UKC

/ Positive outcomes from Brexit

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Duncan Bourne - on 14 Feb 2018

Following on from todays R2 spot about Mr Johnson calling for Brexiters to convince Remainers with arguments for the positive side of Brexit rather than just calling them names. I was (hardly) surprised when only one of the callers came up with anything remotely positive (better trade deals world wide). I mean even those arguing for Brexit couldn't come up with anything positive.

So the rules are: 1.suggest a positive outcome from brexit without reference to "getting our country back", "British values", "Imigration". Or reference to negatives of staying in.

So, for example, no "It will make Britian Great again", "it will keep foriegners out" or "It will stop us being ruled by Brussels". You can of course say what thing is a positive outcome by not being ruled by Brussels

 

8
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

An extra £350m for the NHS every week?

3
Jon Read - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

It might mean Farage is (eventually) out of the media spotlight?

2
Tyler - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Jon Read:

> It might mean Farage is (eventually) out of the media spotlight?

When the fight against Britain's overseas aid budget is still to be won?

1
Robert Durran - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Because we beat them in two world wars; we don't need them.

At least this is what someone I heard interviewed on R4 yesterday said.  FFS......

5
olddirtydoggy - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I'm sure I blocked all this political crap on here and just left the outdoor sections of the forum on my feed?

MG - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I genuinely can't think of a single benefit.

4
Duncan Bourne - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Whoops! Wrong forum.

My bad. If someone wants to shunt it to the pub that would be great

2
Duncan Bourne - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That would be a positive. If it was true fingers crossed eh

deepsoup - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> My bad. If someone wants to shunt it to the pub that would be great

Best bet would be to hit the "report" button and ask the mods to do just that.

 

Duncan Bourne - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to deepsoup:

Done

HansStuttgart - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Larger chance that a common EU foreign policy (inc army) will emerge.

Larger chance of stricter regulations of the banking sector in the EU (maybe even FTT!).

Holidays to the UK are cheaper.

 

But overall not really worth it, it is better if you stay

 

3
stevieb - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I can think of a couple, but I’ve never heard brexiters mention them, so maybe not uppermost in Rees Mogg and hannan’s plans;

easier for government or local councils to favour local bidders for contracts. 

Easier for the UK to give state subsidies to desirable industries eg green energy.

Easier for hmrc to challenge the offshoring of profits to low tax EU countries. 

From the other side of the fence, it’s also much more probable that the EU will take on the tax havens, without the UK/ city of London standing up for them. 

Post edited at 18:06
2
pasbury on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> easier for government or local councils to favour local bidders for contracts. 

> Easier for the UK to give state subsidies to desirable industries eg green energy.

> Easier for hmrc to challenge the offshoring of profits to low tax EU countries. 

Not exactly Tory practice though are they. Beware who you give back control to!

 

3
bouldery bits - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

There's a chance we'll be able to stop talking about Brexit (a ridiculous distraction) and focus on the actual issues like literally giving our schools away, massively underfunding our armed forces and allowing the NHS to be run for profit.

3
Andy Gamisou - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Maybe we can go back to good old imperial units and drop the decimal nonsense.  And revert to lsd (the currency, not the drug - unless you twist my arm).

And also get rid of the moronically annoying EU cookie directive.

Post edited at 18:31
5
knighty - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

The only two that I can think of (and both are through the same cause):

Increased tourism from outside of the UK because of a tumbling pound

Increased exports for some UK companies

Doesn't seem like such a good deal now..

tom_in_edinburgh - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to bouldery bits:

> There's a chance we'll be able to stop talking about Brexit (a ridiculous distraction) and focus on the actual issues like literally giving our schools away, massively underfunding our armed forces and allowing the NHS to be run for profit.

Completely disrupting your economy when you are already skint is not a distraction it's a disaster.    Also, if we leave the EU we are pretty much forced to align ourselves with the US on trade which will mean more privatisation of the NHS so US companies can bid for contracts.    

2
DerwentDiluted - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan 

As I see it the main benefit will be that the proof will be in the pudding, bullshit and hyperbole from all will melt away and we will see how it goes, reality and figures will replace ideology, speculation and fear. I'm a remainer with fears for the future, but if I'm proved wrong then I'll be a happy fella.

3
Duncan Bourne - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

well although not a huge amount that is more positive outcome predictions than their own spokespeople came up with earlier today

pasbury on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to bouldery bits:

We might stop talking about Brexit when we’re dead. Our kids will continue talking about it for many decades to come.

1
HansStuttgart - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

And maybe the way both LAB and CON handle this issue makes people realize that FPTP isn't the best of voting systems

1
bouldery bits - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Completely disrupting your economy when you are already skint is not a distraction it's a disaster.    Also, if we leave the EU we are pretty much forced to align ourselves with the US on trade which will mean more privatisation of the NHS so US companies can bid for contracts.    

Mate, I'm not saying brexit isn't a big deal - my personal view is that brexit is a catastrophe.

 

However, I feel thay other stuff is happening and not being given the attention those issues deserve because Brexit is such a time consuming issue.

Post edited at 20:32
1
blurty - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

(I voted remain, and am trying to see some silver linings)

 

'CANZUK' - The Canadians have proposed a free movement of labour between Canada, UK, NZ & Aus

We will be able to control where immigrants come from & give opportunities to skilled labour from India, Pakistan etc (I appreciate this may mean denuding them of doctors & nurses etc)

Eurocentric regulations. There are some regulations that are designed for the EU average, & not particular suited to the UK situation; we will be able to take the best from the regs & make them work better for us

(Surprisingly, I'm told by an acquaintance who works for the '5th clearing bank' that the mood in the City is pretty positive, with good opportunities to get into new markets (given he may be assuming further de-regulation) 

 

 

3
jkarran - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> And maybe the way both LAB and CON handle this issue makes people realize that FPTP isn't the best of voting systems

As if 'the people' are the problem with our electoral system. Even if electoral reform were remotely plausible brexit isn't the route to it.

Jk

1
john arran - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to blurty:

> Eurocentric regulations. There are some regulations that are designed for the EU average, & not particular suited to the UK situation; we will be able to take the best from the regs & make them work better for us

Such as?

2
blurty - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to john arran:

For E.g.

Construction CDM 15 Regs: The requirement to employ a Principle designer etc in a construction project. This a Euro type arrangement that suits the procurement style on the continent, but is a buggerance in the UK (& Ireland) where we approach things differently

Food standards: We would be able to regulate that meat must come from high welfare farms

Public procurement: We will be able to cut loose from the very expensive EU procurement rules, and give more decision making power to our own public bodies

 

 

6
Andy Hardy on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to blurty:

> For E.g.

 

> Public procurement: We will be able to cut loose from the very expensive EU procurement rules, and give more decision making power to our own public bodies

Have you read about what's happening in Preston in respect of local procurement? Most of the council spending is now within Lancashire to the massive benefit of the local economy. Funnily enough, they were able to do this despite being shackled to the EU.

Dave Garnett - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> Maybe we can go back to good old imperial units and drop the decimal nonsense.  And revert to lsd (the currency, not the drug - unless you twist my arm).

You are joking.  Aren't you?

 

1
Stone Idle - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Your food costs more than needs be courtesy of EU. We are a net contributor and to add insult to injury we get told how to spend our own money doled out to us. We pay inflated salaries and pensions to bureaucrats and politicians we don’t need. We pay for two political centres plus all the moves between them. We can’t make trade deals ourselves. We are told what rules we have to accept. That do just for a start? Why not get behind this and help make it work?

31
The New NickB - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> easier for government or local councils to favour local bidders for contracts. 

I admire your effort, but from experience I don’t think it will make any difference.

> Easier for the UK to give state subsidies to desirable industries eg green energy.

ditto.

 

1
The New NickB - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to blurty:

> We will be able to control where immigrants come from & give opportunities to skilled labour from India, Pakistan etc (I appreciate this may mean denuding them of doctors & nurses etc)

We can already do this. Of course a certain percentage of the Brexiters voted against such things.

2
blurty - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

No, I hadn't heard about that, just googled it and found an article in the Grauniad:

 

After Brexit, it may become even easier for public institutions to pick local suppliers over international ones, without the European procurement law that requires contracts to be tendered widely. But other centralised services, such as the police and NHS, will still be tied to national systems for procurement..

 

Good initiative by Preston.

Duncan Bourne - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

>  Why not get behind this and help make it work?

Well apart from the things you suggested were negative things to do with being in the EU and not positive suggestions for leaving.

I think we should be trying to make this work. No point in setting it up to fail is there. Time will tell

 

Post edited at 22:37
2
KeithWakeley - on 14 Feb 2018
In reply to blurty:

> For E.g.

> Construction CDM 15 Regs: The requirement to employ a Principle designer etc in a construction project. This a Euro type arrangement that suits the procurement style on the continent, but is a buggerance in the UK (& Ireland) where we approach things differently

CDM15 is not really direct EU regs, it’s a UK SI, evolved from CDM2004 and CDM2007. Yes the original 2004 regs came from an EU directive - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01992L0057-20070627&from=EN

This directive essentially said make construction less dangerous, establish in law a chain of responsibility for H&S on site, try to design out risk and also don’t make it a  bureaucratic burden for small companies... the result? CDM2004. A bloody admin pain in the ass indroduced by the UK Gov. It’s evolved to CDM2015 which mostly works, but is still not ideal for smaller projects. To blame this on the EU however is misleading.

This does highlight one of the frustrations I have with the whole dabate. The big bad EU gets blamed for crap law that they didn’t actually indroduce. Much of the law is UK law badly enforcing an EU derective to do things like stop killing construction workers. But sadly it’s far easier for the press to blame the EU than our govt when crap legislation is brought in.

 

 

 

 

2
Ciro - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to blurty:

> Food standards: We would be able to regulate that meat must come from high welfare farms

Not unless we drop the plans for a free trade deal with the US...

1
RomTheBear on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Brexit is good for carrots. Gabish ? So stop being negative !

Journalist: "Foreign Secretary, what do you say to those people who say, 'Yet another speech on Brexit... but where is the clarity'?"'

Boris Johnson "The carrot?"

Journalist: "The clarity."

Boris Johnson: "Clarity. OK. God. Carrot. Carrot... Well, as I say, I think you have an abundance of clarity in the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech... What I'm trying to address is a feeling that I pick up talking to people that they're not getting the message, the positive agenda - I think there is a great positive agenda and we need to get out there and explain it. And it can be good for carrots too, by the way. Allright, you didn't actually mention carrots, but... we can take back control of our agricultural policies, and it may be that we can do wonderful things with, you know, our own regulations to, you know... promote organic carrots"

 

Post edited at 07:02
1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Those arrogant Great Crested Newts will be taken down a peg or two.

1
ian caton on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

Because it goes against pretty much everything I hold dear.

2
Andy Hardy on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

Complaining about the EU in those terms is like complaining about traffic while you're sat in your car, being traffic.

We are not separate from the processes of the EU, nor are we without agency in the EU. 

1
Dave Garnett - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> So the rules are: 1.suggest a positive outcome from brexit without reference to "getting our country back", "British values", "Imigration". Or reference to negatives of staying in.

 

OK, deep breath.

As already said, we will have more flexibility about VAT, state aid, fisheries and agricultural policy.

Of course that rather depends on us doing something responsible with this flexibility.  Yes, we can abolish the tampon tax and reclassify Jaffa Cakes.  We could come up with more sustainable, responsive, locally relevant and environmentally responsible fisheries and agricultural policies.

The problem, of course, is that areas that used to be subject to a stable long-term EU-wide policy may now become subject to short-term domestic political expedience.  And, if recent experience is anything to go by, I'd rather trust the EU Commission and Parliament than our lot.

Anyway lot of these 'freedoms' may not last very long if we simply exchange EU rules for the conditions of a 'free trade' agreement with the US.       

 

Post edited at 09:41
2
stevieb - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> Not exactly Tory practice though are they. Beware who you give back control to!


I'm not holding my breath for any of these changes, but we can have more independent control of them (until we sign other trade agreements).

We could also overhaul farm payments.

We could reduce farm payments to grouse moors. This may change the countryside that we like to visit, and change the economics of the area, but it seems hard to justify these payments. They generate almost no food, and increase risk of flooding in towns down stream.

I don't know the detail of farm payments, but it seems, in general, a lot of money is basically given for land ownership. We want to somehow encourage the conflicting aims of efficient food production and environmental conservation.

Maybe not worth all the damage, but lots of small positives.

neilh - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

There are spending limit s on procurement rules,so it is possible that Preston are getting round this by keeping the value of the contract below EU limits to avoid EU procurement rules if you see what I mean. It is only for the really big numbers that EU procurement rules kick in.

Preston is lauded as this local procurement nirvanna. In reality its been like that for many many years there as it was the seat for Lancashire County Council and historically always had a very strong bias to local suppliers.

Andy Hardy on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

If Preston can "bypass" EU rules, then so can any equivalent council anywhere in the EU (and in other countries, they probably already do)

It may have had historically strong links to local suppliers, but there has still been a big increase in local spending since 2013 - https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21730421-how-one-city-became-unlikely-laboratory-corbynomics-preston-jeremy-corbyns-model-town

"The Centre for Local Economic Strategies, a Manchester-based think-tank, audited the spending of six such institutions last month and found that they spent 18% of their most recent year’s budget in Preston, compared with 5% in 2013. In cash terms, this meant an extra £75m being spent in the city—around £530 per citizen. The share of their spending in Lancashire doubled from 39% to 79%. It required no extra money nor new legislation."

 

 

neilh - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Even from the darkest depths of that great metropolis Manchester, some 20 -30 years ago the local authority was well renowned for buying from Preston based suppliers. Its why for example KPMG had a Preston office years ago.Despite the think tanks comments on it ( and all the latest publicity which has been pretty widespread) its nothing new for Preston.Its been like that for years and years.

I agree other local councils can easily do it.

jkarran - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> I don't know the detail of farm payments, but it seems, in general, a lot of money is basically given for land ownership. We want to somehow encourage the conflicting aims of efficient food production and environmental conservation.

> Maybe not worth all the damage, but lots of small positives.

Potentially a few small positives weighed against big losses for many. Except leaving the EU doesn't change our economic underpinnings, our economy and the political structures which support it exist to predominantly serve capital. In fairness this is no longer limited to land but things change slowly and landownership still confers wealth and power. The wealthy and the powerful will not lightly give up their state subsidy, in reality I expect freed from having to lobby and 'fund' multiple tiers of government after brexit their voices will be heard louder and clearer than ever by our domestic governments. Any pretence at farm subsidy reform will just give back with one hand what it showily takes away with the other.

I eagerly await being proven a miserable cynic.

jk

1
DubyaJamesDubya - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to KeithWakeley:

> CDM15 is not really direct EU regs, it’s a UK SI, evolved from CDM2004 and CDM2007. Yes the original 2004 regs came from an EU directive - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01992L0057-20070627&from=EN

> This directive essentially said make construction less dangerous, establish in law a chain of responsibility for H&S on site, try to design out risk and also don’t make it a  bureaucratic burden for small companies... the result? CDM2004. A bloody admin pain in the ass indroduced by the UK Gov. It’s evolved to CDM2015 which mostly works, but is still not ideal for smaller projects. To blame this on the EU however is misleading.

> This does highlight one of the frustrations I have with the whole dabate. The big bad EU gets blamed for crap law that they didn’t actually indroduce. Much of the law is UK law badly enforcing an EU derective to do things like stop killing construction workers. But sadly it’s far easier for the press to blame the EU than our govt when crap legislation is brought in.

...and it suited the government too, of course, since it shifted the blame from them.

Eric9Points - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

There are more jobs at better pay rates available on the building trade now a lot of Polish workers have returned home. I believe the same thing is happening in agriculture where I've heard farmers complain that they've had to pay labourers a decent wage to get their crops picked.

2
neilh - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

Very debateable ...more linked with devaluation and construction being down since Brexit. So that is a mixed picture.

There have been enough press articles about farmers having to leave crops in fields due to their being no pickers available, again as much linked to devaluation.

Eric9Points - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

That's the situation in Glasgow at the moment.

Jimbocz - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

As per Bojo, we can get rid of the warning on the bag of balloons that says not suitable for under 3s.  

Seriously, it allows people to see what incompetent leaders the current crop of tories really are. The situation in Ireland can only end in one of two ways, either we end up following every EU law without any say, or we have a hard border. The tories lose either way.  As the economy goes down plug hole, Theresa May and the rest are going to look worse every day.  

 

2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> I don't know the detail of farm payments, but it seems, in general, a lot of money is basically given for land ownership. We want to somehow encourage the conflicting aims of efficient food production and environmental conservation.

The underlying question is 'who benefits when grouse moors get a subsidy' and who is lobbying for those interests.  The answer is obviously the Tories on behalf of rich landowners.  Why would the French and Germans in the EU care about a British thing like grouse moors?  They've got their own agricultural interests to represent.  If there's a CAP subsidy for grouse moors it will be because the UK traded some of its negotiating chips to get CAP money for grouse moors.   

Nothing is going to change after Brexit.  The land owners will still want subsidies for grouse moors and they'll have just as much influence with the Tories as before. 

Many of the items of EU policy which the Brexiters complain about were lobbied for by the UK government (a classic example being immigration rules for new member states) and the interests which persuaded government to lobby for them within the EU will be making sure they stay in place after Brexit.  If anything things are going to get worse because the EU has been a moderating force on what we would have otherwise have got from the winner-takes-all Westminster system.

 

Post edited at 15:52
Nina_Sky on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

We resist sleepwalking into being absorbed by some vast, generic, culturally barren superstate, devoid of individual national identities and with long-term goals to replace the native population with non-Europeans. That's a big benefit.

26
Andy Hardy on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Nina_Sky:

> We resist sleepwalking into being absorbed by some vast, generic, culturally barren superstate, devoid of individual national identities and with long-term goals to replace the native population with non-Europeans. That's a big benefit.


Wow. Do you find aluminium foil to be a major part of the weekly shop?

Duncan Bourne - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Nina_Sky:

Are you on about Europe or working with the US?

Incidently you mentioned (albeit obliquely) making Britain Great (national identity) and immigration (replacing native populations) so you broke the rules

Dave Garnett - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Nina_Sky:

> We resist sleepwalking into being absorbed by some vast, generic, culturally barren superstate, devoid of individual national identities

Seriously?  Have you ever been to Paris, Marseilles, Munich, Barcelona, Venice, Milan, Helsinki, Vilnius, Athens...  

GrahamD - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Jimbocz:

>The tories lose either way.  As the economy goes down plug hole, Theresa May and the rest are going to look worse every day.  

We all lose.  Still, will of the people, innit ?

GrahamD - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Nina_Sky:

> We resist sleepwalking into being absorbed by some vast, generic, culturally barren superstate, devoid of individual national identities and with long-term goals to replace the native population with non-Europeans. That's a big benefit.

It would be a big benefit if any of the rest of it had any semblance of truth about it.

jkarran - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Nina_Sky:

> That's a big benefit.

That's certifiable!

Jk

RomTheBear on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Nina_Sky:

> We resist sleepwalking into being absorbed by some vast, generic, culturally barren superstate, devoid of individual national identities and with long-term goals to replace the native population with non-Europeans. That's a big benefit.

Big Ger, we know it’s you.

Duncan Bourne - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Jimbocz:

No one likes the Tories, no one likes Labour.

Lord Sutch your time has come

Bogwalloper - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Your food costs more than needs be courtesy of EU. We are a net contributor and to add insult to injury we get told how to spend our own money doled out to us. We pay inflated salaries and pensions to bureaucrats and politicians we don’t need. We pay for two political centres plus all the moves between them. We can’t make trade deals ourselves. We are told what rules we have to accept. That do just for a start? Why not get behind this and help make it work?

F*ck me! When did my dad join UKC???

W

Ridge - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> There are more jobs at better pay rates available on the building trade now a lot of Polish workers have returned home. I believe the same thing is happening in agriculture where I've heard farmers complain that they've had to pay labourers a decent wage to get their crops picked.

I suspect that'll be temporary. The UK govt and UK industry won't be interested in improving wages or training new British nurses to replaced departing EU nurses. There's a whole world outside of the EU that can be shipped in for cheap labour.

It would be nice if Brexit gave a dose of reality to the UK. The war finished over 70 years ago, winning 2 World Wars and one World Cup doesn't automatically make us a global superpower that the world will be begging to trade with. We might grow up a bit and start investing in the future instead of living in the past.

3
Bogwalloper - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Ridge:

>

> It would be nice if Brexit gave a dose of reality to the UK. The war finished over 70 years ago, winning 2 World Wars and one World Cup doesn't automatically make us a global superpower that the world will be begging to trade with. We might grow up a bit and start investing in the future instead of living in the past.

This ^^^^

W

john yates - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Sangette will be turned into a reception centre for UKC retainers fleeing the UK in search of the EU Paradise. 

stevieb - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>   If there's a CAP subsidy for grouse moors it will be because the UK traded some of its negotiating chips to get CAP money for grouse moors.   

> Nothing is going to change after Brexit.  The land owners will still want subsidies for grouse moors and they'll have just as much influence with the Tories as before. 

I generally agree with you, but previously they could hide behind the EU. Now any payments will be  more transparent (if the media publish), so might be harder to convince an urban population. 

 

ian caton on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The irony being, of course, that it is Labour who is the origin of latter Day agricultural prosperity (1947 agriculture act). And it was a Tory prime minister who repealed the corn laws ending the previous era of agricultural prosperity.

HardenClimber - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Well, lots of pluses:

France and Germany will gain Services work.

Netherlands Pharmaceuticals.

Germany & Wastern Europe car Manufacturing.

US gets another (wide) open market.

France won't have to host asylum seekers for uk.

Spain gets Gibralter, Argentina the Falklands.

The UK's  Looney Right, and the Left's zealots can have a common purpose in promoting Brexit™.

MSM can still blame Europe for our woes.

UK far right gain as society becomes more disillusioned and drifts to extremism.

Brexit is a bit of a no-brainer really...almost everyone wins

3
Bogwalloper - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to HardenClimber:

Brilliant!

W

Trevers - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

It might cause us as a nation to become less wasteful and more resourceful, finally do away with the notion of English exceptionalism, and give our economy the impetus (kicking) it needs to become more balanced in the long run.

2
Gordon Stainforth - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Trevers:

Yes, and at the same time the concept of developing aeronautical pigs will get a terrific boost ...

2
Andy Hardy on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Trevers:

The problem I have with that, is that brexit is not necessary to achieve any if those.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Your food costs more than needs be courtesy of EU.

And if we removed the food subsidies/tariffs/bans on GM/animal cruelty laws which serve to limit imports after Brexit what would happen?  Most of UK agriculture would be completely noncompetitive unless it was allowed access to near zero cost labour (which means immigration from really poor countries) and given a free pass on environmental regulations.    Maybe after 10 years you could get a new stable system but the transition from protected to unprotected agriculture would be unacceptably painful in the short and medium term.

> We are a net contributor and to add insult to injury we get told how to spend our own money doled out to us. We pay inflated salaries and pensions to bureaucrats and politicians we don’t need.

The whole 'net contributor' argument is bullsh*t because it assumes the services provided by the EU which involve spending money on the continent are zero value.  They aren't.  We need standardisation and regulation of all kinds of products and services to ensure safety and interoperability.  It is valuable to know that if someone sells you a kettle or supplies you with water then it is of a certain quality.  We need trade negotiators, agreements on fisheries, shared nuclear facilities, police co-operation and on and on and on.  If the EU doesn't do this then we will need to hire more civil servants to do it ourselves.  And it will be much more costly because in the EU we split the bill 27 ways.  Even if the EU bureaucrats are inefficient and overpaid compared to UK bureaucrats (which they wont be because the UK is bound to locate this stuff in London) you still come out massively ahead from splitting the bill 27 ways.

> We pay for two political centres plus all the moves between them.

Yes, moving the parliament is inefficient and a little silly. But the EU has 500 million citizens.  That kind of expense is peanuts.  It makes no difference in the scheme of things.   The UK is just as bad - we could save billions by moving Parliament out of Westminster to a modern building in a cheaper city, but we don't.  

> We can’t make trade deals ourselves. We are told what rules we have to accept. 

The EU is doing a much better job of negotiating trade deals than cretins like Fox and Johnson ever will and by far the most important trade deal we need is with the rich countries which are geographically closest i.e. the EU.   Trade deals are an n^2 problem i.e. if you have n countries and they all try and negotiate trade deals on their own with each other you end up with n^2 trade deals each of which interacts with and constrains the others.  The solution is to form large blocks with common rules like the EU/NAFTA and for the larger blocks to negotiate with each other.   The US get far more for their time negotiating with the EU for access to a 500 million person market than negotiating with the UK for access to a 65 million person market - even if it takes 3x as long to negotiate with the EU they come out ahead.  The EU is going to get better deals than a post Brexit UK. 

Post-Brexit UK is going to have no choice, the only option with anything like the scale to replace the EU as a trading partner is the US and we will need to take what we are offered - which will mean our market will be operating with US style rules.  This is why the same right wing 'think tanks' and billionaires backed Trump and Brexit, they want the UK in the US sphere of influence and moved far to the right of where it is now.

 

 

Post edited at 13:43
2
Trevers - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> The problem I have with that, is that brexit is not necessary to achieve any if those.

But the thread was about potential positives. Those are the few I can see (note that they're a positive spin on bad news). I think Brexit is a bloody terrible idea.

Robert Durran - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  If you have n countries and they all try and negotiate trade deals on their own with each other you end up with n^2 trade deals.

n(n-1)/2 actually ;-)

john yates - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Usually abuse and doomery. Prejudice parading as insight. 

8
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to john yates:

This thread was made for people like you. Post away! I *promise* that no-one will call you a moron. They may disagree with some of your ideas though...

summo on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Given that you are remain, but pro Scottish independence, how does that work. Scotland would be out regardless and all your Brexit negatives would apply but several times over as Scotland is even smaller, less negotiating power etc.. and rejoinng the eu would be decades away and mean signing up to the euro. 

1
stevieb - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to summo:

> Given that you are remain, but pro Scottish independence, how does that work. Scotland would be out regardless and all your Brexit negatives would apply but several times over as Scotland is even smaller, less negotiating power etc.. and rejoinng the eu would be decades away and mean signing up to the euro. 


I think it is incredibly unlikely that joining would be decades away.

The EU would love Scotland (or Northern Ireland, Norway, Iceland) to join and if Scotland agreed to fairly normal terms, it seems very unlikely that they would delay the process. It is an expansionist organisation, and would also love to show up the UK.

the euro may be a requirement, but seven of the recent EU members have not joined the Euro. Maybe Scotland just need to avoid convergence

Ciro - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to summo:

Despite all the trouble the UK has caused over the years, and the PITA it's causing now, Europe is still open to letting us change our minds and stay. 

What makes you think a newly independent, already regulatory aligned, and commited to the European project Scotland would not be afforded the same courtesy?

Others in the independence movement may differ, but personally I'd be quite happy to see Scotland in the euro rather than fiscally tied to iUK by the pound.

summo on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> What makes you think a newly independent, already regulatory aligned, and commited to the European project Scotland would not be afforded the same courtesy?

Because during indef1 the eu said Scotland would have to apply from scratch and couldn't just transfer over.

> Others in the independence movement may differ, but personally I'd be quite happy to see Scotland in the euro rather than fiscally tied to iUK by the pound.

Even if it sees the currency devalued when it joins the euro like so many other euro nations?

summo on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> I think it is incredibly unlikely that joining would be decades away.

How long?

> The EU would love Scotland (or Northern Ireland, Norway, Iceland) to join and if Scotland agreed to fairly normal terms, it seems very unlikely that they would delay the process. 

It won't want another net beneficiary, only contributors.

> the euro may be a requirement, but seven of the recent EU members have not joined the Euro. 

It's the eu programme, it has said all new members must agree to join, there isn't a veto option. 

 

2
Ciro - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to summo:

> Because during indef1 the eu said Scotland would have to apply from scratch and couldn't just transfer over.

That was then, there's been a pretty substantial change of circumstances since.

During indyref1, the UK was a member of the EU, so the EU members had a vested interest in discouraging the breakup of one of their own. 

The second the UK leaves the EU, and sets itself up to compete *against* the EU for trade deals and the like, not only is that gone, there will now be a vested interest in strengthening the European Union at the expense of the British union. They'd be mad not to make it easy for Scotland or Northern Ireland to come back.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to summo:

> Given that you are remain, but pro Scottish independence, how does that work. Scotland would be out regardless and all your Brexit negatives would apply but several times over as Scotland is even smaller, less negotiating power etc.. and rejoinng the eu would be decades away and mean signing up to the euro. 

Scotland wouldn't be out of the EU,  that is pure Westminster FUD.    The EU never made a definitive official statement during indyref: various people many of whom weren't even in office and various lawyers said different and contradictory things which were then spun by the unionist media as 'the EU says'.   The EU has nothing to gain from losing some of its territory by pushing Scotland out.  In the context of Brexit it isn't going to be doing any favours for the unionists in Westminster either.

The argument about the 'stability of the pound' and being forced to join the Euro isn't going to play either in the economic chaos that will follow Brexit.  

tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> >  If you have n countries and they all try and negotiate trade deals on their own with each other you end up with n^2 trade deals.

> n(n-1)/2 actually ;-)

I should have said: O(n^2)   

Post edited at 17:28
1
Brass Nipples on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Goods from Europe will cost more due to trade tarrifs. This will drive more home grown UK trade.

 

Brass Nipples on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Goods from Europe will cost more due to trade tarrifs. This will drive more home grown UK trade.

 

elsewhere on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Brass Nipples:

> Goods from Europe will cost more due to trade tarrifs. This will drive more home grown UK trade.

Goods from UK will cost more in EU due to trade tariffs. This will hit UK exports.

It works both ways.

Post edited at 17:59
RomTheBear on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to summo:

> Because during indef1 the eu said Scotland would have to apply from scratch and couldn't just transfer over.

I think many people, including myself, had made the assessment that Scotland had way more chance of being in the EU as a independent country willing to be in the EU (even if made to apply from scratch), than as part of the U.K.

Which turned out to be correct.

What cracks me up is that brexiteers complain  about the lack of sovereignty in the EU, despite the U.K. being on the winnning side in the EU council on 98% of the votes, and despite always having been free to leave, but they don’t see a contradiction with Scotland pretty much consistently getting the opposite of what they vote for on major issues, and not even being able to leave if they wanted.

Post edited at 18:33
1
Timmd on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Why not get behind this and help make it work?

A few Brexiters have said something like this, on here and else where. I'm thinking that most people just want to keep going to work and being paid, so what do you mean by it,  what do you picture people doing for getting behind it and helping to make it work? 

Genuine question. 

Post edited at 11:43
wercat on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Timmd:

We're being asked to be "Good Germans" and just go along with the flow whether we think it is completely wrong or not.

 

I'm sure many Gauleiters said the same in the districs where they held sway

Post edited at 12:11
1
Eric9Points - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

We will be able to buy duty free when we return from our European holidays.

wercat on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

We can reinstate Empire Day     

 

"Brightly, brightly, sun of spring upon this happy day

Shine upon us as we sing this 24th of May

Shine upon our brothers too,

Far across the ocean blue,

As we raise our song of praise

On this our glorious Empire Day”

1
Doug on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

So large savings on a few bottles (not sure what the limit is at the moment) compared to small savings on a very large N° of bottles, depending on tax in France or Belgium and the exchange rate. Not sure its going to be a major benefit.

jkarran - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Why not get behind this and help make it work?

My acquiescence can't make brexit work.

It can't because brexit as an idea doesn't work. It cannot and will not deliver to the people even a fraction of what they were promised whether they voted to fund the NHS, against immigration, for more fishing or less, for protectionism or for free markets or simply to stick it to the sausage faced pig botherer who staked our future and his on this to settle a Tory party feud.

Why should I support something which I am convinced will do great harm while I still believe it can be averted? You can try to convince me I'm wrong but you cannot reasonably ask me to do something I believe to be against my or for that matter your best interest. You want widespread public support for brexit... present a compelling vision grounded in political and economic reality rather than fantasy, one which acknowledges and mitigates the downsides then win the argument for your vision. You want to ask me to be complicit in harming myself and my adoptive country... To put it politely: no chance.

jk

Post edited at 15:38
2
Eric9Points - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Doug:

Neither am I Doug but after a week of thinking about it I couldn't come up with anything else.

 

Surely there's a remainer out there who's going to tell us how we'll going to be better off. Surely?

Post edited at 16:03
Andy Hardy on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

I don't think there are many remainers who think we'll be better off after brexit.

David Riley - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

>  brexit as an idea doesn't work. It cannot and will not deliver to the people even a fraction of what they were promised

 

I'm not particularly motivated to spoil your echo chamber when you've got it working so well.

But people didn't vote leave because there were any specific advantages.

They wanted to leave the EU. Mostly because they didn't agree with its objectives. Ever closer union, ever bigger administration and cost, free movement of people, protectionist trade policies, proposed EU military, and ever more central control.

It has been made clear those objectives are not going to change.

Post edited at 17:13
12
tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

>  Why not get behind this and help make it work?

Because I think it is both stupid and undesirable.   Stupid because of the short and medium term economic damage which is bound to result.  Undesirable because I think the EU is a force for good and that the branch of the Tories who are getting put in power by Brexit are dangerous fools, similar to the Tea Party faction of the US Republicans.

 

1
MG - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Why not get behind this and help make it work?

How?  What  am I meant to do to make it work that I am not already doing?

 

jkarran - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Getting out changes none of those for the better (as you see it), it just cedes our remaining control over direction and pace of change. Convince me it's worthwhile and deliverable then I'll join you on the barricade beating the drums. Nobody ever does though and precious few even try. You and your leaver tribe who are for and opposed to a multitude of often contradictory things won the vote, now you need to win the argument for a constructive course of action but you can't because there isn't one. You mention people voting for free trade but I'd say the majority view I came across among leave voters was actually for protectionism and state aid. If you'll recall we voted against a backdrop of steel work closure threats. We're stuffed and it was obvious from the outset we would be, brexit is something different to everybody, even those steering the actual negotiations so by any reasonable measure it is doomed to fail and we all suffer for that leavers and remainers except those few who profiteer in chaos or consolidate their political power.

Jk

1
David Riley - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Another hysterical and confused rant in reply to my straight forward post.

"But people didn't vote leave because there were any specific advantages.They wanted to leave the EU. Mostly because they didn't agree with its objectives. Ever closer union, ever bigger administration and cost, free movement of people, protectionist trade policies, proposed EU military, and ever more central control."

The only 3 words you seem to address are "protectionist trade policies".  But , if you think about it, you are actually agreeing with me that these policies were an issue.

Post edited at 18:18
10
HardenClimber - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

I'm not sure we really know why people voted to leave, but there were promises of money and advantage and staying in the single market and letting more immigants in (where I live they did) and increased autonomy (also known as having to grovel to the US), less admin (ie not UK replacement) and increased parliamentary power (which alot of our money seems to be being spent to stop) and whatever other deluded fantasy you wanted (and permission to be nasty to foriegners).

Why should anyone get behind the mess we are being driven towards.

1
Pete Pozman - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Are you sure most leave voters are against protectionist trade policies. Do they understand the consequences of libertarian trade policies. Do you really believe they will appreciate the UK at the mercy of international markets, flooded with shoddy products from places where health and safety, ethical standards and workers' rights mean nothing. 

2
Stone Idle - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

You know, if definitive statements made an argument sound I would have to agree with you. Unfortunately shouting loudly simply makes the argument look silly. I regret that I can’t see any force behind a non argument and still wonder why the “democrats “ of remain still whinge on and won’t get behind Brexit since it demonstrably has to work. Foaming loonies like Guy V are, thank goodness, doomed to failure and must be wondering who will pay his over generous salary. As is, what will you do when the deal is finally sealed and we have  brexited. Will you continue to whinge or get behind the U.K. because it is in your personal interest?

 

13
john arran - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

How would one be able to tell if I were to have a sudden lapse of reason and find myself ''getting behind Brexit'? If it's more than just 'put up and shut up', what else would there be to it?

Genuine question.

1
Stuart en Écosse - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Why not get behind this and help make it work?

Why should I get behind something I'm viscerally opposed to? The non-stop anti-EU whining and moaning that you noisy rabble have been exercising for about 40 years makes your question a tad ironic. 

1
Timmd on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> "But people didn't vote leave because there were any specific advantages.They wanted to leave the EU. Mostly because they didn't agree with its objectives. Ever closer union, ever bigger administration and cost, free movement of people, protectionist trade policies, proposed EU military, and ever more central control."

David Cameron secured agreement of no further integration of the UK into the EU, too...

 

Timmd on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> You know, if definitive statements made an argument sound I would have to agree with you. Unfortunately shouting loudly simply makes the argument look silly. I regret that I can’t see any force behind a non argument and still wonder why the “democrats “ of remain still whinge on and won’t get behind Brexit since it demonstrably has to work. Foaming loonies like Guy V are, thank goodness, doomed to failure and must be wondering who will pay his over generous salary. As is, what will you do when the deal is finally sealed and we have  brexited. Will you continue to whinge or get behind the U.K. because it is in your personal interest?

What do you mean by 'get behind', what do you expect individual people to do - what can they do? To use myself as an example, as a currently unemployed person looking for work, what might I do different as somebody not behind Brexit, compared to somebody who is? Should I buy English tomatoes rather than Spanish? Tell me what it means to get behind Brexit. You've not yet said.

Post edited at 23:05
Tyler - on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> I regret that I can’t see any force behind a non argument and still wonder why the “democrats “ of remain still whinge on and won’t get behind Brexit 

This is the second time you've mentioned that we should get behind Brexit, what do you want me to do? We, the general populus, do not have that sort of influence and nor will we after Brexit despite this nonsense about taking back control.

> It demonstrably has to work.

There is an alternative, we could back out.

> Will you continue to whinge or get behind the U.K. because it is in your personal interest?

Again, what does this mean? Tell me how I get behind Brexit once done? Accept pay cuts and deeper austerity, more expensive and more inconvenient trips to Europe? It's in my personal interest to stop Brexit now, unfortunately as it's the will of the people even if we had another referendum the result would be the same.....wouldn't it?

By the way, what are you doing to get behind Brexit?

Post edited at 23:28
Timmd on 19 Feb 2018
In reply to Tyler:

Yes, I like the implication that Remoaners winging about Brexit are somehow going to sabotage it for everybody else, through not liking it. As a lowly citizen I'd love to know of a way of making Brexit a positive thing.

Post edited at 23:47
jkarran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> As is, what will you do when the deal is finally sealed and we have  brexited. Will you continue to whinge or get behind the U.K. because it is in your personal interest?

Contrary to your assertion it's if not when we leave.

If we do leave I probably will too. I'm an immigrant already, educated and young enough to start over.

Jk

Post edited at 00:10
Ridge - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Tyler:

I think it must be a 'power of positive thinking' idea. If the entire county screw their eyes tightly closed, put on a big smile and chant “Brexit is really, really fantastic” endlessly then lovely things will happen by magic.

As an economic strategy I think it's somewhat lacking.

1
jkarran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Timmd:

> Yes, I like the implication that Remoaners winging about Brexit are somehow going to sabotage it for everybody else, through not liking it. As a lowly citizen I'd love to know of a way of making Brexit a positive thing.

People aren't stupid, well most of them anyway, they know brexit is a betrayal and isn't going to deliver so they'll need a new scapegoat. There's always the EU of course but we're the back-up. It cuts both ways and it's going to get ugly if we don't resolve this sensibly and soon. Unfortunately our leaders have closed the doors to sensible solutions and it'll take great courage and skill to re-open them, something we're sorely lacking.

jk

Post edited at 09:13
1
BFG on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

>Why not get behind this and help make it work?

Because that's not how democracies work?

Post edited at 09:33
1
Ramblin dave - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> So the rules are: 1.suggest a positive outcome from brexit without reference to "getting our country back", "British values", "Imigration". Or reference to negatives of staying in.

Well, David Davis is now saying that it won't lead to a Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic dystopia, so that seems like a win.

Sir Chasm - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I don't know what your problem is, according to the brexit bulldog we won't be "plunged into a Mad Max style dystopia on leaving the eu". That sounds pretty damn good.

 

Ramblin dave - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

But having said that, he's been described by his own side as "thick as mince", so I guess it could go either way.

Still, that'd be good news for enterprising petrol and chainsaw resellers and a massive boost for the artisan leather clothing industry, so really I don't know why everyone's so gloomy.

Doug on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Ramblin dave:

So Davis (& Gove) say we keep high standards but other ministers such as Fox (& supported by Rees Mogg) say the UK will be more competitive as regulations can be dropped. Anyone know what the government policy really is ? Seen from France it looks more than a little confused

jkarran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> I don't know what your problem is, according to the brexit bulldog we won't be "plunged into a Mad Max style dystopia on leaving the eu". That sounds pretty damn good.

I know! I'm having second thoughts after the man from the dexeu set out such an incredibly believable and positive vision for our future. I'm wondering if I might actually have been a bit hasty in doubting he has even the first idea how to deliver a functional implementation of brexit. I've clearly underestimated him.

He's proper scuppered my business plans for a non-ironic pop-up roadside rat grill on the A1 and a people smuggling service out of Dover.

jk

Post edited at 10:23
jkarran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Doug:

> Seen from France it looks more than a little confused

Seen from the top of the cabinet table with glasses on I doubt the picture is any clearer. I think they're still officially on 'have the cake and eat it' plan. Presumably to save face they're hoping we'll all be wiped out by a meteor strike, Trump or plague or something before they have to admit that was a bit ambitious then hurriedly accept terms from the EU.

jk

Post edited at 10:36
wercat on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'm extremely pleased to hear we're avoiding a Mad Max situation.

 

Could anyone tell me what this means we are avoiding?

Graeme Alderson on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

Lord Humungus

Ridge - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

Tina Turner and an alcholic anti-semitic antipodean.

Win-win.

BrendanO - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

> I'm extremely pleased to hear we're avoiding a Mad Max situation.

> Could anyone tell me what this means we are avoiding?

  Incredibly cool vehicles and dodgy blood transfusions.

gallam1 - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I've just got back from a few days in Chamonix and I turned on Radio 4 this morning.  It featured what sounded like the Spanish Inquisition grilling Damian Green about his texts to Kate Maltby.  I then turn to the forums area in UKC and we are back on an endless and irreconcilable Brexit debate.

While I was away the outside temperature went from -15c to +11c in the space of 12 hours.  I really can't recall anything similar.  It left me with the rather uneasy feeling that we are missing something a lot more important that is going on right in front of our noses.

2
jkarran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> While I was away the outside temperature went from -15c to +11c in the space of 12 hours.  I really can't recall anything similar.  It left me with the rather uneasy feeling that we are missing something a lot more important that is going on right in front of our noses.

Weather? A rotating air mass (normal) moves laterally (normal) feeding you first with cold dry polar continental air (normal) then with warm wet tropical maritime air (normal).

If instead of weather you mean anthropogenic climate change then the fact that's happening and needs urgently to be recognised, prioritised and addressed is no reason not to oppose bad policy which makes addressing it harder than it already is.

Still: blue passports!

jk

Sir Chasm - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to gallam1:

Brexit's a shambles! Quick, look over there at climate change.

I wonder how best to address climate change, through countries working together or all working for themselves.

wercat on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to gallam1:

Radio Four is no More,

Women rule Today,

Beating men till our ears are sore,

And they have willed us to obey

 

 

Radio 3 is the way to go, far more egalitarian in presentation and less sexist

Post edited at 13:11
1
Andy Hardy on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Ridge:

I quite liked Tina Turner.

BFG on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

What on Earth are you talking about?

tom_in_edinburgh - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

> I'm extremely pleased to hear we're avoiding a Mad Max situation.

 

Well I think Davis needs to get behind the Mad Max situation and try and make it work.

For my part I have decided to learn archery and will be asking Kwif Fit about barbed wire and spikes for my car. 

 

Ian W - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Well I think Davis needs to get behind the Mad Max situation and try and make it work.

> For my part I have decided to learn archery and will be asking Kwif Fit about barbed wire and spikes for my car. 

The state of the bodywork on my car, I'm almost there. Where do we start?

jkarran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Another hysterical and confused rant in reply to my straight forward post.

> The only 3 words you seem to address are "protectionist trade policies".  But , if you think about it, you are actually agreeing with me that these policies were an issue.

I'm really not agreeing with you. I'm pointing out that plenty of people I spoke to voted out for reasons diametrically opposed to those you gave to illustrate my point that while each no doubt believed their reason(s) valid they cannot later all come together to agree upon a practical course of action. This is and obviously was from the very outset a recipe for disaster. We pitted a boring tangible against an ill defined intangible onto which thinkers, charlatans and common folk of every political persuasion could hang their (sometimes terribly ill informed) hats. That's not a responsible way to make policy, it's an abject failure of government to govern in our national interest. It certainly doesn't confer a strong democratic mandate for any particular version of 'brexit', especially not the version most of the principal proponents now in power and enacting our 'will' repeatedly and explicitly assured us would not happen (leaving CM and CU)!

I don't think I'm confused. I might be ranting.

jk

David Riley - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Well you seem confused to me and are very difficult to follow.

"I'm pointing out that plenty of people I spoke to voted out for reasons diametrically opposed to those you gave to illustrate my point that while each no doubt believed their reason(s) valid they cannot later all come together to agree upon a practical course of action."

You said "the majority view I came across among leave voters was actually for protectionism and state aid."

My post was "But people didn't vote leave because there were any specific advantages.They wanted to leave the EU. Mostly because they didn't agree with its objectives. Ever closer union, ever bigger administration and cost, free movement of people, protectionist trade policies, proposed EU military, and ever more central control."

So I said "People voted to leave because they didn't agree with EU protectionist trade policies"

As I understand it EU trade policy does not allow state aid.  Am I wrong ?

 

"explicitly assured us would not happen (leaving CM and CU)!"

The vote was to leave the EU or remain in the EU. Leaving the EU clearly meant leaving CM and CU. It was hoped a good deal could be done with the EU. But that was, and is, up to them. 

Not sure what this means, "We pitted a boring tangible against an ill defined intangible ". We were voting on a known status, being out of the EU, as we have been for hundreds of years, against an unknown, the EU, which is rapidly changing and heading who knows where.

9
Bogwalloper - on 20 Feb 2018

"Why not get behind this and help make it work?"

Good news sir, you have an ingrowing toe nail so all we have to do is amputate your leg.
That's great Doc! Thanks for all you're doing to help me.

W

 

Ex Poster 666 - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

When the source of dirt cheap labour dries up post Brexit, employers will have to up their wages to get some of the 1.44 million (  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42802526 ) lazy arsed scum off the dole to fill their vacancies.
OK, stuff may cost more, but most people round these parts seem to be quite happy with a rise in income tax, however, a reduction in unemployment will result in a reduced welfare bill and more income tax, balances out.

4
jethro kiernan - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Your understanding of what unemployment can mean for some people does you credit as a human being.

john arran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Leaving the EU clearly meant leaving CM and CU.

I think you'll find a large body of evidence featuring many of the most prominent leave supporters to demonstrate that what you think was 'clearly' the case ... wasn't.

 

bouldery bits - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

> I'm extremely pleased to hear we're avoiding a Mad Max situation.

I am extremely ready for this situation.

So so ready.

Like really ready.

HardenClimber - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to john arran:

Yes... But it will be like when challenged about 350million the answer is that everyone knew that was just a slogan and wasn't going to happen.

Brexiters are becoming adept at rewritting history. You need faith, and the facts (which are then modified to suit the faith) will follow easily.

john arran - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to HardenClimber:

I agree with the 'faith' analogy. Just as the holy books are continually reinterpreted to avoid any clash with observable reality, so indeed is the meaning of Brexit continually being squeezed into an impossible corner. Just a shame that conviction seems to have come first for many people, otherwise facts and reasoned argument might have chance of a look-in.

Dave the Rave on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to Lusk:

I wish I had wrote that.

Ex Poster 666 - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to jethro kiernan:

I think you may have missed my sarcastic ironism (or whatever it was).
Many people on here think an all time low of 4.8% unemployment is acceptable.
1.44 million people out of work on £75 a week, to me, isn't.

David Riley - on 20 Feb 2018
In reply to john arran:

> I think you'll find a large body of evidence featuring many of the most prominent leave supporters to demonstrate that what you think was 'clearly' the case ... wasn't.

Can you find any ?

2
bouldery bits - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

I'm building a petrol station forecourt in your back garden. Why not get behind it and help make it work? 

Andy Hardy on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

[...]

> The vote was to leave the EU or remain in the EU. Leaving the EU clearly meant leaving CM and CU. It was hoped a good deal could be done with the EU. But that was, and is, up to them. 

That is not how it was portrayed in the referndum. From here https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/01/brexit-really-incompatible-single-market-referendum-campaigns-revisited

"Daniel Hannan, a Tory MEP and one of the faces of Vote Leave, declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” Boris Johnson, now foreign secretary, declared in the aftermath of the vote that Britain would retain access to the single market. "

Edited to add: Vote Leave was the official campaign to leave, so I think that we can definitively say that vote leave stated we would remain in the single market.

 

Post edited at 08:16
Bogwalloper - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

>

> The vote was to leave the EU or remain in the EU. Leaving the EU clearly meant leaving CM and CU. It was hoped a good deal could be done with the EU. But that was, and is, up to them. 

>

Absolute bollocks. Why do Brexiters keep lying and changing the facts to keep their agenda going??

FFS

W

1
Gordon Stainforth - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Bogwalloper:

Extraordinary how many Leavers deny what they said quite unequivocally earlier. Sadly, post-Brexit referendum seems to mean post-truth.

1
john arran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Can you find any ?

Plenty. Here's one compilation I just found online after searching for all of 5 seconds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

wercat on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

You are telling a complete untruth (to be kind and mild) - I know what I was told repeatedly on the Radio and TV by prominent EuroBreakers during the campaign.

How can you tell such fibs and keep your self respect?

 

AND ANOTHER THING ....

When in the dishonest campaign were we told that the Brexit model would be purely a matter for Conservative MPs and in particular the control seizing European Research Group of fascists????

Probably the biggest reversal in Democracy I've witnessed in my 61 years

Post edited at 09:05
MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> Absolute bollocks. Why do Brexiters keep lying and changing the facts to keep their agenda going??

I distinctly remember their vision:  "Vote leave: it won't be a mad max dystopia".  I was worried this would appeal to millions at the time.

thomasadixon - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Access to the single market and membership are very different things.  Here's Daniel Hannan in 2016 being very clear about what he thought.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/09/daniel-hannan-repeat-after-me-single-market-membership-and-single-market-access-are-not-the-same-thing.html

https://medium.com/@jamesforward/a-rebuttal-to-open-britain-vote-leave-never-promised-to-remain-in-the-single-market-85a0778c75a9

Boris Johnson saying we will retain *access* afterwards is entirely in line with our leaving the market - we have to leave it to have access rather than membership!

jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
Andy Hardy on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

Why then use the phrase "nobody is threatening our place IN the single market"?

Such distinctions matter.

Edited to add: though if you're happy enough to drive around the country in that bus, with that big fat lie plastered all over the side I guess you just don't care about telling the truth about anything much

Post edited at 09:40
thomasadixon - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

It was poor wording, if you listen to the whole of the interview he clarified his meaning.  If you deliberately take one line out of context you can make it mean what you like (yes jkarran, fake news).

Click the second link, and you'll see Cameron, Osborn, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom all stating that leave EU = leave the single market.  The first two think that's bad, the latter three that it's good, all are quite clear.

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018

It speaks volumes that everybody claiming others were misled voted Remain.

Are Leave voters complaining ?

7
Sir Chasm - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> It speaks volumes that everybody claiming others were misled voted Remain.

> Are Leave voters complaining ?

Yes. They've moaned, whined and complained for the last 40 years and they haven't finished yet.

But you carry on lying.

Post edited at 10:23
MG - on 21 Feb 2018

> Are Leave voters complaining ?

Yes, pretty much non-stop about everything.  The papers, judges, MPs who don't support the most extreme brexit imaginable, the EU for not giving the UK special treatment, everyone who "won't get behind brexit",

Tyler - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Access to the single market and membership are very different things.  Here's Daniel Hannan in 2016 being very clear about what he thought.

What you mean is 'Here is Daniel Hannah after the vote contradicting what he said before the vote once he realised what was promised previously was impossible'. He either willfully lied before the vote or did not have the most basic grasp of the technicalities of the subject he was purporting to be an expert on.

Post edited at 10:33
neilh - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Well yes they are, in the context of what leaving constitutes. There seems to be a whole range of views from soft to hard on the leave side.

It is a pig in the poke and a right shambles in all areas. As Merkel quite rightly asked May- well exactly what do you want? Nobody really has a clue.

And you should see my intray as a maunfacturing exporter.... the sheer regulatory no mans land is causing alot of grey hairs at my end.Nobody has a clue what to do, great for my planning on new products for different markets.

 

Post edited at 10:33
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think you understand. If people were misled, why are those people not complaining ?

You were not misled, you voted Remain.

thomasadixon - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Tyler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzykce4oxII

Full interview from the time, and in which he clarifies what he meant - at the time.  That took a minute on google.  You can think what you want to think, of course, but in this day and age everything is recorded.

It's also one interview with one person - and on the other side we have the leader of the remain campaign and the leader of the leave campaign, and others, on national TV stating that we'd leave the single market.

Post edited at 10:50
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

> Well yes they are

So who ?

Sir Chasm - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I don't think you understand. If people were misled, why are those people not complaining ?

> You were not misled, you voted Remain.

I see. So if I don't believe your lies then you haven't actually lied.

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to MG:

No. I said, are leave voters complaining they were tricked into voting leave ?

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

No.  If you voted Remain,  you can't complain you were misled by the Leave campaign.

jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I don't think you understand. If people were misled, why are those people not complaining ?

You've heard of the field of psychology, right?

> You were not misled, you voted Remain.

Sure I was, same as you, same as everyone else exposed to the different campaigns. I just gave different weight to different evidence and opinion, it also appears we see the world very differently indeed.

That said, one important difference was people voting remain were voting for a reality they were living and had lived for decades.

jk

neilh - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

I will get back to postponing capital expenditure and pushing back plans for employing people as more of a priority until  you decide what you want.

Post edited at 11:03
Sir Chasm - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> No.  If you voted Remain,  you can't complain you were misled by the Leave campaign.

And nobody who voted leave is complaining they were lied to https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/11/we-were-lied-to-voters-who-have-changed-their-mind-on-brexit

 

Tyler - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Full interview from the time, and in which he clarifies what he meant - at the time.  That took a minute on google.  You can think what you want to think, of course, but in this day and age everything is recorded.

He clarifies it by repeating "nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" an then references Norway and Switzerland. Which particular passage in that interview do you take to be him saying that leaving they single market was even a possibility, never mind a probability?

 

 

wercat on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

WHY is the design of Brexit allowed to be influenced by nasties like the ERG and be a matter for Tory party politics? xplane

 

further, discuss how democratic it is for only the hard exiters to be taking us out without much say being given to the large number of people who did not want this stupidity

Post edited at 11:12
Tyler - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> No.  If you voted Remain,  you can't complain you were misled by the Leave campaign.

We are complaining that the electorate were misled and this probably swung the vote given the narrow margin of victory fair leave. 

john arran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I don't think you understand. If people were misled, why are those people not complaining ?

If your team was awarded a goal when it clearly should have been disallowed for offside, would you be complaining. 

As it happens, a small but significant number of leave voters are reported to have changed their mind shortly after the vote, citing reasons such as having been led to believe lies written on buses, and more appear to be changing their mind as time passes and the illusion of the bright promised future becomes apparent. So, while not exactly vocal in complaining, many at least seem now to be coming around to a different opinion.

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

I decided what I wanted long ago. To leave the EU.  I voted for it.  More people wanted to leave than to remain. I'm getting what I wanted.  I'm sorry you won't get what you wanted.

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Oh Wow, the papers "found" someone !

Is there anybody (real) on UKC posting this. No, all are Remainers that were not misled.

4
thomasadixon - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Tyler:

The whole thing, he's talking about cross channel trade being stopped and saying it's not going to happen.  He uses single market once and free market every other time.  It's seems to be clearly a mistake to me.  It's also, as said, one interview with one person, well before the vote, who has made clear his views in other places.

Against that, we have people in authority (Cameron, Johnson, EU officials) stating on national TV that we'd have to leave the single market, close before the referendum.

If you're saying that you missed all of that, and all you saw was one interview in 2015 and based all your views on that then I guess I can understand you being misled.  You've only got yourself to blame for closing your ears for a year though.

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

> WHY is the design of Brexit allowed to be influenced by nasties like the ERG and be a matter for Tory party politics? xplane

I have no idea what that means.

Those who vote Leave just voted "To Leave the EU."

That means walk away. But it is hoped that a better deal can be done where we have some of the advantages without the disadvantages. A deal might not happen.

 

Sir Chasm - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Oh Wow, the papers "found" someone !

> Is there anybody (real) on UKC posting this. No, all are Remainers that were not misled.

So I disprove your claim that no leavers are complaining they were lied to, but you don't believe it because they're not on ukc.

jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Those who vote Leave just voted "To Leave the EU."

We can't just leave the EU, we're deeply connected to it. Unpicking those connections while minimising harm was inevitably going to be incredibly difficult, costly and time consuming, only made harder by the fantasy bollocks Leave pushed tying the hands of those tasked with it.

> That means walk away. But it is hoped that a better deal can be done where we have some of the advantages without the disadvantages. A deal might not happen.

Sigh. I utterly despair. You're willing to take pain to achieve something, fine, I get that, I think in this case it's daft but I do believe you. How much pain? 20% loss of your spending power? 50%? Would you willingly sacrifice another decade of economic development across Britain's poorest areas? Lose your job? Your home? Lose free at the point of need universal healthcare? Are you willing to accept decreased public safety through loss of law enforcement/intelligence connectivity? Are you willing to risk lower employment rights, food standards and environmental protections being forced upon us? How many other people's jobs are you willing to sacrifice to achieve your goal? How many other families' are you willing to see lose their homes?

jk

Post edited at 11:59
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

It's a bit 'monkeys and typewriters'. Everything possible has been said by someone in the world. I was only claiming that of the continuous ranting on here that people were misled, I don't think anybody has posted that they were themselves misled.

3
Sir Chasm - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> It's a bit 'monkeys and typewriters'. Everything possible has been said by someone in the world. I was only claiming that of the continuous ranting on here that people were misled, I don't think anybody has posted that they were themselves misled.

That wasn't your claim - but as you haven't misled me I won't say you're a bare-faced liar.

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> You've heard of the field of psychology, right?

I have, and envisage this forum being used as course material in 20 years time, for examining attitudes in the most incredible example of mass hysteria ever.

3
Tyler - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The whole thing, he's talking about cross channel trade being stopped and saying it's not going to happen.  He uses single market once and free market every other time.  It's seems to be clearly a mistake to me.  It's also, as said, one interview with one person, well before the vote, who has made clear his views in other places.

He mentions single market twice, he makes the comparison with Switzerland twice and, Channel Islands and Norway once each. This was in reply to direct questions about the single market!

> Against that, we have people in authority (Cameron, Johnson, EU officials) stating on national TV that we'd have to leave the single market, close before the referendum.

Was that when Johnson was Leave or Remain? Yes, it was an attempt to point out the difficulties of trade with the EU post Brexit, the problem was that the Remain team were sticking to the facts and pointing out the difficulty of free trade vs. the four freedoms whereas the Leave campaign was rubbishing it and sticking to the simplistic (and untruthful) have cake and eat it slogan. 

> If you're saying that you missed all of that, and all you saw was one interview in 2015 and based all your views on that then I guess I can understand you being misled.  You've only got yourself to blame for closing your ears for a year though.

I didn't f*cking miss it, I wasn't misled but many were. The reason there isn't more leavers remorse is that those who were misled have not looked into it any more deeply since casting their vote than they did before. They won't have changed their minds as they will not have given its any thought and any attempts to change their minds is being countered by populist morons like Farage et al who, in the interest of balance, are still being given the same prominence as ever despite pretty much everything they said prior to the vote  turning out to be untrue. 

 

Post edited at 12:14
1
tripehound - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

So there are 60 plus MPs threatening May if she does not go for a hard brexit. If the majority of MPs in the House of Commons are for remain then why are they not speaking up? All we ever seem to hear is venom from the hard right. 

Will our parliamentry MPs please stand up and show some backbone for once.

 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

>  I don't think anybody has posted that they were themselves misled.

I was misled and I voted Remain.   The Leavers intentionally misled by never saying what Leave would mean and allowed everybody to construct their own preferred Leave scenario. 

If I had not been misled into thinking Leave would most likely mean a sidestep into the EFTA I would have treated the whole thing far more seriously and donated money to Remain and spent time campaigning for Remain.

1
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I have, and envisage this forum being used as course material in 20 years time, for examining attitudes in the most incredible example of mass hysteria ever.

Well let's play a game for one moment, imagine a world sort of like the real one where I'm not 'hysterical' and 'just leaving' isn't practical, where there are political and economic costs to it.

How much pain are you willing to risk accepting to leave the EU?

How much pain are you willing to risk inflicting on others to leave the EU?

You say you saw through Leave's lies and easy empty promises, that you weren't taken in by them so this must be something you've already considered, that there would likely be a hefty price to pay for your freedom.

jk

Post edited at 12:36
1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I was misled and I voted Remain.

You're just proving my point.

Dave Garnett - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I have, and envisage this forum being used as course material in 20 years time, for examining attitudes in the most incredible example of mass hysteria ever.

Possibly.  Or maybe for searching for clues as to what could possibly have precipitated the greatest act of political and economic self-harm in post-war history, responsible for accelerating the decline of what remains of the UK into the irrelevant offshore isolationist right-wing museum it became. 

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> 'just leaving' isn't practical

Just leaving is practical. We just joined.  Not so long ago really.  I remember life before we joined the EU. Perhaps you can't imagine it ?  I have been competing at Cross Country longer than we have been in the EU.

The "fantasy bollocks" is in your head. The world is not going to end, or even change much.

8
Tyler - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to tripehound:

> Will our parliamentry MPs please stand up and show some backbone for once.

No, the majority of MPs currently in the house were Remain but only a handful are now overtly opposing it. 

 

1
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Just leaving is practical. We just joined.  Not so long ago really.

They're hardly comparable!

> I remember life before we joined the EU. Perhaps you can't imagine it ?  I have been competing at Cross Country longer than we have been in the EU.

Of course I can imagine it, I just don't see any point in going through the painful process of getting to one of the many possible end states. Congratulations on a long running career. Is pointing out our age difference supposed to be some sort of appeal to expertise intended to discredit my opinion?

> The "fantasy bollocks" is in your head. The world is not going to end, or even change much.

That's a possibility but what if you're wrong? How much pain are you willing to risk taking and inflicting to get out of the EU, what price are you willing to pay?

jk

1
john arran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> No, the majority of MPs currently in the house were Remain but only a handful are now overtly opposing it. 

Surely that's the whole point - that a majority seem to be showing no courage of their conviction, presumably worried for their political futures if they dare rock the hard brexit steamroller.

1
willworkforfoodjnr - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Hes not going to answer. But keep pushing, I'm enjoying this :D

1
thomasadixon - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> Was that when Johnson was Leave or Remain? Yes, it was an attempt to point out the difficulties of trade with the EU post Brexit, the problem was that the Remain team were sticking to the facts and pointing out the difficulty of free trade vs. the four freedoms whereas the Leave campaign was rubbishing it and sticking to the simplistic (and untruthful) have cake and eat it slogan.

Look at the video and you can see when it was, but *close* to the referendum he was leading the leave campaign, as you know.  The remain team were still deliberately(?) conflating access to the single market with membership.  The leave campaign said that we'd leave the EU, including the single market, and we'd be able to get a deal.  The remain campaign when pressed said we'd be forced to leave the single market and that this would be terrible.  The EU said if we vote to leave the EU we'd have to leave the single market, and that this would be terrible.  Either way we'd leave the single market.

> I didn't f*cking miss it, I wasn't misled but many were. The reason there isn't more leavers remorse is that those who were misled have not looked into it any more deeply since casting their vote than they did before. They won't have changed their minds as they will not have given its any thought and any attempts to change their minds is being countered by populist morons like Farage et al who, in the interest of balance, are still being given the same prominence as ever despite pretty much everything they said prior to the vote  turning out to be untrue. 

I was responding to a claim that the situation was completely confused, and as far as I can see the only evidence provided for this is a comment in a 2015 interview.  As said, that's against the statements of people with authority in the run up to the vote.  Otherwise all you're saying is that other people, people that disagree with you, are stupid/ignorant (not you of course).

4
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Of course I can imagine it,

You have seemed to imply you could not, and said it was not practical.

> I just don't see any point in going through the painful process of getting to one of the many possible end states.

You saw a point in going through the painful process of starting a new life in the UK.

> Congratulations on a long running career. Is pointing out our age difference supposed to be some sort of appeal to expertise intended to discredit my opinion?

No.  It was evidence that I knew not being in the EU was practical.

> That's a possibility but what if you're wrong? How much pain are you willing to risk taking and inflicting to get out of the EU, what price are you willing to pay?

Leaving the EU is not a risk, it is a choice. We might be worse off in 20 years, or we might be better off. Moving to the UK had an initial cost to you.  But you thought it would be better long term.

Post edited at 13:34
8
MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

 

> Leaving the EU is not a risk...We might be worse off in 20 years

My cognitive dissonance meter just exploded.

 

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to MG:

Getting a bit desperate are we ?

2
Andy Hardy on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Leaving the EU is not a risk,

 

Please do let us know how this is the case. Because as a bald statement it simply feeds the notion that all leavers are either insulated from the real world by massive personal wealth, or as thick as mince.

 

1
GrahamD - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Just leaving is practical. We just joined.  Not so long ago really.

We didn't 'just join'.  We helped in a very big way to create the EU because it was advantageous of us to do so.

You are correct in that the world won't end when we extricate ourselves from the many institutions we helped to create, it will just be a generally meaner, more nationalistic and shittier place than it needed to be.

2
Dave Garnett - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Just leaving is practical. We just joined.  Not so long ago really.  I remember life before we joined the EU. Perhaps you can't imagine it ?  I have been competing at Cross Country longer than we have been in the EU.

I can just about remember it, but make no mistake, it really is a long time ago.  The world has fundamentally changed, not least because of what we did then.

Just as planting trees will no longer lock up carbon long-term as it would have in the Carboniferous Era (remember that?), leaving the EU will not recreate a Golden Age of post-imperial Commonwealth trade.  There are only three big trading blocs and we are about to leave one of them to go it alone.

Or worse, join one of the other.  

1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

"That's a possibility but what if you're wrong? How much pain are you willing to risk taking and inflicting to get out of the EU, what price are you willing to pay?"

 

David Riley could say exactly the same to you about remaining in the EU. Clearly many people "liked" being in the EU and are annoyed that we are leaving, but the predictions of how this will play out are just guesses right now by everyone...including what would have happened had we remained in the EU. 

1
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> You have seemed to imply you could not, and said it was not practical.

There is no practical implementation which delivers all or even a significant fraction of the smorgasbord of contradictory promises made by Leave. Obviously there are implementations which will disappoint leave and remain voters alike, some economically reckless in the extreme, some conservative but profoundly pointless.

> You saw a point in going through the painful process of starting a new life in the UK.

Indeed. I moved somewhere with more opportunity, not less. I moved somewhere more socially progressive, not less. If I have to I'll do so again and I won't be alone. I hope you like what you're left with.

> No.  It was evidence that I knew not being in the EU was practical.

Practical but only barely 40 years ago, Britain was a basket case. Times have changed a lot and we've invested enormously in the world we're leaving. 

> Leaving the EU is not a risk, it is a choice. We might be worse off in 20 years, or we might be better off. 

Christ on a bike. Read that back to yourself, slowly with a dictionary if necessary. Focus on the definition of risk.

> Moving to the UK had an initial cost to you.  But you thought it would be better long term.

Not really, I thought it worthwhile at the time and importantly I did't burn valuable bridges or risk great harm when I tested my idea.

I see you still refuse to answer my question. How much risk are you willing to take to leave the EU? Would out but homeless be worthwhile? Bit extreme, how about out but 20% poorer in real terms? What is your 'freedom' worth?

jk

 

Post edited at 14:12
1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

"Leaving the EU is not a risk, it is a choice. We might be worse off in 20 years, or we might be better off."

If it cannot be determined that we will certainly be better off long term in the EU. Then the risk of staying in is the same as the risk leaving.  It 's just a choice.

6
Dave Garnett - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> If it cannot be determined that we will certainly be better off long term in the EU. Then the risk of staying in is the same as the risk leaving.  It 's just a choice.

It can't be determined with certainty that you'd be happier living here than in North Korea, therefore the risk of staying here is the same as emigrating there.  It's just a choice.

MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> If it cannot be determined that we will certainly be better off long term in the EU. Then the risk of staying in is the same as the risk leaving.  It 's just a choice.

I assume you would casually get divorced, or resign from your job, or jump off a boat mid-atlantic on the same basis?

1
neilh - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Try telling that to the person who wants a job who cannot get one because I keep having to postpone my investment/ employment decisions.

Quite honestly it's heartbreaking.

1
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> David Riley could say exactly the same to you about remaining in the EU. Clearly many people "liked" being in the EU and are annoyed that we are leaving, but the predictions of how this will play out are just guesses right now by everyone...including what would have happened had we remained in the EU. 

Of course he could but there are lots of things I don't have to guess about had we chosen remain.  To pick just one: I wouldn't be guessing about the costs, burdens and limitations of operating a parallel set of standards, when those standards might meaningfully diverge, to what degree and the implications of that for our relationship with our customers and suppliers. We presently know *nothing* about where we're going and we have no say in it.

Obviously the future is unknowable but if you're forced to make a radical and as yet unspecified change to your environment the predictions you use to plan your future based on your experience of the past and present become much harder to make, the frequency and severity of the errors you make in those predictions increases which can have extremely serious consequences. Ok, that might be an acceptable risk if there were some meaningful reward likely to be delivered by that change but there just isn't in this instance.

jk

Post edited at 14:48
1
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> If it cannot be determined that we will certainly be better off long term in the EU. Then the risk of staying in is the same as the risk leaving.  It 's just a choice.

That's like saying with a loaded gun to your foot the risk associated with pulling the trigger is the same as that associated with not pulling it because you don't know there's a round in the chamber, it's just a choice and you might be better off with a crippling limp.

jk

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> There is no practical implementation which delivers all or even a significant fraction of the smorgasbord of contradictory promises made by Leave. 

The vote was just to leave. There were no promises or options on the ballot paper.

> Practical but only barely 40 years ago, Britain was a basket case. 

Really ? So what country did you come from ?  I would guess Poland ?  How did your country compare to Britain at that time ?  Was it more prosperous ?

> I see you still refuse to answer my question. How much risk are you willing to take to leave the EU?

How can I answer when it is my view that leaving is to avoid risk ?

7
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Garnett:

You are tricking yourself. Because you are so sold on the idea the EU is a good thing. You have created an analogy where the same certainty exists. Well it's obviously mad to emigrate to NK right ?  Emigrating to Spain would just be a choice. All you have done is repeat your personal view that it's not a good idea to leave the EU.

3
MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> How can I answer when it is my view that leaving is to avoid risk ?

By addressing the point.  How much would you be prepared to lose in order to leave?  The risks of staying are irrelevant to that.

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to MG:

> I assume you would casually get divorced, or resign from your job, or jump off a boat mid-atlantic on the same basis?

Who said casually ? Not being prepared to resign from your job is foolish.  My partner got divorced, and my aunt jumped off her boat mid-atlantic, it saved her life.

Post edited at 14:59
Dave Garnett - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> You are tricking yourself. Because you are so sold on the idea the EU is a good thing.

I'm not tricking myself. I work in both the EU and US.  I have people reporting to me from Germany, Lithuania and US.  I have a European qualification, I spend time in institutions in Munich, the Hague and Brussels.  If you mean that I'm in a good position to get a real feel for standards of scientific, legal and business practice, not to mention general levels of civilisation, yes, I see a lot that we should be part of in the EU if we want to remain a voice worth listening to in the world. 

 

Post edited at 15:02
1
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> The vote was just to leave. There were no promises or options on the ballot paper.

I remember. Makes it a very poor basis for driving the current policy given the huge range of options people were offered under the 'leave' banner vs the one they had under 'remain'.

A question: what if 'leave' turns out nothing like what you wanted, let's say we end up a significant budget contributor and highly integrated a rule taker like Norway with a few token 'freedoms' around immigration or fishing (pick one you don't much care about). Will you still be pleased to have supported Leave or would you consider it better to be in basically the same position but with representation?

> Really ? So what country did you come from ?  I would guess Poland ?  How did your country compare to Britain at that time ?  Was it more prosperous ?

I didn't come far, I'm from the Isle of Man. It does ok economically but moving offered more opportunity personally and a change from a somewhat insular mono-culture.

> How can I answer when it is my view that leaving is to avoid risk ?

You could just answer the question or you could weigh the risks as you see them against each other for us rather than totally ignoring one set.

jk

Post edited at 15:04
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> If it cannot be determined that we will certainly be better off long term in the EU. Then the risk of staying in is the same as the risk leaving.  It 's just a choice.

Are you really claiming that if one can't be certain that a > b then a = b?   

That's Boris Johnson or Betsy DeVos level mathematics.

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to MG:

Alright then, you try it. How much would you be prepared to lose to stay in the EU ?

2
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Garnett:

You have confirmed what I said.

"All you have done is repeat your personal view that it's not a good idea to leave the EU."

MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Alright then, you try it. How much would you be prepared to lose to stay in the EU ?

Very happy to answer but let's hear you first -you've been squirming long enough.

2
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Are you related to Peter Karran?

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to MG:

I can't answer it. You say you can but you're not going to.

jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Not so far as I'm aware.

1
Andy Hardy on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> "Leaving the EU is not a risk, it is a choice. We might be worse off in 20 years, or we might be better off."

> If it cannot be determined that we will certainly be better off long term in the EU. Then the risk of staying in is the same as the risk leaving.  It 's just a choice.

By that sort of logic, the probability of me getting a lottery win is 50%. Do you seriously think that there won't be short / medium and long term damage to our economy if we leave the EU?

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> A question: what if 'leave' turns out nothing like what you wanted, let's say we end up a significant budget contributor and highly integrated a rule taker like Norway with a few token 'freedoms' around immigration or fishing (pick one you don't much care about). Will you still be pleased to have supported Leave or would you consider it better to be in basically the same position but with representation?

So you don't ask if I would regret voting leave if the UK is destroyed by it.  But you do ask if I would regret if all that happens is loss of control over the EU ? I have no interest in control over the EU, why would I ? I just want to leave it and have no deal rather than a bad deal.

> I didn't come far, I'm from the Isle of Man. It does ok economically but moving offered more opportunity personally and a change from a somewhat insular mono-culture.

Interesting. So you have always been a British citizen, but only recently an EU citizen ? Are you an EU citizen ?

> You could just answer the question or you could weigh the risks as you see them against each other for us rather than totally ignoring one set.

Gosh, I don't think I can cope with producing a complete appraisal of my view of the EU.  It would be too long.

 

4
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I don't think there will be long term damage to our economy if we leave the EU.

9
neilh - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Out of interest do you in your day to day dealings have any connections with whats going on economically in the rest of the world. Do you for example deal with say the Japanese and speak to them about what their views are and potential future overseas investments?

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

That's a bit random. I design, manufacture and sell electronic instruments, most recently to Germany, Belarus, and the Netherlands. I'm more interested in buying from China than the EU.

Andy Hardy on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I don't think there will be long term damage to our economy if we leave the EU.


That's not the same as "I know our economy will be better if we leave". It's not even the same as "I know we won't be any worse off if we leave".

To move from generalities to specifics, given the remarks from the Japanese ambassador last week, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/feb/08/ministers-condemned-for-leaving-city-in-chronic-state-of-uncertainty-over-brexit-politics-live and the news report from Honda in Swindon http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk /news/15985959.Honda_will_leave_the_UK_if_Government_fails_to_secure_access_to_EU_market/  it's clear that leaving the EU - which leavers are now saying must include leaving the single market and customs union - will result in the eventual relocation of Honda to a.n.other EU nation, where it's supply chains won't be delayed by border checks etc.

How on earth is this not damage to the economy? And for what? blue passports? In 20 years time we will still be trying to catch up.

1
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> So you don't ask if I would regret voting leave if the UK is destroyed by it.

Because you wouldn't have done so had you believed it were a significant possibility therefore we'd get nowhere exploring this.

> But you do ask if I would regret if all that happens is loss of control over the EU ? I have no interest in control over the EU, why would I ? I just want to leave it and have no deal rather than a bad deal.

My question is what if we remain largely within the EU's control, rule takers on most matters in exchange for economic access as a result of your vote? I ask because it's a very real possibility should the moderate Conservative majority win the fight for their party and it's an outcome which is easily covered the binary 'Leave' you picked. I'm curious, you use the simplistic 'leave means leave' argument to justify anything and everything that is happening while that's something you think worthwhile but what if the tables turn?

> Interesting. So you have always been a British citizen, but only recently an EU citizen ? Are you an EU citizen ?

British with British Islands passport and EU privileges by virtue of one parent's bloodline not my place of birth. Could be simpler!

> Gosh, I don't think I can cope with producing a complete appraisal of my view of the EU.  It would be too long.

Summarise?

jk

Post edited at 16:32
1
MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I can't answer it.

If you can't give a sensible answer about what you are willing to sacrifice to leave the EU?  You must have some idea.  If it involved losing your income and house, would that be OK?

> You say you can but you're not going to.

As above, of course I can.  Two examples: I'd be quite happy to lose the pound and join the Euro, and black passports.

 

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

So do you keep EU privileges whatever ?

David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

If we remain largely within the EU's control there might not be civil war, but there will be long term chaos.

8
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to MG:

> As above, of course I can.  Two examples: I'd be quite happy to lose the pound and join the Euro, and black passports.

So you're not bothered really ?

2
MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

So what would you be prepared to lose to leave?

 

1
neilh - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Then you will only be to aware of the value of Japanese investment in the UK and the jobs they create. You should also be well aware of their requirement to access European markets.

So do you think the Japanese value UK's Brexit decision.and how do you think a Japanese investor will weigh up say a capital investment in the UK bringing jobs here. Or do you think they are going to invest in say Germany or Netherlands.These are long term decisions.

Which from their perspective at the moment is a better decision than the other?

1
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

I'm sure the EU would jump at the chance of finance from Japan joining. But Japan would probably not want the cost or disadvantages.

2
David Riley - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to MG:

> So what would you be prepared to lose to leave?

I would probably be prepared to lose a month, standing outside the House of Commons in protest against subverting the will of the people if we don't leave.  If I thought it would make a difference.

6
jkarran - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Civil war? Civil war if people decide to change their minds on something they were barely decided upon to begin with something which many of them didn't really understand? And they call us snowflakes! Anyway the question was how you would feel about your choice in that out but not really scenario, not whether we'll be at war with each other (we won't).

There'll be years of chaos and depressed growth either way now, that's a price we'll just have to pay for Cameron's hubris and his years of scapegoating immigrants before that.

You asked what I'd give to remain. It's not a question that makes much sense in the context of the referendum since there was no additional economic risk associated with 'remain' but I was willing to give my time and a small amount of money to the Stronger In campaign which is how I know a lot of people didn't have the first idea what they were voting on, because I spent quite a lot of time talking to them which was a bit of a sacrifice, I'm not a gregarious animal.

I see you're still refusing to acknowledge there is any economic risk associated with leaving, just that you might have to protest a bit or maybe you wouldn't bother.

Now of course there will be political price to pay if we're to revoke A50, it won't be too severe as the EU would much rather we stay and they know any British politician steering a course to remain couldn't be seen to be giving much ground. If say that price was our rebate then I'd deem that acceptable. At home I suspect in exchange we'll get to impose some petty restrictions on EU citizens which will be counterproductive but again I could probably live with that for as long as it was necessary. Add of course more campaign time on my part which I hate but would give.

FYI I leave the EU when you do, I'm as caught up in this mess as everyone else.

jk

Post edited at 19:06
1
MG - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I would probably be prepared to lose a month, standing outside the House of Commons in protest against subverting the will of the people if we don't leave.  If I thought it would make a difference.

Well if that’s your limit, you should be supporting remaining.

1
Stone Idle - on 21 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Er, goodbye then

10
jkarran - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Er, goodbye then

You're a long way from leaving yet, I'd suggest you shelve the gloating until the ink has dried then get it in quick before cold hard reality sets in and the recriminations start. Alternatively you could act with some dignity.

jk

Ian W - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I'm sure the EU would jump at the chance of finance from Japan joining. But Japan would probably not want the cost or disadvantages.

They have said they are not prepared to accept the cost and disadvantages of being outside the customs union etc. The whole reason for building factories in Europe is access to the European market. Honda have basically said they are going, Nissan have lightly threatened it for years, and have spare capacity in various European factories.......

tripehound - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Surely that's the whole point - that a majority seem to be showing no courage of their conviction, presumably worried for their political futures if they dare rock the hard brexit steamroller.

Exactly.

jkarran - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I'm sure the EU would jump at the chance of finance from Japan joining. But Japan would probably not want the cost or disadvantages.

Did you misunderstand the question?

jk

tripehound - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

LeavinLeaving the EU is not a risk...We might be worse off in 20 yearsg the EU is not a risk...We might be worse off in 20 years

Leaving is not a risk, you must be joking, it's akin to economic suicide.

 

David Riley - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to tripehound:

Of course it is not economic suicide. I think you will find we are still on a level with France in 20 years.

I did not mean leaving was not a risk, just that remaining was also a risk, so it becomes a choice based on your perception of the risks. We do have austerity after years of the EU.

5
neilh - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Clearly not......

Andy Hardy on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Of course it is not economic suicide. I think you will find we are still on a level with France in 20 years.

What are you basing this assertion on?

> I did not mean leaving was not a risk, just that remaining was also a risk, so it becomes a choice based on your perception of the risks. We do have austerity after years of the EU.

And why do you think the risk is lower if we leave? (and, just for clarity, austerity, like brexit is an entirely Tory idea, it has nothing to do with EU)

David Riley - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

So you make a point to back up your beliefs, not related to any I made, and then appear miffed because I don't reply. Except to point out Japan would understand our leaving the EU since they would not want to join.  However, Japanese investors, taxed in Japan, on profit from UK workers, are not the most important factors in national decisions.

Ian W - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Of course it is not economic suicide. I think you will find we are still on a level with France in 20 years.

> I did not mean leaving was not a risk, just that remaining was also a risk, so it becomes a choice based on your perception of the risks. We do have austerity after years of the EU.

The austerity is not caused by the EU; the current austerity is a policy of the current government. There are alternative policies; but this is the one they chose to pursue (and won a general election on).

David Riley - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> What are you basing this assertion on?

I am basing it on my opinion. You, no doubt, do not agree, based on your opinion.

My opinion is supported by the fact that countries outside the EU do not consider themselves to be in the process of committing suicide.

> And why do you think the risk is lower if we leave? (and, just for clarity, austerity, like brexit is an entirely Tory idea, it has nothing to do with EU)

I am not referring to tory policy, but the difficulties we are having maintaining the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. We are apparently not doing well enough as EU members.

We have a long history of being successful outside the EU.  It works.

 

6
Andy Hardy on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I am basing it on my opinion. You, no doubt, do not agree, based on your opinion.

I don't agree, but that is based on my looking at the facts, our deep integration into europe, the massive upheaval that will be caused by leaving at the end of which, having lost ground versus the EU and the rest of the world, we might, eventually get back to where we are now. Tha game is just not worth the candle.

> My opinion is supported by the fact that countries outside the EU do not consider themselves to be in the process of committing suicide.

No country has left the world's richest trading bloc voluntarily before, it's unprecedented not to mention mind bendingly stupid.

> I am not referring to tory policy, but the difficulties we are having maintaining the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. We are apparently not doing well enough as EU members.

This makes no sense at all.

> We have a long history of being successful outside the EU.  It works.

Oh FFS a stirring call to jingoism! 2 world wars, 1 world cup! half the map was coloured pink! our passports were blue! well the world has moved on, and it's high time we did the same.

1
jkarran - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

I don't really believe you're not understanding this but just in case... Let's take a step a year into the future, let's say we leave the EU and the single market as you desire and that as the EU has stated we don't get to cherry pick the bits of market access we desire, we stick to our guns as do they so its WTO rules all round. Let's also suppose we can actually make that transition work which is far from a given. I know, I know, just try to suspend your disbelief....

Toyota who are a big employer in your neck of the woods and top of vast a pyramid of parts suppliers under them decide not to relocate immediately but as UK built cars now have tariffs imposed when moved to the SM, production export and and compliance has got harder they decide their next Euro model will be made back inside the SM. Now lets step forward another couple of years. All that while production has slowed at Honda hit by cost rises, supply delays and export tariffs, the parts suppliers are struggling as their tariff hit exports can't compete with SM based competitors and their import supply lines have got longer and costlier, delays at borders damage reputations and profit in what is a 'just in time' industry. Additionally they find EU based vehicle manufacturers are unable to buy from them, needing to ensure products are majority EU built and sourced to comply with restrictions imposed by pre-existing EU-third party trade deals.

Faced with production difficulties and reduced profits Toyota finally decide to close one of their Derby lines rather than renew it when the model is retired. A couple of thousand workers are laid off witht he associated consequences. All new Toyota investment now goes to plants in the SM, which UK component suppliers still struggle to sell into. Along side this Toyota funding of university research partnerships in the UK is wound up, their graduates can't easily access visas work in their new plants are and there's little point in continuing the relationships.

With a big chunk of the component supplier's domestic market gone and barriers at the channel still plaguing their export business they start to go to the wall making car production in the UK even more costly, risky and difficult not just for Toyota but for domestic brands like JL. Reluctantly as their existing models are retired the domestic brands begin investing in SM based plants to access the EU's still healthy consumer market as the UK car market slows under pressure from currency devaluation and lost confidence.

Yeah, that's extreme and it'll probably play out over a decade or more but it's a possible vision for the decline of the automotive and associated engineering economy in your area.

I focus on cars because they're familiar, tangible and local to you. Of course the biggest hit to the economy will likely be finance.

Note this has nothing to do with Japan joining (or not) the EU! Also note most of this is avoidable but we're not on the course required to avoid it while the wreckers are at the helm.

jk

Post edited at 15:19
jkarran - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I am not referring to tory policy, but the difficulties we are having maintaining the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. We are apparently not doing well enough as EU members.

Well we were the fastest growing G7 country before June 2016, care to hazard a guess 18 months later where we are? Likewise care to hazard a guess what has happened to direct foreign investment in that time?

> We have a long history of being successful outside the EU.  It works.

Being outside of and leaving the EU are very different things.

jk

David Riley - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Yes I understand all that and don't disagree.

1
neilh - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

To me your original reply to my question just demonstrated you do not really understand the issues.

I was disappointed by your response as basically it showed that you do not understand the seriousness of the debate and the ramifications particularly for jobs in the UK.

I will wish you luck for the future and leave it at that.

 

 

jkarran - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Yes I understand all that and don't disagree.

So that's your idea of 'no risk', a worthwhile sacrifice for 'being out of the EU'?

I'm out, there's no point debating this with you.

jk

Post edited at 15:24
David Riley - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> based on my looking at the facts,

That means - based on your opinion.

5
Andy Hardy on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Hello, did you read any of the stuff I posted up thread? Everything I have read about brexit just highlights how difficult the process will be, for little or no gain. To compound the problem we have given the job to biggest shower of tossers imaginable, who are making the worst fist of it possible.

Please feel free to post your sources for optimism, god knows I could do with cheering up, and I genuinely hope that I'm wrong and your're right; it's just that you have been unable to find or give any sources for your belief, whereas there's plenty to suggest we are being dragged off a cliff because of people like you thinking "something's bound to turn up, we'll be OK". Simply saying we used to do OK before the EU so we can just go back to how it was, is so far from the point it's in orbit around another planet. You clearly don't understand what's troubling remainers like me and I doubt you'll make the effort to find out.

Happy landings.

 

David Riley - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I have pointed out that it's just opinion whether we will be better or worse off long term.  Economics was generally not the reason people voted Leave.

There is no way to predict the long term result.  But it is a fact that the UK was successful outside the EU. So to claim it cannot be is proved false.

Post edited at 16:55
9
Carless - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Just wondering if the phrase "sick man of Europe" means anything to you?

As to your post at 14:21 - well, words fail me

Andy Hardy on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Economics may not be the reason for voting leave, but the effect of leaving on the economy cannot be ignored. All the guff about sovereignty and taking control will be forgotten if the economy tanks.

john arran - on 22 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

By your reasoning, Britain could have an economy bigger than that of the US. It used to have, not so very long ago, and it's just a matter of opinion as to whether it could have again.

If you choose to wilfully ignore current realities, I'm sure you're more than able to convince yourself that your wishful-thinking version of reality has any basis in reason. To outside observers, it appears very different indeed.

wercat on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

I really look forward to when we Centauri can reach out globally again and import the highest quality counterfeit components and freshest seafood

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43142538

 

instead of being part of our regional community.

EXCELLENT!

Post edited at 12:14
Tyler - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to Stone Idle:

> Why not get behind this and help make it work?

Since your post above I've really got behind Brexit but I notice the govt recently had a policy meeting about it in Chequers without me. I've also sent a letter to the CEOs of Toyota and Honda imploring them not to move any of their manufacturing out of the UK, as well as one to Angela Merkel telling her to give us a frictionless trade deal. All have, so far, ignored me. I'm beginning to wonder whether the oft repeated mantra of "get behind Brexit" is nothing but an empty platitude at best and possibly an attempt to shift blame for the on coming f*ck up to the Remainers. Tell me it ain't so?

Post edited at 12:37
wercat on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to Tyler:

Don't you think the real fact is that rather than just acquiescing we should be getting more and more militant the closer we get to this stupid mess coming true?

I suppose I should have just "got behind" my employer years ago when they closed the final salary scheme after I'd worked for  nearly10 years for them on the promise of being admitted after 10 years service.   Far from "getting over it" I am now more upset than ever as I have to suffer the consequences now!

Brexiteers had better brace themselves for far more anger when it all comes true and thay have got what they want and their shite hits the UK fan

 

Let's make the times interesting for those who are found to be responsible

Post edited at 12:35
jkarran - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> There is no way to predict the long term result.  But it is a fact that the UK was successful outside the EU. So to claim it cannot be is proved false.

Do you mean the British Empire was successful outside the EU?

Before the empire our metrics for national 'success' were so far removed from modern reality as to be meaningless unless we start counting how many times a century we can lay waste to France, marry off a princess to Bohemia, sink the Spanish fleet or court the current Pope again. Between empire and EU you might well have been young, the birdsong louder the sun surely shone brighter except of course for those glorious winters with 10ft of snow to play in but to be objective for a moment despite the end of food rationing and the beginning of the consumer goods revolution we weren't exactly thriving.

Ok, so the next phase will surely be different again, I know that. We're hopefully not going to return to feudalism, regional warring, plague and rickets . Or for that matter to industrialised pillage of the world's riches just slightly faster than our neighbours could manage with our navy riding high on British coal and our jump started heavy industry. And of course we're not planning a return to our post war status as Europe's basket case, fattened on past glory but in seemingly terminal economic decline never having been forced to refresh and renew our industrial processes or worker relations as others had in the inter and post war years.

So what's the next phase going to be David? Outside the EU, great, rule Britannia, but it's not a goal in and of itself, it's a step on a path to somewhere. Where? And when will it start paying down the price of the journey?

Sell me something positive and credible. Please.

jk

Post edited at 13:16
1
David Riley - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Nothing to do with the British Empire  It's really not so long ago we joined the EU.  I voted in the referendum, I talked with Edward Heath, the man largely responsible.  Admittedly it was long enough ago that I had forgotten the referendum was a fudge, as we had already joined by then. But I was not really interested at the time. It sounded like a good idea, so I voted Remain.

The economy was not seen as doing well (is it ever ?). But I expect we were broadly similar to the present in comparison with EU countries and see no reason to assume we will not continue to be similar after an initial adjustment period. Of course you could say the EU has been of great benefit to us and we are much better off than had we not joined. But to me that does not hold water, since the rest of the world has, in the main, performed better than EU members (India, China, Australia, S. Korea). 

Yes, I'm an optimistic person just giving an opinion. Continuous abuse has led to most positive people not bothering to post.

7
jkarran - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Nothing to do with the British Empire  It's really not so long ago we joined the EU.

No it wasn't but it was also right about the time last big bits of empire took their freedom. A very different world.

> The economy was not seen as doing well (is it ever ?).

Yes.

> But I expect we were broadly similar to the present in comparison with EU countries and see no reason to assume we will not continue to be similar after an initial adjustment period.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141012115344-1088431-a-new-age-of-imf-bailouts-great-britain-in-the-1970s

Really, are you kidding yourself or trying to kid me?

> Of course you could say the EU has been of great benefit to us and we are much better off than had we not joined. But to me that does not hold water, since the rest of the world has, in the main, performed better than EU members (India, China, Australia, S. Korea). 

Could and would.

India: Still wracked by poverty inequality and violence at a scale totally unimaginable in the uk.

China: Still wracked by poverty but industrialising very fast from a very very low starting point, largely on the back of American and European consumerism. Poor rights, near zero political freedom.

Australia: Well done Australia and its huge mineral wealth. Still a good way to go on treatment of the indigenous population and refugees.

S. Korea: Very poor and quite corrupt until recently, perhaps. Has had American money and support hosed into it distorting the economy since the war as a bulwark against the communist north and its neighbours.

You're considering growth rates then looking at countries that have had their economies grow from near zero, often with quite a bit of support. Obviously they're growing faster than huge mature economies. Companies do the same, you want huge growth find one that's just started growing into a niche, you want stability and security find one that's mature and diverse.

> Yes, I'm an optimistic person just giving an opinion. Continuous abuse has led to most positive people not bothering to post.

I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint, I'm making every effort not to just dismiss you as deluded but you're not making it easy for me. "I'm an optimist, I think it will be fine" isn't good enough for me, if that's all you have then ok, that's why I can't understand you but I can't believe it is. You refused to even try to summarise what you weigh huge risks in leaving against to justify your choice.

jk

Post edited at 15:14
2
David Riley - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I don't have to "try to summarise what you weigh huge risks in leaving against to justify your choice" or else you will dismiss me as deluded.

I assume your view is that we joined the EU a very, very long time ago which has no relevance to the present. That the EU has completely changed the UK for the better. So we have a long way to fall to where we would have been.

Well I think otherwise, and I'm not interested in justifying my opinion. We will learn the truth in due course.

4
David Riley - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I see you accepted it was not long ago but was very different world.

Doug on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Well I think otherwise, and I'm not interested in justifying my opinion. We will learn the truth in due course.

Not interested, or can't ?

1
David Riley - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to Doug:

Not interested. (That is abuse isn't it ?)

5
jkarran - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I don't have to "try to summarise what you weigh huge risks in leaving against to justify your choice" or else you will dismiss me as deluded.

Of course you don't but I've asked you to to help me understand your viewpoint, I'm asking you to choose to try. You appear to have very strongly held views, very different to mine but you won't share the reasoning and knowledge underpinning them, without that they simply don't make sense. You want to win your freedom from the EU you're going to have to come through people like me who will oppose you every single step of the way until the last i is dotted, t crossed and the ink dry. Alternatively you could make the effort to convince me of the merit of your argument so I might consider stepping aside. I don't think you're daft but I genuinely cannot without your help understand where you're coming from and I'm offering you the opportunity to try make an ally of an enemy.

> I assume your view is that we joined the EU a very, very long time ago which has no relevance to the present. That the EU has completely changed the UK for the better. So we have a long way to fall to where we would have been.

Then you assume incorrectly. I don't think the EU changed Britain for the better, I think Britain changed and grew within the EU while benefiting enormously from its membership and shaping to a very large degree the regulatory and economic ecosystem in which it has thrived, that which we risk leaving behind to start over. I think the process of unpicking our connections will be long, expensive and exclusive, ultimately pointless and will leave us poorer and less secure with very little to show for the effort. New connections we develop elsewhere will not for many decades if ever fully replace the richness and closeness of those we've severed yet will still bind us in similar ways. I also feel we've escaped nothing you fear by quitting, we're still tied to Europe by proximity, any sickness it gets we will surely suffer too yet dislocated from it we will struggle to benefit from its growth as we have and of course we've relinquished our control which has been used to our advantage for decades.

> Well I think otherwise, and I'm not interested in justifying my opinion. We will learn the truth in due course.

Hopefully not. I'm sorry to be saying this but this has been another predictably disappointing interaction with a leaver who cannot or will not even try to paint a positive vision for the future grounded in reality rather than seemingly baseless hope and misty eyed allusions to a glorious past that never really was. Truth told I don't think it's just me that can't really make sense of your ideas.

jk

Post edited at 16:25
2
David Riley - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I consider you an ally not an enemy anyway. With anything that is so complex as to defy absolute prediction, there is a danger of taking a viewpoint and sticking to it , whatever.  But that is what we do all the time. Sometimes a decision has to be made. Then believing that choice was correct is often better than accepting you were wrong. For example, if you are chased by a cheetah and decide to run, then your only chance will be to believe in yourself and go for it, even though you made the wrong choice. We naturally make decisions and cling to them. We are both doing that. Giving great weight to the information supporting our view and less to conflicting information.

Eventually we have to control ourselves  Accept running away from a cheetah is generally going to fail. Control emotions, accept our fears and explore other possibilities.

However if you are right. Then you do indeed have a problem. Since I now have no motivation to revisit my judgement.  But opposing the decision made by an agreed method is never going to go well. This is how hatred, abuse, vendetta, violence, and war start. We don't learn from history because we say "it was a very different world then". 

So to avoid this I should do as you ask and generate some motivation to try to make the case until I give up and change sides. Except we are both right due to our different priorities. There is no single right answer.

Post edited at 18:16
13
wercat on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Have you considered that Remainers did not wish to put it to the vote - that was somewhat undemocratic.  More sophisticated European states realise that you should vote on whether a vote is needed - a democratic process.

 

Remainers either had to refuse to vote and hand a victory to the wreckers or had to vote under protest.  It was never an "agreed process".    I am on record here as expressing disbelief and horror at the process of the referendum, including the lack of hysteresis to eliminate noise at the time of the vote and make the resulting signal more certain.

Post edited at 19:10
2
David Riley - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

Except that a vote to have a referendum would have been Yes by a big margin. Since all Leavers would have voted for, some Remainers for, and most Remainers would not have bothered to vote.

2
Andy Hardy on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

To be fair it was the key pledge in the Tory manifesto, mainly aimed at getting the kippers back

1
wercat on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

A big Yes in the procedural vote would (if it had indeed been the result, which we will never know) have warned the voting population so we would all have chosen to vote or abstain in the substantive referendum with that knowledge, rather than just assuming Remain would win.  The whole tone of the debate and campaign would have been different, perhaps more serious with everyone actually knowing what was at stake.

The terrible neglect to do this and also not to have proper protection for the status quo to filter noise (after all we are being hurled into this No Market, No customs Union, Red white and blue blunder based on a very close vote of only a portion of the electorate, a lot of whom are already dead) in the form of a threshold quorum and majority requirement for constitutional change has hazarded our ship, a court martial offence for a sailor and for which someone should be made to pay.

The party government responsible for this constitution-wreck through negligence are the ones who are choosing the hard option.  How is that not a betrayal of our system by a government entrusted to act in the national interest, not party interest or in furtherance of the manipulated Volkswille.

Post edited at 22:04
wercat on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

true it was in the manifesto but that is not a mandate as the election campaign was fought on party lines and a party campaigning on party lines has to choose whether it was Brexit or the party line that made people vote.   If the manifesto had included a procedural vote to determine the requirement for a Referendum that would have been better.

The Brexiteers simply have no conception of the anger many of us feel about the subversion of our country, the removal of our European citizenship, the national disgrace which sees the people of Europe shaking their heads at our madness but still trying to pick up the pieces etc etc.

 

Meanwhile we are do full of this shit we can validly be criticised by victims of bombing in Syria and elsewhere for squandering all of our efforts on a monumentally stupid course of action

1
David Riley - on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

>  majority requirement for constitutional change has hazarded our ship, a court martial offence for a sailor and for which someone should be made to pay.

I only found out today that we joined the EU without any referendum at all, illegally by a Tory government, against the UK constitution. There was only a referendum thanks to the following Labour administration.

6
Rob Exile Ward on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Yeah it was a bit crap. Open borders, free trade, overseas aid, cooperation, human rights, environmental protection - bastards.

1
elsewhere on 23 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I only found out today that we joined the EU without any referendum at all, illegally by a Tory government, against the UK constitution. There was only a referendum thanks to the following Labour administration.

Illegally? Parliament has the power to make any law except any law that bound its successor. How can a previous parliament have made joining the EU illegal?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Post edited at 23:09
David Riley - on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

I read it was considered parliament did not have the power to give away any sovereign powers (more serious than taking them back) without first consulting the people, which they did not. I don't know if that's true.

Post edited at 00:35
2
andyfallsoff - on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

I've studied constitutional law and based on that would argue it isn't true, no.

David Riley - on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

I'll assume you are right.

Rob Exile Ward on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

'I read it was considered parliament did not have the power to give away any sovereign powers'

 

Would that be in that noted tome, 'The N Farage Guide to the British Constitution.'? Total guff. 

3
David Riley - on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm not sure what your point is. But you would think that if the population bestows power to parliament, that they would have to consult the electorate  before giving away those powers to say Donald Trump ?  Apparently not.

1
john arran - on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

When did the population bestow power to parliament?

1
Timmd on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> We do have austerity after years of the EU.

What?

Austerity is nothing to do with the EU. Was austerity part of why you voted Leave?

Post edited at 13:25
wercat on 24 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

Yes, that may be true but our attempts under several governments to join the Common Market were "in cleartext" out in the open and never out of the news in the 60s  -the popular feeling was against Monsieur Le President qui dit "NON!"  to Britain so many times.  It took us a long time to be admitted and I do not recall huge opposition at the time (my first vote at 18 was to Remain).  

RomTheBear on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> But opposing the decision made by an agreed method is never going to go well. This is how hatred, abuse, vendetta, violence, and war start. We don't learn from history because we say "it was a very different world then". 

Personally I’ve never agreed with the method. The method was completely unfair. 3 millions EU citizens did not get to vote. The result would have been undeniably very different if they had been given the right to vote.

There has to be a rule, of course, but if the rule is grossly unfair then the result has no value whatsoever. There simply isn’t a majority for leaving the EU in this country.

Post edited at 10:27
3
wercat on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

when looking at our "method" the terms "railroading" and "shotgun" as in "shotgun wedding" come to mind

neilh - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Upto a point you are right. But like a lot of us we know Europeans who have lived her for years and chosen not to apply for uk citizenship. So you can equally argue that they have made the decision themselves not to be allowed to vote ( in other elections as well).

so it is a weak argument. Although I am sure you will disagree with me!

2
Makemake002 - on 25 Feb 2018

sometimes you need to grow a pair and run your own goddamn country for a change, the positive outcome of Brexit is Brits growing up like a real man, taking the driver seat from his dad.

12
wercat on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to Makemake002:

Who's the Daddy now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-43181608

Post edited at 11:30
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to Makemake002:

> sometimes you need to grow a pair and run your own goddamn country for a change, the positive outcome of Brexit is Brits growing up like a real man, taking the driver seat from his dad.

So basically the idea of Brexit is to piss away huge amounts of money because we are worried about our gender identity?

Post edited at 11:43
2
RomTheBear on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

> Upto a point you are right. But like a lot of us we know Europeans who have lived her for years and chosen not to apply for uk citizenship. So you can equally argue that they have made the decision themselves not to be allowed to vote ( in other elections as well).

> so it is a weak argument. Although I am sure you will disagree with me!

Indeed, and I would argue that it is your argument that is pretty damn weak for two main reasons:

- The rules are not the same for everybody and are grossly unfair. Someone from India who had been in the country for 6 months could vote, but someone from Spain who had lived in the country for 4 years couldn't vote (and couldn't apply for citizenship either anyway). 

- Even if you say, "they could always apply for citizenship if they wanted", this argument is easily demolished by the fact that many simply have not been in the country long enough to apply, and in any case, there was just not enough time to apply between the time the referendum was announced and the time it took place to secure citizenship.

That is not a fair democratic system any way you look at it, we exclude some foreigners on the basis of UK citizenship but not some others, there is a big problem. You can just brush the issue under the carpet in normal times, but in such a vote where the life of so many of those unfairly excluded is being impacted so drastically, you just can't.

 

Post edited at 13:19
1
Duncan Bourne - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to Makemake002:

I think you just described everything that is wrong about Brexit.

By your analogy Brexit is a teenager moaning about doing the washing up and stomping off to his room rather than finding a way to work with the rest of the family

1
neilh - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

The person from India now being a uk citizen was allowed to vote, quite correctly. Equally in your system somebody from the Eu who was here say for 3 or 6 months on a temporary job would have been allowed to vote.

2
RomTheBear on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

> The person from India now being a uk citizen was allowed to vote, quite correctly.

No, in my example, that person from India obviously did not have British citizenship. Any Commonwealth citizen residing in the UK could vote in the EU referendum, they did not need have British citizenship. 

Are you even aware of what the eligibility rules are in a UK GE or referendum ?

It's just bizarre, even within Europeans there was discrimination, someone from Cyprus, ROI, or Malta who had been in the country for 6 months could vote, but someone from France who had been here for 4 years couldn't. It's messed up.

Frankly I cannot see how this could be qualified as anything other than grossly unfair and undemocratic.

> Equally in your system somebody from the Eu who was here say for 3 or 6 months on a temporary job would have been allowed to vote.

Which would have been fairer, as they would now have been on an equal footing with Commonwealth and Irish citizens.

Post edited at 13:51
1
EarlyBird - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to neilh:

Of course before the referendum it was entirely reasonable for long term residents from the EU not to apply for citizenship as their EU status gave them the right of residence (with certain caveats). I don't think they should have been disenfranchised in a referendum that had the potential to have a disproportionate impact on their lives. Equally and for the same reasons I don't think those long term British residents in other EU countries should have been disenfranchised. It was an ill thought through process casually tossed off by the worst prime minister in UK history who didn't expect to lose.

1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to EarlyBird:

> It was an ill thought through process casually tossed off by the worst prime minister in UK history who didn't expect to lose.

Ill-thought-through implies it happened by accident.  It wasn't an accident it was manipulated by the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party because they had sufficient power over Cameron to get their way.   They Brexiters knew they had no chance of winning if EU citizens got to vote and they had an increased chance of winning if Commonwealth citizens got to vote and they fixed it.  The same as they fixed it so there didn't have to be a defined position on what Brexit would mean and they could make different and incompatible promises to different demographics.

In recent years the only people in this country with any effective representation in the Westminster system are Tory party members who can influence Tory party leadership elections.   Every political decision is based on the balance of power inside the Tory party not the views of the country as a whole.

 

1
EarlyBird - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You might be right  

wercat on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

 

> It's just bizarre, even within Europeans there was discrimination, someone from Cyprus, ROI, or Malta who had been in the country for 6 months could vote, but someone from France who had been here for 4 years couldn't.

 

Or someone from Germany here 18 years with UK national children and married to a British citizen.

I'm sure we could bet on the Indian voting in favour of the EU

 

1
RomTheBear on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to wercat:

> > It's just bizarre, even within Europeans there was discrimination, someone from Cyprus, ROI, or Malta who had been in the country for 6 months could vote, but someone from France who had been here for 4 years couldn't.

> Or someone from Germany here 18 years with UK national children and married to a British citizen.

> I'm sure we could bet on the Indian voting in favour of the EU

I wouldn’t bet on it.

Commonwealth citizens were heavily lobbied by leave, they were told the lie that somehow if we get rid of those Euros they’ll get easier visas for them and their families.

It’s pretty damn obvious that the exact opposite will be true of course, with the government set to tighten all routes to immigration even further anyway.

Post edited at 17:43
1
john arran - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It’s pretty damn obvious that the exact opposite will be true of course, with the government set to tighten all routes to immigration even further anyway.

I wouldn't bet too heavily on that. Successive governments have consistently failed - by wide margins - to meet immigration targets - knowing full well that to meet the targets would mean an unacceptable financial hit. My guess would be that a modest increase in non-EU immigration would indeed take up some of the EU slack, allowing the government to point to EU citizen repatriations as a 'success story'.

1
RomTheBear on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to john arran:

> I wouldn't bet too heavily on that. Successive governments have consistently failed - by wide margins - to meet immigration targets - knowing full well that to meet the targets would mean an unacceptable financial hit.

Nope, they will tighten all routes, that’s pretty much guaranteed, as long as Theresa May is there anyway. It will fail to lower immigration significantly and fail to meet immigration target,  that I agree. But they will tighten. Especially work visas and family visas.

The consultancy I work at the moment advises clients that the overall average cost to hire a foreigner will double from about 7k to 14k. You may have noticed that business are in fact preparing and rushing to hire foreign workers at the moment, and willing to pay well above market value for them.

I also expect that the spousal visa income requirement will be raised significantly. 

I also expect that judicial recourse to immigration decision will be further curtailed. In fact provisions have been included to the DP bill to that effect, by shutting down on of the key mechanism by which immigration decisions were being challenged.

More importantly, I also expect that the link between residence and settlement will be further weakened - and in fact almost entirely eliminated, further treating immigrants purely as as short- term economic ressource.

 

> My guess would be that a modest increase in non-EU immigration would indeed take up some of the EU slack, allowing the government to point to EU citizen repatriations as a 'success story'.

It won’t happen. The quota for work visas is already being consistently maxed out for non-EU workers so immigration for work cannot really increase, brexit or not. 

 

Post edited at 19:29
john arran - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I see where you're coming from but, unfortunately, there are a lot of things that cannot really happen, that also seem impossible to avoid unless the path of Brexit tanker is somehow diverted.

When the irresistible force meets the immovable object, which one wins?

RomTheBear on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to john arran:

> I see where you're coming from but, unfortunately, there are a lot of things that cannot really happen, that also seem impossible to avoid unless the path of Brexit tanker is somehow diverted.

I’m just telling you what I know is already in the pipeline, regardless of brexit.

 

Post edited at 20:31
Pete Pozman - on 25 Feb 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I never realised that Irish citizens and commonwealth citizens had a vote in the referendum. Neither of them Uk citizens. What possible reason could there be for commonwealth citizens to be given a vote on membership of the EU. What had it to do with them?

Another thing to remoan about...  Actually it is an outrage. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.