical way I can do that which will make a difference

What if they are wrong? The only reason for continuing is he will of he people, if it really is the will of the people what's wrong with s second referendum? If you were measuring a window for curtains would you not remeasure if there was reason to suspect you got it wrong first time?

I agree John that it's not easy, possible even, for individuals to have an effect. But demanding second referendums, as some here would seem to be, or constantly spreading doom and gloom stories, as some seem to do, just help to create an atmosphere of negativity and despondence.

We all know the Poms love a good grumble and moan, and that some seem to revel in negativity, however, if we don not question their reasons for, and try to offer an alternative, we'll be dragged down to their level.

(PS< You could always vote Tory?)

I disagree, I'd like to see some historical evidence for this "20 year" campaign 

Vote Tory.

Well if "the people" call for a second referendum, we should have one. But I'm afraid the tide is against that.

UKIP formed 25 years ago

They are in power until after the deal is done so not practical, anything else?

Is it, maybe we should have a refurendum to find out!

o when you said we should be "supporting UK efforts", that was just a meaningless phrase that sounded good to you?

You also seem to be deliberately missing the point; your focusing on the negativity as grumbling completely ignores the twin 'facts' that the overwhelming expert opinion believed the negative predictions to actually be correct, and the small majority of voters now seem to think Brexit might not be the cake option they once thought may be possible.

Given that we have a lot more information now than we had in 2016, what do you think would be the problem with putting the new question of EU membership - on terms that will by then be far better understood - to the electorate? Could it be a fear of the electorate now getting what it seems to want?

Good news eh. I wonder if that is because brexit is actually a good thing that will deliver the opposite of what the CBI and the vast majority of economists predict or I wonder if there was more going on than you'd like to imply. Perhaps dramatic loosening of monetary policy in the aftermath of the referendum by the BoE or a significant upturn in the global economy which we are for now at least still effectively connected to, coincident with the referendum and of course the fact we didn't actually leave, in the period you highlight we hadn't even given notice. Still facts, f*** em, I'm convinced.

jk

I'm sure you realise that if polls were consistently showing that 60% of the population now backed remain, then the main parties would probably offer a second referendum. You surely know that almost no-one in this country wishes ill on this country (although I think most people on both sides are more concerned with their personal circumstance). 

People who voted to stay in the EU are not trying to talk the country down, they are trying to make people totally aware of all the negative consequences of leaving. Its just that most of the time they do it in a really really bad way which makes people who voted to leave the EU more defensive and makes any change of mind more unlikely.

The best outcome for the UK is to remain in the EU on our existing terms. If it takes a cold shower of uncomfortable truths to turn enough wavering voters to achieve that then so be it.

Yeah, because someone says no you just stop and give up. Who ever achieved anything like that? Another referendum is the only way this can reasonably now be resolved either way. Whether we choose the deal we get or reject it and remain we have a lot of pain coming as a consequence of the choices we've made and have allowed our representatives to make. No government or party will have the courage to own that or to be seen to be disregarding public opinion, something that can of course change.

jk

the best outcome is to stop Brexit

there was no agreed process for the decision - the referendum was forced on us as a forced onus.

the referendum was improperly executed after a campaign of disinformation

the subsequent course taken has not reflected any democratically sampled opinion and is not in our national interest

what is to get behind?  or are we just to be 1930s style good Ger mans

I don't actually want the EU to cave in to our demands to get all the benefits of membership without any of the costs and commitments. The EU was always more about peace in Europe than mere prosperity. Brexit, to this country's shame, gave encouragement to the Trump campaign and all the other sub-fascist, xenophobic parties in Europe. It is a source of deep satisfaction for Putin.

We've turned our back on mutually assured prosperity and a future of easygoing cooperation for unease and danger. That's how remainers see things . The second raters in the tories have done and said nothing to reassure me . Can anyone on here say anything that is in any way optimistic about the future the 17 million voted for? For God's sake don't tell me about how great this country is. Volt de nem most: it was but not now . 

I feel like I'm trapped on a bus full of loonies heading for a cliff edge. I have no option but to keep yelling at the driver to stop or turn before we go over. Unfortunately half the bus are cheering the driver on.

We have had this discussion many times before, if I am wrong I will be the happiest man who ever ate a massive slice of humble pie. But the reason I'm not posting positive brexit stories is that there is absolutely no good news about brexit to post.

The current scenario being we are going to have less access to our biggest, closest and richest trading partner - excuse me while I yell at the driver some more, it looks like a long way down off that cliff

I tend not to comment on these threads, but I have to mention one thing... since the result of this perplexing and misguided referendum so very long ago, it's been rather entertaining watching the "Likes" and "Dislikes" given out by each team dwindle from roughly 50/50, as per the referendum results, to around 80-90% in favour of one particular team.

If only the referendum itself had taken this format instead of a sudden all-or-nothing vote one day... if we could have dragged it out over so many months, then people could have absorbed the information a little better and perhaps this whole farce could have been avoided.

It’s not a “doom and gloom story” it’s simply the result of an analysis conducted by a ministry led by an arch-brexiteer.

It’s doom and gloom from your point of view because every day that passes every piece of news is more evidence that all the pipe dreams and lies you believe were just rubbish.

From my point of view it’s neutral because this is not news and was all rather very obvious from the start. 

Because there aren't any f*cking positive stories. Its just shit.

I'm a remain voter, but I don't see what it has to do with climbing, isn't climbing a way to be free of everyday life ................

'Well if "the people" call for a second referendum, we should have one. But I'm afraid the tide is against that.'

Well it seems to be, but there's a way to go yet.

And can we just knock this 'anti-democratic' criticism on the head please. If someone is convicted in a court of law, based on lies being used as evidence, when the truth finally emerges the courts don't just shrug their shoulders and say 'that's too bad, the law has to be upheld.' A retrial is held, or the conviction squashed.

The Brexit vote was won by demagogues who unashamedly told lies, about everything from £350 million per week for the NHS, to Turkey joining the EU, from the costs of Brexit being akin to resigning from a golf club, to the idea that doing trade deals 'was the simplest thing in the world.' There should be a law against politicians knowingly peddling lies; in the absence I'll settle for another referendum, thanks very much.

Tory government policy is to respect the wishes of the people expressed in a referendum. Shock. 

I think we should remember how we felt about the EU before brexit came. Greece getting bailed out, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal struggling (and more?) the benefits of being in a common trade agreement with Germany and France mitigated by support of the poorer members and the feeling that there was more money going out than coming in. There were thoughts that the Greek failure could bring down the EU, that it could never survive. Have things changed? Unemployment levels in some Mediterranean countries still seem really bad and not improving, so is the EU going down anyway?

I'm pro remain, measure twice, cut once, as referred to above sums it up, I like the lack of border control, but remember it isn't all sunshine in the EU.

Nope, it was a genuine exhortation to stop posting each and every negative bit of forecasting as if it was  god's judgement on all the Brexit supporter.s

See my list of negative forecasts above.

I've no fear of it, neither do I think it necessary.

Forecasts are not "facts".

See my list of negative forecast that the likes of you were touting prior tpo the vote.

The Brexit vote was lost by liars who predicted economic collapse, mass unemployment, housing price meltdown etc...

No they're not but the facts I posted in response to your claim the predictions were wrong were facts, those things happened, they mitigated the impact of the vote on our economy and they were not included in the models nor under the government's control.

jk

The vote was 'lost' for a wide range of reasons (that wide unconnected spread of grievances being the main one), predictions of hard times ahead outside the EU will I'm sure have swayed a few to vote for that but not many. Is that what convinced you?

jk

I think most people are realistic enough to recognise the EU has massive problems, that's partly what it's for, to attempt to solve these massive issues (rather than having a war as in the past!).

Everything of any size will have issues be it the NHS, the army, the civil service. At any one time we will have issues with other countries. So it was easy for Brexiters to point at these problems and compare it with a completely unrealistic fantasy land. That's what we were asked to vote on, now we know that fantasy land does not exist it seems only fair to be asked to vote again. 

You should ask Mr Junker to stop talking about  the ways the EU is going to make sure the UK is punished, as  a preventative to other nations leaving the club.

A survey carried out for the Telegraph reveals that while the split of Leave and Remain voters is largely unchanged since the referendum, 67?per cent of individuals, regardless of their voting preference, agreed that “the EU is trying to bully the UK” in its approach to the talks.

The figures come after several senior pro-Europe figures warned that a growing perception of an “excessively tough” attitude by EU leaders threatened the appetite among British voters for future co-operation with Brussels in areas such as the economy, security and research.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/10/two-three-people-believe-eu...

It's going to be just a little bit harder to get to the Alps and get medical attention if you have an accident. There'll be fewer Eastern Europeans down at the climbing wall ; I'll miss them. Brexit is going to make all our lives just a little bit shittier. 

It's obvious UK can't have what is seen to be a better deal with the EU out of it than we had in, we already had a better deal than most. That's not punishment, that's protecting the EU's interests. It's a good thing IMO because even outside it the EU's interests are ultimately ours.

No, I'm shocked and in the Telegraph you say!

Who knew they'd play tough eh? Oh I did. So did you. Moaning about it won't change anything.

jk

So 'put up and shut up' then. Thought so.

Forecasts will always have a range of accuracy. Factors such as the prompt and severe QE after the ballot will greatly change the outcomes, as will ensuing political decisions. That's not forecasts being wrong, that's goalposts moving. The fact was that the vote shook the financial establishment and it took some pretty severe intervention (which cost the country billions) to stop the forecast doom and gloom from being bad enough to do even more severe damage than it has.

Then you'll not object if we keep on proposing it, then, for such time as when we know the full extent of the cliff we're being dragged towards?

I haven't seen much discussion of this, so it's worth raising. Here's a few quick thoughts:

We might wish to use climbing to get away from everyday life, but climbing doesn't exist in a bubble. The Brexit decision has already had impacts on climbing, for example making it more expensive to visit Europe via its impact on Sterling. We will lose the right to live and work in 27 countries - that will have an effect. I haven't seen any discussion of what might ensue after we leave, but I wouldn't imagine travel to Europe will be easier, and if there aren't positive  developments around airline travel the way we get there will be affected. I would also be interested to know what will happen to all those ex-pat UK climbers living and running businesses in Europe.

Other things I've wondered about are gear prices and availability - what might happen here? Maybe there could even be the rare sighting of positive impacts here - a stimulus to the UK gear manufacturing sector? Or will there be a regulatory mess to untangle to start with?

Oh, and then there's the environmental impact. I can't begin to think what might happen here, positive or negative. 

Whatever the outcomes for climbing, there will be some. We can't ignore Brexit. 

Strap in snowflakes, we're going to get the same sort of bullying from every country we need to make a deal with. Like the US is bullying us with steel tariffs, the Indians want to bully us with more visas in return for trade etc etc.

BTW why are we letting the EU bully us when we have such a strong hand?

Once again - we haven't left yet. 

Plus you'll have to explain Brexit to everyone you meet when they find out where you are from

Well we're still in a stage of deciding what happens next. Ignoring the warning signs and bad news is a bit like saying that the best way to treat an illness is to ignore the symptoms and just concentrate on the parts of the body that are healthy...

Brexit hasn't happened yet. Yes, the more lurid forecasts of what would happen the day after might have been exaggerated; who knew? Except of course, the pound DID slump, and has not recovered, so that the cost of living and inflation are inexorably rising, and house prices have stagnated. Rising exports caused by the weak pound have offset the worst effects to date; this is unsustainable in the long term as the rising costs of imports create upward price pressure.

Once Brexit does happen, and suddenly our exports are piled up on the docks at Tilbury, our food is delayed at Calais, we can't harvest our own crops, we can no longer export cars to the far East as we have no agreement in place, when HMRC haven't got any infrastructure in place to deal with all the changes that are legally required, there could be a pretty bumpy ride ahead - anything from mild chaos to downright anarchy. My own suspicion is that this will be the UK equivalent of Prohibition, that the rule of law simply breaks down - because the laws no longer exist, or are unenforceable - and the criminality required to just get through the day will become institutionalized.

Of course I'm probably wrong; but that's a hell of a risk that we're taking for no plausible or clearly identified economic, social or political benefit

For the purpose of the debate, would you mind mentioning the non-EU related problems?

The treasury and boe analysis got pretty much everything bang on correct except maybe with one year lag. And now after the referendum brexit department analysis also finds the same results.

on the other side, what have the brexiteers predicted that proved correct ? Absolutely nothing.

We’re not getting those fantastic trade deals in no time, the EU is not bending over backwards to give us what we want, the NHS is not getting extra millions, we’re not getting more sovereignty and control over our own laws, and instead of the booming economy they promised we have falling real wages and the lowest growth amongst the advanced economies.

"Factors such as the prompt and severe QE after the ballot" Care to put some detail on that - it's a bit woolly.

"The fact was that the vote shook the financial establishment and it took some pretty severe intervention (which cost the country billions) ".  See above.

Have to say though, Vince Cable's contribution over the weekend won't have swayed many,  I don't suppose; playing the racist card again - even if there is more than a grain of truth in it - doesn't seem a very constructive way to go. Especially as there is now so much hard evidence of the lies that were told by Brexiteers before the referendum.

let me preface my response; I voted remain.  Much of what I currently enjoy about my job will change out of all recognition in just about 12-months.  I spend a good amount of my time representing the UK at one of the EU's regulatory agencies.

However; one must acknowledge the remain campaign was badly run and spun a web of its own lies and half truths too.  Mostly it was very poorly executed.

I'm afraid if we sought to prosecute every elected representative who lied to us, the gaols would be very full.  The majority of them lie to us all the time, it goes with the job description.  It would be great if they didn't.

But it is exactly what you wanted, Big Ger, by giving up our place at the top table and “taking back control”. Why moan about it now ?

Of course the natural result is that you end up at the mercy of the likes of Juncker and so on. What did you expect ? That the world was a nice place where others countries and blocs would just give up fighting for their interest when it harms us ?  Are you really this naive ?

"The treasury and boe analysis got pretty much everything bang on correct except maybe with one year lag. And now after the referendum brexit department analysis also finds the same results."  Mark Carney was predicting before the vote that if we voted leave interest rates would rise significantly.  After we voted leave, he cut interest rates.  The time lag between the forecast and the decision was about 4 weeks, if I am not mistaken.

The UK Treasury and BoE analysis before the event was appallingly inaccurate.  You could argue that the actions of the BoE after the vote were appropriate, but there would be many who disagree with you.

Plenty of info online, I'm sure. Google will be your friend.

This article is pretty good, specifically point 3 abut QE but point 5 is also interesting; the divergence between wages and spending seen from Q3 2016 is going to bite consumer spending on the arse sometime soon.

https://www.ft.com/content/6aec5eb8-0256-11e7-aa5b-6bb07f5c8e12

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/04/bank-of-england-cuts-uk-in...

Google will turn up plenty more if you can't cope with the Guardian, it was just the first result not behind a paywall.

jk

What was/is the alternative course of action these people are arguing for and what are the advantages of their course?

That is simply wrong.

GDP impact predicted over two years = -3.6 %. Actual: estimated ~ - 1% last year, probably same or more next year. With compounding effect takes us to more than -2% at the very least.

Inflation predicted : 2.4%. Actual : 3%

sterling ERI predicted: -12%. Actual : - 15%

houses prices predicted impact (over two years)  : -10%, actual : -6% in one year and a half

Impact on real wages predicted -2.8% over two years. Actual Impact estimated over 1.5 year : -3%

You could say they got it wrong on unemployment, they had predicted +1.6% over two years, but it’s questionable whether unemployment would be lower than it is today without brexit.

Sure, they overestimated some and underestimated some, but mostly they were in the ballpark and well within the CI.

What is 'the people'? Doesn't seem to include the 48% who voted against Brexit, or those who weren't allowed to vote, or those who didn't vote. Did they suddenly become the 'non-people'? This use of language is very popular with extremists of all kinds. 

"The next time you hear someone claiming to speak for “the people” – and you will – be sure to count the democratic silver."

 - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/17/brexit-will-of-the-pe...

This needs more explanation, are you saying prices are actually dropping (they aren't) or that they were expected to rise by 11% PA

Indeed, they aren’t dropping but the rate of growth has significantly slowed to what it was prior brexit vote.

Had the pre-brexit trend continued house prices would be around 6% higher than they are now.

I thinks that’s what people didn’t get about the impact assessments, it sought to predicts the impact, not the actuals. The clue was in the title really.... but most people don’t read the actual report or try to understand it, they just listen to overblown claims in the press

Come on John, I though you could do better than that. There was no request to 'put up and shut up'  was there?

An some will always look to find the glass half empty.

Well you can keep proposing it, but I doubt Mrs May et al read this forum much, so  you're pissing into the wind frankly.,

Well that's something I guess, HPI of 11% is ridiculous

Over two years, remember.

OK, I agree that "stop posting" and " put up and shut up" are completely different.

Happy now?

It is but there are better ways to manage house price inflation than by dropping a bomb into the economy then waiting to see which bits survive while arguing over which type of bomb to try next.

jk

Well you said 18 months and HPI has been 5% last two years so it would have been 9%, still too much

Don't get me wrong, I don't see Brexit as anything other than a total catastrophe

There are two kind of optimists Big Ger,

Those who believe tomorrow will be better if they work hard towards it by planning for it and taking informed decisions today.

And then there’s the naive ones like you who think tomorrow will be better regardless of their reckless behaviour.

Whether it’s too much of too little is another debate, I’m just making the point that the impact assessment got it more or less right.

Your selective quoting is so demeaning to your intellect, why do it?. Here is the proper quote;

"Nope, it was a genuine exhortation to stop posting each and every negative bit of forecasting as if it was  god's judgement on all the Brexit supporters."

The bts in bold are the little parts you missed when you selectively quoted me.

When you play honestly I will be.

Yes, of course dear. Cup of tea?

make sure the scone is right

I'll be travelling on an Irish passport. I figure that will be easier to get  than a Czech, Slovak, or Hungarian one. The longer this farce goes on the less British I feel although, to be fair, some of my Brexiter friends have told me that their animus against Eastern Europeans  doesn't apply to me  Which is nice  

Get climbing wrong and is a way of being free of love every day 

Maybe the negative's are not stories but brexit economic impact studies? just a thought.

I'm not racist; some of my best friends are black. 

Another person quick to label opponents extremist. Oh dear. There was a referendum. One side won. The other lost. Not sure which side you were on. But if it were remain and remain had narrowly won, would you be so loud in declaiming the legitimacy of the result. All those who think EU such a success story, read The Guardian’s ( you guys seem to like that middle class left ish propaganda posing as need) Larry Elliot. He also usefully reminds us both Tony Benn and some chump called Corbyn were opposed to membership. Or even pro-EU Stiglitz’s rather good book on the Euro. Why if EU such a harmonious, prosperous place to live is London the sixth largest French city; why are the far right and fascists (if you believe Grauniad twaddle) doing so well across the piece from Italy and France to Austria and Hungary. Why is the euro f*cked without political union? ( this was the proximate cause of the referendum post EU Rejection of Cameron’s admittedly flawed proposal on Banking Union). Possibly the worlds best climber at least now admits there is direction to government as we are being dragged to a cliff edge. Would that be the same cliff edge we were going to fall off immediately after voters rejected the entire establishment and voted to leave? Or is this a second cliff edge. Night y’all. 

Thank you for your contribution.

Perhaps we should revisit what I actually said: 

"What is 'the people'? Doesn't seem to include the 48% who voted against Brexit, or those who weren't allowed to vote, or those who didn't vote. Did they suddenly become the 'non-people'? This use of language is very popular with extremists of all kinds. "

I deliberately made a point of not labelling you, or anyone, an extremist. I pointed out that using the term 'the people' is often associated with extremists. That's all. 

The rest of your post is largely irrelevant to what I posted. Some of it seems at the very least a bit odd: "London the sixth largest French city"; "Possibly the worlds best climber at least now admits there is direction to government as we are being dragged to a cliff edge.". I really don't know how to respond to this.

That someone as articulate as yourself can apparently overlook the fact that both London and France are part of the EU really saddens me. It shows how far the debate has come from being reasoned..... and I've no doubt that I am capable of making similarly illogical oversights.

But your question really is at the heart of it all - who is "us", and who is "them"?

From your perspective: many French people are leaving their own country to work in the UK. Your conclusion: disharmony in the EU.

From my perspective: many French people are moving from one EU country to another. My conclusion: what wonderful harmony the EU has wrought.

Vive la difference?

Let’s see: The non-existent housing policy; woeful state of infrastructure; ignoring everything outside London and the South East; the poor training and education of the workforce, income equality, austerity, the huge productivity gap; our inability to trade as well as our European contemporaries (which will somehow be sorted out by leaving the EU). Want me to go on?

Valid points all. My comment was aimed more at the significant majority of UKC posters who portray U.K. as some backward looking, economic basket case destined for oblivion. That is not how many millions of Europeans see us. Despite the Brexit vote, UK will remain hugely attractive to migrants because they value our values. The reverse of this is that the EU itself faces an existential crisis at an economic, financial, cultural and social level. Hence the high stakes surrounding our departure. As The Five Presidents report published after the crash suggested, however, the EU thrives on crisis: it spurs policies aimed at ever closer union. While this is a legitimate response, there is much evidence in voting patterns across the EU, and the emergence of populist parties, that further and deeper integration is not shared by all. As for free movement and border controls it is clear that the social, if not economic, impact of this ‘third pillar’ has been dangerously mishandled. Back in the 80s there was a brief but heated debate about ’subsidiarity’. I rather think that the question of who enters a country is a decision for that country and its elected representatives alone. Not a supranational body with little democratic legitimacy and even less credibility. By all means have an open door. But, if that does not work, at least you can vote out the party that was elected on a free movement platform. No such option exists in the EU. 

Nobody in the EU forced free movement on any nation. Free movement was established by a succession of treaties that the government of each member state had to ratify, and membership is fully voluntary, you can leave any time.

I agree with you, free movement should be something for the people to decide. So let the people in Scotland, London, and Northern Ireland decide their own arrangement instead of forcing decisions on them. If the rest of the country wants to shut itself out let them do but please don’t take the rest with us.

to the op - outside London has the UK got richer or poorer in the last 5 or 10 years, and do you see a reason it should rapidly improve with/without Brexit?

Erm, I seem to recall you arguing for Scotland to leave the UK in the recent referendum on this question? If Yes had won do you think the result would not have been honoured? 

Maybe it would have, but the point is that Scotland needs to ask for permission to get a referendum.

I am simply making the point that when brexiteers talk about sovereignty, they are complete hypocrites, the lack of sovereignty is not in the EU, which is a voluntary, treaty based organisation  in which only those who want take part. It is in the U.K. that we have a problem.

We are leaving. But my point is that leaving is the only way to only way to avoid free movement. The process you describe is true, but so is the observation that this process is increasingly seen by voters as distant, unaccountable and only weakly democratic. The root of EU existential crisis. Two options. One is leave. Other is deeper integration. 

Hmmm, that would potentially get you into a ‘what about Yorkshire’ argument, but let’s not go there!

Yes, and at least you can make that choice as to whether or not you have free movement. Here in Scotland we’ll have to accept whatever the U.K. decided, and we can’t even leave without asking for permission.

Which is more democratic, the EU or the U.K. ?

False dichotomy as deeper integration is only possible if all members agree.

But that is fine, by all means leave, just don’t force it on others.

Err no. The U.K. is a soveriegn state. Until the Scots or other ‘nations’ secede that will remain the case. I suspect the Union in the U.K. has more chance is survival than the Union in Europe. Your picture of the the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions is touching. But misplaced. Hence the rise of atavistic, populist parties across Europe. Your ideal, and the reality are diverging at an accelerating pace. Institutional response is to accelerate integration. The very thing populist voters do not want. 

No one is forcing anything on Scotland. Until  you leave the Union you remain bound by its laws and its various legislatures. 

Or did I miss a referendum where a majority of Scots voted to leave the Union? In your view, the majority of Scots who voted to remain in the UK should be accorded more value than those who voted to stay. The aggregated Union vote on EU membership was to leave. And Scotland should honour that decision. 

Exactly, but the key is, they are not free to “secede” whenever they like, unlike the U.K. is free to leave the EU.

Integration cannot accelerate unless those who want to integrate deeper agree between themselves. Its a simple legal reality.

Now you could argue that the government of member states do not do the thing their voters want them to do, but that’s an issue with those respective democracies, not a problem with the EU, with or without the EU it won’t change.

Absolutely, but as you would have observed, we don’t have a free choice as to whether we remain in that union. 

We were given the choice once and we were told that if we stayed, we’d be able to stay in the EU, When it became clear that we were told a massive porky pie, our democratically elected government asked for a new referendum, and we were told to just suck it up.

Imagine what would happen in the U.K. if our democratically elected government was told by the EU that we can’t have a referendum on leaving the EU ? 

If the U.K. had to ask permission to the EU in order to organise a referendum to leave the EU, you would probably think it’s an undemocratic outrage.

Yes it doesn’t seem to bother you that at the U.K. level this is exactly what happens.

Evidently less attractive though. It's not that the UK become a basket case overnight but Brexit will accelerate a decline brought about by other things we can'tcontrol. Britain is essentially a brand and that is why it does so well on the world stage, this sort of thing damages the brand, we appear less of a leader and more isolated, especially if we are no longer the number 1 ally of the US. It's not that all banks will uproot but they will open new offices in other EU countries and then when they next expand they may think 'let's expand the Frankfurt office as it has office a capacity and is doing quite well' whereas previously they never had that option (obviously it could be a lot worse than this if manufacturers who are part of a supply line are unable to get their goods out as quickly or as cheaply as they once did).

I agree, all this talk by the Brexiters about ever closer union was a nonsense, wasn't it? Never likely to happen.

This is the only policy in which the EU has any say which anyone in the uk gives a shit about. All the rest of its interference is in stuff that needs international co-operation or is too dull for people to care about, e.g. open skies, Euratom, clean beaches. Considering that on balance we do ok out of EU immigration and migration it was never enough to justify the disruption we're seeing

All these studies are just speculation.

As were these predictions;

"GDP will shrink by at least 0.1 per cent in each of the four quarters after the referendum - bringing a year-long recession."

"After the referendum,  the jobless rate would be 1.6 per cent higher."

"By 2018, house prices would be at least 10 per cent lower and possibly fall by up to 18 per cent."

"Public sector borrowing rise by £12.2billion in 2016-17 "

And none of what you quoted is anywhere in the actual impact assessment.

Of course, I’m just using this as a way to highlight the fundamental contradictions and double standards of the brexiteers when it comes to their argument of sovereignty and democracy.

the point I am making is that one may argue that you want to leave the EU to achieve some policy objectives such as ending free movement, and that is a logical argument.

But the idea that this will allow to regain sovereignty and democracy is a deeply flawed and hypocritical argument, no more than a thin gloss over what is essentially an identitarian claim. 

The gloss comes of quickly as soon as you push a bit on the issue, as evidenced in john’s latest post.

Much of that can be linked to our membership of the EU. Lack of housing, and infrastructure couldn't possibly be affected by 3 million extra bods here, no? Poor training and education of the workforce.. well, we've got all these highly skilled Europeans coming here, working for peanuts, why bother training our own? Etc. Etc.

Many Brexit supporters need reminding of this.

It’s not a case of simple cause and effect. Populist parties find the EU a useful scapegoat in their pursuit of power and expend a great deal of effort on exaggerating and misrepresenting EU democratic shortfalls. 

How exactly has the EU accelerated integration recently?

I'm glad you agree that the EU talks nonsense....

The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.

In the Solemn Declaration on European Union of June 1983, the then ten heads of state and government (including the UK) agreed: … on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community.

The objective of “ever closer union” was retained in the Preamble to the 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty): RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty added a new qualification to “ever closer union”

Since Lisbon (2009) the EU Treaties have contained three references to “ever closer union”

As you are fond of pointing out, the apparatchiks of the EU have a different agenda to its member states hence whilst a few of those hated Brussels bureaucrats may talk ever closer union there is a point where everyone else says no, this was reiterated with Cameron's concessions and again with the Brexit vote. 

the irony of all this is that with Britain outside of the EU, the integration agenda of some EU leaders has now a chance succeed.

It would be helpful if people stopped wilfully misrepresenting the EU’s ‘ever closer union’ aim. It’s ‘ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’, not governments:

“Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a European super-state.”

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/

As it was made clear in legally binding terms in cameron’s negotiations, « ever closer union » refers to the « ever closer union of the people of Europe ». Hardly controversial to aim to have an ever closer union of the people, given what Europeans populations have suffered in the last century, but just in case this bothered the likes of you, we were even offered an opt out.

Given that closer union (small u) is to involve more fiscal control, an eu army, as well as everything now like farming, fisheries, employment directives, product standards, the euro, trade agreements... what would be left politically for individual nations to decide once closer eu union is achieved? 

I think Cameron was partly responsible for spreading this myth- talking about not wanting ever closer political union in Parliament at the time of his renegotiation effort. 

Chicken, egg...

The political stuff. The things you mention are not specifically political. They all have political implications but they are economic and regulatory, apart from the euro army issue  

Well, quite. Merely pointing out the fact that the problems are related to the EU, whether George liked it or not. Each one worthy of it's own separate debate.

Such as?

Give me an example of something big that countries could still debate and control, that barnier/juncker and co. wouldn't like Brussels to decide in the future. 

Man/ball? Hypocrite.

Some of us consider free movement of people (labour) the greatest sacrifice in leaving. Nationalism has brought Europe nothing but horrors, the sooner we can erode it the better.

jk

'Give me an example of something big that countries could still debate and control, that barnier/juncker and co. wouldn't like Brussels to decide in the future. '

Income tax rates, corporation tax rates (within the scope of free trade, obviously), spending on welfare, health, education etc, bilateral relations with non-EU countries, the legal system, (except in cross border/free trade disputes), immigration policy...

Seems enough there to debate for a few hundred years to come.

What do you think 'barnier/juncker and co.' would like Brussels to decide in the future? None of the examples you gave earlier were intrinsically political, and I can't see any recent post-Brexit proposals for extending political control.

In the meantime, the EU has made no effort to change countries' internal political structures - their constitutions or legal systems, and as far as I can see have no intention of interfering with these.

Barnier and Junker are not the EU

So, the founding principle of the EU, stated in it's creating  documents, and restated in all it's major treaties since, of  "ever closer union", you consider that just to be; "a few of those hated Brussels bureaucrats may talk ever closer union ".

Thanks for my belly laugh of the day!

And how does it intend to achieve this ever closer union if not by taking on more of teh role of an over-government?

Jean-Claude Juncker today called for an ever-more powerful European Union and warned that Britain would “regret Brexit”, in a defiant speech that was branded a blueprint for a United States of Europe.

The plans push for “ever-closer union” on defence, asylum and foreign policy in a bigger, more powerful bloc under a new, directly elected EU president. A eurozone finance minister would be appointed, with every country to adopt the euro.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/13/jean-claude-junker-claims-uk-wi...

But that ever closer union phrase has been explained by both Bob and Rom above, not to mention the confirmation of the UK's opt out that Cameron sought and got. 

......aaaand we're back to Big Ger conflating Juncker with the EU again.

Who was it branded by? Oh yes, a reliable unbiased source:

"Syed Kamall, the most senior Conservative MEP, said: "Today President Juncker said the EU had the wind in its sails. Anyone that heard his speech now knows what direction he is sailing it in - towards a United States of Europe.” "

Quoting that's just meaningless propagandising from the Telegraph. Am I surprised? No.

Looking at this, it's remarkably devoid of content about increasing political union. What I did notice is that Junker's looking at merging posts and making them subject to elections. That is, more democracy. 

"Mr Junker said the major roles of European Commission president, who heads the EU’s civil service, and the European Council President, who chairs meetings of EU leaders, should be merged and chosen through European Parliament elections."

There are many within the eu who desire fiscal control, it is almost certainly the only way the euro will survive.

Within the scope of free trade is  critical phrase, countries aren't entirely free to do as they please are they, otherwise they are held to account for various bits such as unfair competition. 

Given that it is the highest court(in some fields) in Europe, that's not strictly true.

You mean non eu migration via out of country visa applications, the refugees quotas which were largely ignored by many, or eu migration 'worker' policy?

Debate yes, then go to Brussels to listen to the eu then tell countries how they want things done, then watch Poland, Hungary, Austria, .... ignore them. 

Only they are, their influence is greater than many countries individually elected PM. Barniers negotiation will impact the UK forever, the eu parliament only ratifies what his negotiation puts forward at the end of this period. 

Perhaps by removing barriers to the movement of people of different origins so they can live and love freely establishing networks of connections across the continent.

You moved half way around the world for a woman, right? Did you abandon the relationships in England when you left or those in Australia when you returned or have you become a small part of a valuable cultural and economic bridge between those places?

Warned/Stated... Either way he's right. Branded by whom, the Telegraph again perchance?

LOL. How did I guess.

jk

Countries are never entirely free to do as they please. International law, trading agreements, standards - all put limits on what countries can do. Unless they're North Korea of course. Is that the model now?

Of course not; but there are many models between the extremes. The eu model is unlikely to be the only one that works, nor the best as it has to encompass so many different nations individual situation. One size, rarely fits all. 

Schrodinger's Europe - more powerful than nations and simultaneously ignored by Poland, Hungary, Austria, ....

Not even by the Telegraph. Just the Tory MEP who's closest to UKIP... That's the best they could do.

Well yes. As many countries follow the eu legislation and directives to the letter etc.. and other countries always seem to never quite make the time to meet some deadline, environmental targets etc... strange how it's often the net contributors who are most obedient too. Who is the fool? 

The eu solution, let them continue their directive breaking and make individual targets into eu averages. The eu has met it's goal of a 50% reduction in x & y. One country has eliminated it's entire use of something another has done absolutely nothing, but isn't the eu fantastic.  

It's almost as if the EU is not omnipotent or even that member states have their ultimate sovereignty.

Barnier is only a negotiator. He is not the EU.

"In theory, the European Parliament’s role in the negotiations process is fairly limited. Article 218 states that the Parliament must be kept ‘immediately and fully informed at all stages of the [negotiations] procedure’, but it does not give the Parliament a role in deciding the substance of the negotiations. However, the Parliament must pass the final agreement by a simple majority vote. This ability to reject the withdrawal agreement means that, in reality, the Parliament is likely to wield significant power over the content of the agreement and the negotiations itself. No majority in the European Parliament = no withdrawal agreement."

And:

"Both the Council of the EU and the European Parliament are entitled to vote on the final deal. Once negotiations have concluded, the Council of the EU submits the draft withdrawal agreement to the European Parliament where it is put to a vote. The agreement needs a simple majority in order to proceed. Subsequently, the draft agreement returns to the Council of the EU. The Council also votes on the agreement but in this case, the agreement needs a qualified majority in order to pass – i.e. 72% of the 27 members states (representing at least 65% of the total population of the 27 member states) need to vote in favour of the agreement."

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu’s-role-brexit-neg...

Oh, and a little note for elsewhere - "It's almost as if the EU actually had some democracy"...

'strange how it's often the net contributors who are most obedient too. Who is the fool? '

You're beginning to sound like Donald Trump, dividing the world into winners and losers, aggressors and victims, conmen and patsys.

He's wrong and so are you; the World, and in particular the EU, is mostly run by well-meaning people who are trying to their best for their countries, while recognising their wider responsibilities. Only an idiot thinks that international politics is a zero sum game.

If targets are missed, or some plans don't work out in practice, or some initiatives turn out to be a mistake; well blow, me, that's part of the human condition. The fact remains that the EU is the first attempt - ever - to create a group of nations bound together by a shared commitment to personal freedom, social justice, free trade, free movement, social and environmental responsibility, human rights and international development. It is a blueprint - albeit imperfect - for a better and more sustainable future. And drunken barrow boy Farage somehow persuaded 52%, mostly older people, to throw that all away.

Yes it is* but also far from perfect.

*compared to 1850-1950

HoHoHo, that made laugh.
When was it ever?!
Cast your mind back over the last two years, or whenever it was that that spineless individual announced we were having a referendum.

It isn't the eu policies on the environment, emissions, farming, refugees don't work. Most do, but many countries refuse to follow them and the eu is pretty lame at chasing them, it just modifies the goal, so everything is a success! When it clearly isn't. Look at eastern Europe and their refugee policy. 

There aren't winners and loser, but if you have 27 nations with a common policy, those that don't follow it need to be punished in one form or another. Many net beneficiaries are the worst at following eu policy. 

And in that period there were many lines drawn in haste on maps dividing and merging nations that came to bite the world on the ass later. Whose to say fast track merging 27/8 vastly different nations won't end well either. Slowly slowly catchee monkey? 

How is Sweden merged with Spain?

That's rather why I think the idea of a european superstate with national leaders giving up power is just silly. That also makes scaremongering about such a silly prospect similarly silly. It's a bit like fearing an  implausible monster.

I would agree that there's a case for saying that the EU was expanded too quickly over the last fifteen years or so. I rather suspect that we wouldn't have had a referendum if the pace had been slower. But there were also good reasons - political and economical - for expansion

Have you ever been persuaded to do anything by a drunken barrow boy?

If not, why do you think that Brexit voters would be persuaded by said individual?  Perhaps because they are all stupid, sub-human, etc etc.  Or maybe they are fully functional, reasonable human beings who simply came to a different conclusion to your own.

That was a pretty offensive post really.

You probably think the Paris climate accord is a really unfair deal, I'm guessing  

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexiteers are subhuman  but they did make a very unwise choice  

For once you are making a valid criticism of the EU. 

It has a common policy on many area to enable freedom of movement, goods, services etc etc...  but then each country is responsible for enforcing them, and they don’t do it consistently, and getting them to comply through the ECJ takes ages.

That obviously creates problems.

But critically, it is worth pointing out that leaving the EU doesn’t fix this drawback at all, it just introduces new barriers. No matter how they dress it up, it’s protectionism, pure and simple.

The obvious solution would be to have supra national enforcement structures. Federal agencies basically, like in the US. 

Why? 1) He is a drunken barrow boy. 2) If he'd died in that plane crash Brexit wouldn't have happened; the world would be a safer place and we would all be billions better off, even now. 3) I don't know all the reasons why people voted for Brexit, in my own experience the reasons seem to vary from the coolly rational (Giselle Stuart) to the outright bonkers (I shared a chairlift last year with someone who seemed rational until he explained that he'd voted for Brexit, despite living in France, because the EU was a conspiracy between Nazis and Jews). 4) Sadly it appears that people are as susceptible to the big lies (the £350 million a week, being overrun by Turks, the EU insisting on straight bananas) as ever they were; if you were one of them I'm sorry, but if the cap fits... Yes you were frigging lied to , endlessly. 

So presumably you think David Davis more important than the PM as he is negotiating on our behalf?

'So presumably you think David Davis more important than the PM as he is negotiating on our behalf?'

Is he? Negotiating I mean. He seems to have gone very quiet. Maybe he's come to realise that he's not up to the job.

OK, taking those in order:

1.  Nigel Farage is plainly not a drunken barrow boy.

2.  He was not solely responsible for Brexit.

3.  I also do not know all of the reasons why people did or did not vote for Brexit, but I generally make the assumption that people are relatively calm and rational and I find it interesting to try and understand their motives.

4.  "Sadly it appears that people are as susceptible to the big lies"  Well yes, that may be true and it applies to people, not just those who voted for Brexit.  I wonder if you could point to any big lies propagated by the side that you seem to support?

And your 'solution' is the 21st century equivalent of throwing a clog into the loom. Do you seriously think their policies and the results of them will be 'better' if we leave or if the EU breaks up? Do you seriously think we insulate ourselves from the consequences of these failures by walking away and refusing to even try to make successes of basically good policies?

So now we're back to the "The EU's a bully. The EU's too weak. It's changing too fast. It won't change. We have no control. They do as they want..." nonsense.

jk

Maybe you could post some of the economically positive predictions of the effect of leaving then? 

That's pretty simple if you don't own a house; number 3 in your list.  Likewise if you think interest rates are too low and you voted on the basis of Mark Carney's prediction of rising interest rates post-Brexit.

LOL. I prefer 'haunted wank sock' but the sentiment is much the same.

Not solely but the vote could still have gone to leave with the loss of any of the other major proponents, it would never have survived the loss of Farage or his support.

What was your calm rational motivation?

I honestly can't remember any. Obviously you'll claim, perhaps justifiably that's because I'm blind to them so perhaps you could help me see clearer?

jk

Funny, it used to be that only nation states could remove cross border barriers, haven't you just given us a perfect example of the EU  "taking on more of the role of an over-government?" Thanks for making my point for me.

And the inevitable obsession with me and my life continues.

Of course , if it was reported in the Telegraph, then it cannot be true!

When I claim any exist, then I'll do so.

OK so you acknowledge that there don't appear to be ECONOMIC benefits; I don't remember the slogan 'Vote Brexit so you, your children and children's children will be poorer' featured prominently but let's let that go.

Can you just explain then the political, environmental and social benefits instead, so we'll all feel a lot better?

Why? 

They both follow the same CAP policy despite massively different landscapes and climate. 

The EU is essentially a forum for nation states to negotiate multilateral agreements, in this case over free movement of labour. A huge raft of bilateral agreements could achieve the same but of course would cost far more to agree and would be far harder to maintain. Could you explain why that would be better?

Don't flatter yourself. You've been quite open about where you've lived and why previously. Interesting that you chose to attack me rather than answer my simple reasonable question.

It's not about true or false, it's an opinion, a highly partisan one in this instance.

jk

Trade great. We agree. So why does the eu need the euro, CAP, fisheries, an army, Strasbourg... ? Thousands of extra unnecessary employees that do nothing related to trade agreements. 

They usually get the name of the paper and the date right. Seriously, it used to be a reasonably reliable newspaper in a right-wing sort of way, but it's degenerated in recent years and has extended its propaganda efforts. Even Peter Oborne quit (although that was over what they wouldn't print more than what they did).

So if countries have the same rules they are merged? Like if all members of a climbing club follow the same rules those people are merged and no longer individuals? Nah, i don't believe that people in Sweden think they're merged with the Spanish.

Facilitates trade.

Ensures food security imperfectly. Continental Europe has suffered famine in living memory.

Manages stocks, limits disputes. Could do better.

Same headline reason a nation wants an army: defence. An attack on one in the EU is in effect an attack on all, why should those who benefit from defence rely on the border states, why not contribute to a competent unified European defence force? There are alternative options but unless you buy into the crazy Fourth Reich conspiracy stuff I fail to see why this riles you so, it's hardly unreasonable.

Good question. I'll counter with who the hell really cares, it costs individuals buttons? Why should we refurbish the Palace of Westminster for billions rather than build new in Birmingham... that's just the way we do things and it does no real harm.

Unnecessary if the EU were just what you thought it should be is not actually unnecessary.

jk

GDP measures the size of an economy, not whether it is richer or poorer. Collective wealth is measured by GDP per capita (i.e. per person). A significant proportion of the various forecasts of GDP impact (not all) relates to a forecast of a smaller population due to reduced immigration. Any interpretation regarding whether we will be richer or poorer should take this into account.

Most people on here complain that CAP is free money for simply owning land? In more recent memory there have been food mountains, set aside etc.. all because of CAP.

Much... eus shared resources when it suits them. Why share sea resources, but not land? Oh because that would be bad for the big eu players like France etc.. 

Nato, un? The eu is hardly famous for being quick off the mark on defence. 

Because the eu preaches austerity to many , but refused to practice it itself? 

I can't speak for most people. I don't think it's perfect, frankly it clearly isn't but I don't really care that much. Chip away at reform from the inside because you'll get absolutely nowhere from the outside.

Because almost all European land is privately owned, it would be utterly impossible, the sea isn't so it is possible? Why *not*?

Not the UN's role, not even close. Trump is showing NATO may not always be as responsive to the needs of a small member as we'd hoped.

It costs us each in very broad terms 2% of the tax we pay, much of that we each directly benefit from (you far more than me as a CAP recipient). I struggle to see why we should inflict far greater economic losses on ourselves to escape the EU because it won't shave a bit off that 2%. I don't even want it to!

jk

Strasbourg (and, arguably, parts of the CAP and the common fisheries policy, and the various British rebates and opt-outs, and a load of other stuff) are basically political noise - they're low-grade collateral damage that you have to accept when you want to form a broadly functional political consensus between a range of players with their own priorities and hangups.

Ironically, pretty much everyone in Brussels (ie everyone except the French) hates the Strasbourg routine - it's a significant personal inconvenience as well as being a waste of money. But because the French can veto any attempt to stop it, the all-powerful, national-interest-trampling Brussels Reich can't actually stop it happening. There was some talk of moving the European agencies that the UK is losing to Strasbourg in exchange for not having to periodically decamp the parliament there, but the last I heard, the French nixxed that as well.

I am not sure why you don’t grasp that the reason there no tarifs on agricultural products within the single market, is precisely because there is a common scheme on subisidies.

It’s not really hard to understand that for free trade to work there needs to be an agreement that we play fairly by the same rules. The deeper the free trade, the wider the agreement needs to be.

If you want deep free trade like we have with the EU then you can do it two ways. Either you create a platform like the EU which provides an mechanism for establishing compromise or consensus in a fairly democratic manner.

Or you go the Switzerland way and do 100s of bilateral deals to cover everything, which ends up becoming completely undemocratic as the bigger entity always gets its way, and completely unmanageable.

Now the EU clearly doesn’t want to repeat the nightmare that is the Swiss deal with the U.K.

So you’ll get a hard brexit with big barriers to trade. It’s unavoidable at this point and stated gouvernement policy.

And who do they think will be the first to enjoy fruits of economic decline?

As ever the poorest with nothing in reserve and a threadbare moth eaten safety net below them will be hit hardest and fastest. I don't believe people "don't care" about that, it's a thankfully rare day you meet anyone that callous, I think the vast majority simply don't understand the world in which they live anywhere near as well as they think they do. Yes, that includes me. That's not to say people are stupid but most are ill equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to complex subjects we're not expert in, mostly we fall back on simpler ways of making decisions then we pick and choose arguments to defend those decisions from others and our doubt as best we can. Given that, the fact the public is evenly and widely divided on the issue of leaving doesn't of course mean the range of possible outcomes are as widely and evenly divided, here we should look to experts not demagogues for guidance.

jk

 Maybe you could post some of the economically positive predictions of the effect of leaving then? 

Ok, can you post some non-economic positive outcome from brexit? Something tangible that will make my life better, in some way that is just not possible while we're in the EU.

That's just not true. It's because there is a trade agreement that covers food products. The vast majority of CAP is spent on land ownership and a few environmental measures. There is no correlation between kg of meat produced, or ton per hectare if grain etc and what a farmer is paid under the scheme. 

To export food in the eu you need to comply with eu food regulations, animal welfare & husbandry, product labelling etc.. CAP is irrelevant. 

That wasn’t the point.

Nonsense. Non-EU countries face a tarrif on agricultural  product when they export to the EU.

Complying to the minimum standards gives you access. Not tarrif free access. Of course to get tarrif free access they will want some kind of assurance that you subside your farmer on a similar set of rules or within a given framework to avoid being screwed by unfair state subsidies.

Every trade bloc does this.

That's because of the trade agreement, not CAP. Two different fish. 

No, trade agreements gives access. Norway for example has better welfare standards than the eu benchmark, one of the lowest antibiotics use in europe, but it's trade agreement does not include food and drink, so there is a tariff. CAP is irrelevant. But note the border is still open(relevant to NI problem).

The Swiss are more complex. Their bilateral agreement means, cheese, veg and meat have a customs duties. But drinks, organic produce, feed and seeds (plus others) are tariff free. CAP is irrelevant. 

Should I say it again. CAP is irrelevant. It is trade agreements that allow food and drink to cross borders, provide they match the eu welfare and product standards, labelling etc.. which is nothing to do with CAP.

Yes, and why, do you think, that is that most trade agreements exclude or restrict agricultural products... I wonder... maybe something to do with the difficulty of aligning subsidies schemes to a degree to keep a level playing field... It's annoying to have to state the obvious.

Lol, and why do you think that is that their trade agreement does not include food and drink despite the fact that the have such high standards ? You're a bit slow sometimes.
BTW the border is "open" because they are in Schengen,  so no immigration control, but they still have customs border posts where lorries are checked.

I refer you to your own argument above which just contradicted that.

For good laughs, the official leave campaign broadcast :

youtube.com/watch?v=LtlGN8wVnis&

Actually, it just makes me sad.

Surely most of that has come true already ...

... or maybe not.

Neither did any of it ever have any chance of ever coming true - and yet people appear to have swallowed it at the time.

Let them eat cake.

That just makes me angry - to think this country has been f*cked over in this way over by Brexiteer lying bastards peddling this shit.

Well, seeing as the UK will be continuing to be paying a net contribution of around £9 billion for the next three years to the EU, it's a bit early to be claiming it's a false promise really.

It still amuses me that you keep trawling up these 'promises' made by politicians as if they're some kind of God given truth and they'll actually be fulfilled. Have you not been following election campaigns for the last 50 years?

That film is disgraceful. I wonder how the likes of the Postie can defend it?

Really?  Funny that many of our European contemporaries don't seem to have these issues with housing and training (albeit they have other issues), so it would seem to be domestic policies:  Not reinvesting the dividend that immigrants provide to tax income in infrastructure and affordable housing for example.  And highly skilled EU workers?   I thought the issue was low skilled EU workers driving down wages of less skilled UK workers; more or less everyone seems to think it's OK to have high skilled workers coming to the UK?  

Stand by for some industrial grade whataboutery...

  I can put you out of your misery. I only skimmed it but it looks like sh*t. But really, get a life

Still just focusing on the contributions to the budget, and not the economic benefit we will lose by leaving. You seem to understand the word nett very selectively when assessing costs and benefits of the EU. What will it take, do we just have to wait, how long will you hold out for the future you were sold, the future they cannot deliver before you will consider the possibility the EU wasn't the root of your malaise? I don't think I have the patience, it's just too tragic.

Elections come every 4-5 years and the changes a government makes last perhaps 5 years into the next if they're to be unpicked. Brexit fundamentally unpicks 40 years of incredibly valuable work and creates realistically another 20 years of turbulence before we're back on an even keel with replacement alliances built. It brings enormous risk. They're not even comparable beyond the actual process of crossing a box on a little paper square.

That video is a f*****g disgrace I'd thankfully forgotten, packed with the nastiest dog-whistle cues from start to finish and selling a lie nobody with a basic grasp of how our world works could actually believe.

jk

Yes, domestic policies but as you rightly pointed out.. everything to do with the EU all the same. Thank you.

The debates themselves are another matter. Where do you expect 1m homes to have been built to house these tax payers? ..and in the space of 15 years? You don’t get much house on the tax receipts of unskilled workers.

Imagine if people replayed videos of Blair or brown promising the world. I bet so many Labour voters still wake up today with a smile on their face knowing that they ended boom & bust. 

Is that really the best explanation you can find for why about half of the UK population (which is amongst the most well educated and informed populations on the planet) voted for Brexit?  

A youtube video with 30,000 views.  That's probably about the same number of total views the recent UKC Brexit threads have had, and we do not appear to be convincing anyone of anything.

It's an interesting piece of history.

That ad ran on prime time national television, the number of views on a YouTube copy is irrelevant, it's like looking at 3 stamps in a library copy of the Bible then concluding it's barely reached anyone.

I talked to a lot of leave voters in the run up to the referendum and while the leave vote is best characterised by a smorgasbord of voters with disparate grievances and hopes, many totally contradictory and unrelated to the EU the 'fund the NHS' trope was probably second only in prevalence to 'stop immigration' which itself regularly boiled over into naked (mainly anti Pakistani) racism. Uncomfortable stuff I found profoundly depressing.

Educated and informed would not be near the top of the list of adjectives I'd use to describe the sample of the British population I met and talked to in those weeks. 'Polarised', 'Angry', 'Frightened' and 'Spoonfed' would probably top the list.

jk

I have an Italian friend, who is a professor of Economics specialising in development, who treats me like a spoilt child complaining about the Christmas presents whenever I complain about the state of politics/education etc etc in the UK.

He simply says you have no idea how lucky you are to be living in the UK, even compared with Italy.  In comparison to Brazil, Bangladesh and Somalia simply by living in the UK you effectively won the lottery.

So, to state the obvious, the UK population is amongst the best educated and most well-informed on the planet, and there must have been something more than a youtube video involved in the millions of decisions taken to vote in favour of Brexit..

the mother of a friend of one of my sons is married to an ex-soldier.   Very nice family generally but she told my wife she didn't know how to vote but eventually voted for Brexit as she was very angry about ex-soldiers having housing problems.   Important electoral issue certainly but not one to fuel a seismic-scale constitutional change.

Educated, somewhat, informed, definitely not.

That was the official campaign broadcast, shown of the BBC several times a day, reaching millions of people.

it was quite typical of the leave campaign they conflated issues such as the NHS or non Eu migration with brexit with no logical connection.

its called populist propaganda, and it works.

Unfortunately the other side completely gave up trying to debunk the bullshit, probably out of fear and incompetence.

Ive  followed closely many elections in many countries, and the brexit campaign was the most unbelievable I had ever seen. 

The Front National in France tried to emulate it during the presidential, with some success initially, but there was a proper informed debate and they got absolutely destroyed in the end.

Which relates to my points how? Do you somehow imagine I'd disagree with that?

If someone doesn't know their 13 times table then they don't know it, the fact they're already better than most at knowing times tables because they know up to their 12 times table isn't much help when they need to quickly multiply 13s.

It's uncomfortable but it's what I observed: the majority of people I spoke to planning to vote out had very poor understanding of the real negative consequences of their choice though some were aware in abstract terms and in many cases their reasons for so doing were totally unrelated to the EU. Still, they won. I'm not sure what they won or whether they really want it but they won, you won. I hope it works out for you.

jk

I am not quite sure why you think you know how I voted in the Brexit referendum, since we have never even met as far as I know.

By and large I don't discuss how I vote with anyone, least of all people on the internet.  People died to give us the right to cast a secret ballot in a proper voting system.

And nothing to do whatsoever with the EU.

Perhaps I've misremembered but I thought I recalled you on several occasions since expressing virulently anti EU ideas. Obviously that may still translate into venting but voting remain anyway or I may have confused you with someone else, if so I apologise.

jk

You confused me with someone else.  Good of you to apologise though.

‘Polarised, angry, frightened and spoon fed’ is that a self description? 

I might mention my Kashmiri teaching friends who voted Brexit because of the Eastern Europeans turning up at Bradford’s schools, or the two Jamaican women standing for UKIP fed up at impact of free movement on the ability of their extended families to come to the U.K..life is full of ironies. The myth persists that those who voted Brexit were dim, duped or diabolical racists. It’s that kind of cruel slander that drives voters to the UKIP. The myths and lies were from both sides. 

Just ignorant and lied to. Free movement has nothing to do with the ability of their extended family to come to the U.K, this was purely a result a result of U.K. immigration law made in the U.K.

BTW the latest conservative manifesto makes it clear they want to clamp down further on all routes of immigration, last nail in the coffin to the lunatic idea that ending free movement would mean easier visas for non EU. 

Conservative manifesto 2017 : 

« We will, therefore, continue to bear down on immigration from outside the European Union. We will increase the earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants for family visas. We will toughen the visa requirements for students, to make sure that we maintain high standards. We will expect students to leave the country at the end of their course, unless they meet new, higher requirements that allow them to work in Britain a er their studies have concluded. »

Whatever you think of the issue, the fact that commonwealth citizens were given a vote but EU citizens weren’t was a total fraud.

You know why EU citizens ( not including the Irish, Cypriots and Maltese) weren't allowed to vote in the referendum yet you continue to peddle the myth that somehow they were excluded to rig the result.

You say its a myth but cite two examples of people who voted Brexit who fit at least one of those descriptions!

Yes, to a degree that's fair. I was careful not to pin the description solely on Leavers, I'm aware of my own limitations. In hindsight I omitted 'ambivalent/unaware', that I also came across a lot of especially among the under 30s.

You might, in fact please do, that'd be interesting. What exactly is their problem with Eastern Europeans turning up in Bradford's schools?

Again, this'll be interesting, let's unpack it because I don't see how getting out of the EU changes their lot for the better. I do see how stoking a fire of xenophobia to achieve that end could have the opposite effect. Help me understand their reasoning John if you were impressed by it.

Leaving aside the fact that doesn't hold together logically I'm not claiming all brexit voters were: dim, duped or racist, many plainly weren't but I did meet quite a few where that conclusion was sadly unavoidable, some who wore their bigotry as a badge of honour. The vast majority of those falling into the duped category, people voting out in the hope of effecting change leaving the EU simply could never deliver.

jk

Do you know why ? Please give us a good, logical reason, as to why someone from, say, Pakistan in the country for one year, should be given the right to vote, whilst someone from Sweden, in the country for 4 years, is not. Please explain to us why that’s fair. Good luck with that.

I’m not claiming the result was rigged, I am claiming that the entire rules of the game are rigged.

They may be 'best educated and most well-informed' in comparison to many other countries, but that's not saying much:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/29/todays-key-fact-you-a...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-british-public-...

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/12/end-democracy

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-are-the-implications-of-polit...

Of course we could use more data, but it's not particularly encouraging is it?

The rules for who can and can't vote in a parliamentary election are well known.

These rules were used for the referendum.

It was that simple.

Whether or not the rules are good or logical is another matter.

But they were and still are the rules.

You wanted these rules changed to include several million EU citizens who might just possibly have voted remain.

How would things have looked if the government have changed the rules just for the eu referendum so as to include possibly pro remain voters?

Didn't the government, keen to win the vote, consider a possible rule change?

Are you assuming that commenwealth citizens voted to leave?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36316467

I'm not sure what you mean by changing the rules here - there were no rules for a one-off referendum (it's not a standard election, and the Electoral Commission has called for a standard legal framework in future), and in any case I don't think that's the main issue. The main issue is that the government deliberately excluded people who had a direct interest in the outcome of the referendum, like British ex-pats. That was wrong.

It was a referendum, not an election, and there were no defined rules. It was a choice to use the same broken rules that we use in GE.

They did and didn’t go through with it because they were scared of the daily mail.

But I suspect most british citizens are not bigots for the most part and would have understood the need to make the outdated rules fair before such a momentous vote.

that the brexiteers were scared that they would lose massively if the rules were made fair, that’s a different problem.

No, how they voted is irrelevant, I am simply arguing that giving a vote to some foreigners and not others on no other basis than nationality is discriminatory and unfair.

Allowing Irish citizens to vote in uk elections is unfair.

Same for Cypriots and the Maltese.

It happens due to historical reasons.

Same for commenwealth citizens.

It's the UK and how we do things.

The rules for the last Scottish referendum were different so no reason why they had to use GE rules for the Brexit referendum. As I've been out of the UK for > 15 years I'm not too bothered about voting in GE (although I wish I could) but not being able to vote in a referendum which potentially removes my right to live & work where I do seems very hard to justify

I wasn't trying to argue that the rules for the eu referendum were either logical or fair but that they had some historical context.

I would have thought that the government, keen to win, would have tried to include as many possible remain voters as possible and I have no idea why they excluded some ex pats.

So you agree that the rules were and discriminatory still uphold the referendum result because « that’s how we do things ».

How revealing.

No idea? Do you suppose we'd have ever seen the back of Nigel In a "52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" Farage if they had allowed UK resident Europeans and British emigre to vote on their futures?

jk

I never said that these rules were discriminatory.

If a country has a long and varied history you'll find things that don't make any sense.

Change the rules if you wish but after consultation and discussion not in either a rush nor in a way simply to get the result that you want.

Good to see you managed to fit another personal comment in.

I think your comment is true for the eu citizens being allowed to vote but not so much the ex pats.

I don't understand why the government don't just say ' we've looked at the options and its going to ruin the country and cost too much, we are staying in the e.u'

Because half of them don't and can't believe that. The other half have reluctantly put their balls in the brexiteer's vise in exchange for power and the cohesion of the party. That's half of cabinet, not the parliamentary Conservative party which is relatively sane if terrified of its deluded electorate.

jk

do you really think that someone in the commonwealth should have been able to vote while someone on the electoral register and participating in local democracy and resident in the UK, all for 20 years, should not?

Can you explain to us how this is not discriminatory ?

which is fine as long as it doesnt have long lasting consequences.

The rules were not « changed » since we have no set rules for referendum in the U.K..

You admitted yourself that the rules were unfair, yet you are happy with them because you have the outcome you want. 

Effectively you just admitted that the rules were rigged to avoid a far right backlash.

I didn't get asked my opinion before the government decided who could vote.

But for what it's worth now that the referendum has been held and should any future referendums be held -

Is it fair that somebody from the commonwealth can decide the uk's future, no.

Is it fair that someone from the eu can decide the uk's future, no.

So only UK citizens whether resident in the UK or not can vote.

That sounds simple enough but I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to tell me how much more complicated it is.

No.

But you decided that they were, why do I need to say that they weren't.

Your asking me to defend or argue something that you brought up!

I don't remember using the word happy.

Once again you put words into my mouth and then expect me to defend them.

The rules were decided because the government didn't want to upset voters of all persuasions not just the far right and they were complacent enough to think that the vote would be to remain no matter what they did.

From memory (I haven't checked), extending the right to vote in general elections to UK citizens living overseas (not sure if still time limited but >15 years or indefinite) was in the Tory manifesto in 2015 but Cameron  never got round to implementing it.

I think you are correct.

One more thing to lay at Mr Cameron's door.

You’ve said yourself that the rules were unfair.

Are you arguing that voters of all persuasions would have been upset to have a fair franchise for the referendum that doesn’t discriminate against Europeans ?

It may be the case, but if it is, it would say a very sad truth about the U.K. electorate.

for the record I suspect that most people in this country are sensible and would have been happy with  a non discriminatory franchise.

But the government was just scared of the daily mail and UKIP, that’s the main problem the tories have, their only strategy against UKIP was to give them what they wanted.

Let's again look at the fact that Brexit is against the national interest and its executionhas been left to a party receiving donations from elements in a state that has European, NATO and British interests far from its central purposes.  Why should the rules have been fair and not weighted like a Roulette wheel.

Opinion poll after opinion poll showed significant majority wanting a referendum. So there was an appetite for one as was proved by the substantial turnout.  The Mail has less influence than you might think, though it’s ability to get a story first does mean it often sets an agenda. You are right about Tory office fearing impact of UKIP in key marginals. The ref announcement briefly took the wind out of Nigel’s sails. 

I think you misunderstood. I was talking about the policy decision to give the right to vote in the referendum to non U.K. citizens from the commonwealth, but not to non U.K. citizens from the EU.

I believe the British public would have been happy to have a franchise for foreigners that doesn’t discriminate on nationality,  but the Tories were scared of the far right press giving them a beating for not discriminating against Europeans.

Which is quite revealing of the populist state of U.K. politics.

And then delivered the policy objective that UKIP wanted. Well done.

Did they? I certainly don't remember that, and only something like 10% of the population put the EU as a main political concern prior to the ref (again going by memory; happy to be updated). Any evidence of these opinion polls with a "significant majority" demanding a referendum? 

I find it unlikely as anyone who would have voted remain wouldn't have demanded one. And those who voted leave aren't a "significant" majority, they're just about a majority...

I remember quite well opinion polls quite in favour of a referendum and the tories were elected against such a manifesto.

But really I don’t think anybody wanted a referendum based on rules that are so ridiculously unfair.

I found out though that most people didnt even  know what the franchise was though, most people in this country are utterly ignorant about their own electoral system.

They are a small majority of those that voted, so the guess that a significant majority wanted a referendum is pretty inaccurate.

How would allowing several million eu citizens to vote, most if not all of whom would have voted remain, have made the referendum any fairer?

Removing the right of commonwealth citizens might have reduced the unfairness.

At the risk of sounding like a far right nationalist I think that the future of a country should be decided by its citizens.

I'm fairly sure that's how many countries in the world are run.

domiciles

The problem with the EU referendum was it was handled very badly from the the beginning.

In seemingly very little time we've had a leader of the Government who, afraid UKIP were gaining ground, and therefore potentially going to take some of the Government's votes (and/or seats) offered the country a vote on EU membership.

The combination of the leave issues being very emotive (£350m a week to spend on the NHS and stop immigrants taking our jobs) and the vast majority of the UK population not having enough knowledge to understand the real issues, which were very complicated, resulted in the Leave campaign being successful.

The leader, surprised/amazed/horrified that he had lost the referendum fell on his sword and was replaced by someone who wanted us to remain in the EU but was, apparently, the best person to get us out of the EU.

The new leader told the country there would be no snap election and then called an election allegedly to get a stronger mandate for Brexit even though the referendum had already provided the mandate. We were not supposed to think the election was called because the leader and/or the governing party did not want to have the next election close to the completion of the Brexit negotiations and that the ratings of the main opposition party, and particularly its leader, were very poor.

The party in power ran a campaign that focussed too much on the leader who did not engage well with the electorate. Meanwhile the ratings of the main opposition and its leader increased and the election resulted in the governing party whose bid for a stronger mandate resulted in it going from having a small (but more or less workable) majority to having none at all and needing some form of alliance/understanding with another party.
 

I know it is not going to happen but I think we need another referendum because we were very poorly informed in 2016.

The Leave campaign played a blinder, eg  £350million we could give the NHS, we can control immigration but can continue to be part of the single market. Even at the time we knew that the £350million a week was a lie. I use that word deliberately because, although we do pay a lot to the EU, it is not £350million a week and the leave campaign knew they were lying. However, the remain campaign failed miserably in nailing the leavers on that one. Virtually nothing was said before the referendum about the Northern Ireland/Eire border or our continuing financial commitments to the EU after we left.

We are now in the process of making the largest change in out political and economic position in the last 70 years and which will have an impact for decades to come.

Your memory fails you

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-does-british-public-think-about-europe/

Also 72 per cent testified to demand. 

Another round of ‘most people in this country are utterly ignorant’ abuse from a remainer. And which country are u referring to?

Citizens.

As in somebody who was either born in a country or somebody who can be bothered to become a citizen.

If you can't be bothered then you can't vote, in any election, referendum or whatever.

Curious to hear from those who chant the slogan that £350m was a lie, just what they think the weekly figure is that we pay to the EU. The assumption is that you know it is a lie because you know what the true figure is. If there is a true figure one would expect all responses to this question to be the same. Answers please. 

Is your Google broken?

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

£250,000,000 per week in 2016 was sent to the EU (some which was spent in the UK)

not to mention the fact that it was all promised to be going to the NHS. If the NHS gets even a penny of ex-EU money I'll be amazed. Given that it has been deliberately starved of resources for years, when funds certainly could have been made available (the DUP will testify to the actuality of unbudgeted tree money), what makes you think the same government would be keen to change its spots all of a sudden?

And all of that presupposes there's anything to spend at all anyway, once the inevitable post-Brexit recession (as widely predicted by those pesky so-called experts) has taken its toll.

FFS even Farge distanced himself from the £350 million a week lie.

That went well didn't it!

If you don't want people to regard you and your mates as ignorant, don't ask such ignorant questions.

Farage at least was half honnest.

It would be fairer because they would have been on a equal footing with Commonwealth citizens. Yes the result woudl have been remain, it's not because it's not result you want that is doesn't mean it's not a fairer franchise.

Indeed.

Lol, that ship sailed a loooong time ago I'm afraid.

And yet you don't seem to mind that it hasn't been the case.

... Unless you are from the commonwealth, or Irish. You know, double standards, hypocrisy, and all.

It did go well.

One person says the figure wasn't £350m but £250 m. A week.

A not inconsiderable sum.

Or do you disagree with that number? You didn't say as you went into abuse mode.

Would you 'and your mates' have been happy had the bus slogan said £250 m a week.

And do you think that, had that been the figure, the vote would have been different?

I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

Deliberately starved of resources? More lies. Here is the fiercely independent, and highly critical of this government, Institute for Fiscal Studies on NHS spend.

Read it and apologise for misleading people. And don't tell me that it doesn't include 2017 figures..

UK public spending on health has increased in real terms (after accounting for economy-wide inflation), and as a share of national income, between 1955–56 and 2015–16. Real spending increased from £12.8 billion in 1955–56 to £143.7 billion in 2015–16 (2017–18 prices). This growth in spending is larger than the increase in national income over this period. As a result, health spending increased from 2.8% of national income in 1955–56 to 7.4% in 2015–16. Health spending also increased at a quicker rate than other government spending. Health spending therefore grew from 7.7% of public spending in 1955–56 (or 11.2% of public service spending) to 18.4% of public spending in 2015–16 (29.9% of public service spending).

No, Farage doesn't like Boris.And the 350 m was a Boris wheeze nicked from Nigel. Just old time political envy.

And here, more evidence of 'deliberate' starvation. Again IFS the source..

Health spending per capita in England has almost doubled since 1997, yet relatively little is known about how that spending is distributed across the population.

Talk about cherry-picking your data! That's starting in 1955 - hardly a measure of recent spending patterns! Try this instead:

https://fullfact.org/health/is-nhs-in-crisis/

Much more ambiguous in recent times...

https://fullfact.org/health/is-nhs-in-crisis/

As for the 'deliberately starved' bit, I'd suggest you're more careful with the accusation of lying. John didn't say the NHS has been deliberately starved of resources for ideological reasons as some do. It's easily arguable that the NHS has been deliberately starved in the sense that government decisions have been made that have left the NHS unable to provide the level of care required. 

Don't be a dick about it, eh?

That really doesn't prove anything about health spending under the Tories does it? You need figures since 2010. 

You can look up the link - the figures are from early post war to current and the words are a caption to a graph....so no, I don't need to look at 2010 ...the increase continues..

As for the greatest climber in the world's comment he was clearly referring to the current government

....Given that it has been deliberately starved of resources for years, when funds certainly could have been made available (the DUP will testify to the actuality of unbudgeted tree money)..

How many other administrations have made a deal with the DUP.

But thanks for your suggestion...

Yeah, your right. I should just take other people's abuse and do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek......but then there's a more Old Testament approach..

Why on earth do you think anyone should 'get over' Brexit? Apart from the fact that a key element of democracy is that people are entitled to oppose, we don't know from one week to the next what we are supposed to be 'getting over'. And as it hasn't happened yet, are you expecting us to get over it in advance? 

Get over the fact you lost. Even with almost entire Establishment backing you.

Nothing like a sore loser bleeding on at the Ref.

Well f*ck me. NHS spending has increased in real terms since 1955. 

Nothing like a gloating ignoramus picking scraps out of the bin.

Farage was relatively more honest in his motivations on brexit than the rest of the brexiteers.

I disagree with him but at least he had a fairly consistent argument :  Europeans are idiots, we don’t want them to come here, lets leave and f*ck them.

The likes of Boris and co just ran an anti intellectual jingoistic campaign, they didn’t even believe their own lies. History will not be kind on them.