UKC

Now the negotiations are unfolding a little, has anyone reconsidered their voting position on Brexit?

Any remainers feeling that, actually it's not bad and has some surprising upsides? If they voted again they'd go a different direction?

And you leavers. Any qualms that would make you tick a different box?

I've not moved but my mum says she'd change her mind, which would be a first.

In reply to Deadeye:
I wonder how both sides could have presented their views differently. I read that the promise of 350 million a week extra for the NHS was the deciding factor. Were tactics like that justified? If not, how could the run up to the referendum have been policed better.

In reply to Phil1919:


I wonder how both sides could have presented things any worse... The whole referendum was woeful; I put more thought into which socks I'm going to wear each morning.

In reply to Clauso:


I used to wear a left sock and a right sock

Now I have a "Stay" and "Go" sock, but they do Clash a bit.

In reply to Deadeye:

I haven't changed my mind but I find it very regretful just how divisive it's been - it seems nothing comes close to Brexit in the news and everyone has a strong opinion either way. It's easy to see how families and friends could break up over their opinions of it. Seems a shame the country can't pull together over it but equally easy to see why that's not possible.

In reply to rossowen:


The problem is that some of the problems thrown up by Brexit simply CANNOT be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. The Irish border issue is a case in point. There are no half measures on this.

In reply to Shani:

Exactly. So regardless of which 'side' you happen to be on you're facing years of arguments, counter arguments, compromises, 'stupid' decisions etc.

I don't think anyone is going to be able to look back in 10 years and think 'yes, that's how I was hoping it would play out'.

In reply to Deadeye:

If I had a chance, I'd vote differently.

I'd put a tick rather than a cross, and use a blue biro rather than a black one.

I live on the egde me.

In reply to rossowen:


If Brexit forces us in to a position where we are forced in to making an impossible decision, it strikes me that the decision to brexit is and of itself a pitifully bad decision. I can't believe the brexiteers cannot see/acknowledge this.

If Brexit forces us in to a socio-economic 'unknown' because NO PREPARATION OR IMPACT ASSESSMENT WHATSOEVER has been undertaken, it strikes me that the decision to brexit is and of itself a pitifully bad decision. I can't believe the brexiteers cannot see/acknowledge this.

I'd like to think that if i was a brexiteer, I'd see the folly of our situation.

In reply to Deadeye:

Several people I know who voted Brexit never admitted to changing their minds, but have since f...ed off to live on different continents....

In reply to Shani:

I'm glad we were given the choice, but I have the feeling that there is no 'correct' way to vote as the outcome is so fluid. We may be worse off now, better in 5 years, worse in 10, better from 50 years onwards. Or any combination thereof.

And who's to say what's 'better'? For some it's just economics, for others the social and cultural side is more important. Who has the barometer for the total of benefits / negatives for everyone?

Bit philosophical maybe. It looks like we've got a good decade of this to come though and that's a long time to be holding a grudge over people with equal and opposite opinions.

In reply to Clauso:


I agree, the campaign was utterly awful on both sides.

Personally, on such an important issue, I'd have entrusted the BBC with producing a series of documentaries, informative website etc with genuine detail on what we knew about both sides and would have at the very least not funded, if not completely banned, other campaigning.

In reply to rossowen:


I fundamentally disagree here. Why give an ignorant populace such a huge decision? It was negligent not to prepare us beforehand with impact assessments etc...


Well, again i (respectfully) disagree. Brexiteers may have an opposite opinion, but it is not necessarily equal. The fact that the leavers have drifted in desired outcomes wandering from leaving the EU, to leaving the Single Market, WT Rules- and several other outcomes in between - shows that their decision is ideological, and so frankly, at best fantasy, at worst stupid.

In reply to Shani:



I think you need to refer to Big Ger's response to this thread to get your answer.

Unfortunately.

There seems to be a wilful desire by some to make this country a less pleasant and prosperous place to live.

Interestingly, Brexiteers are now blaming remainers for our forthcoming economic woes:
https://twitter.com/StephenMangan/status/934411134177890304

I'm mightily pissed off, but as the only alternative is to be told to feck off to Europe by Union Flag waving ex-pats, I think I'll stick around and keep needling them.

In reply to rossowen:


This is true I fear, but it's largely because few people on the winning side have recognised that on a 52/48 outcome the only way to bring the country together is to steer a roughly middle course, not to gloat that "we won" and argue for the hardest Brexit possible.

An outcome that kept the UK in the single market, for example, would be far less divisive than the outcome we are likely to end up with with this current government in charge.

Martin

In reply to Shani:

It looked like if the Tories hadn't held the referendum last year UKIP would have continued to grow and it still would have happened, just a bit later, because the public wanted it.

Out of interest where would you draw the line with what you would trust the public with? Would you have any referendums at all or even elections?

In reply to rossowen:


I'd probably set a fairly low bar for the public... Maybe only qualify to call a referendum if you haven't f*cked a pig in the gob?

... I fully appreciate that such constraints may hinder democracy.

In reply to Tony Jones:

Yes, and they want to sell your children into slavery, and to repossess your house, and destroy the NHS, while selling all our industry at bargain basement rates to Trump.co.

Remind me to tell you to "feck off" sometime....

In reply to rossowen:


As above, we needed impact assessments and forecasts. We needed evidence. We needed a firm definition of what 'out' meant - out of the EU? The SM? Pushed on to WTO terms?

*THEN* you could have more confidence in a referendum.

Instead the debate was premised on jolly hockey sticks brouhaha wiff waffery. Bozza was wheeled out and any one that was against Brexit was guilty of pissing on the queen mum, hated our war dead, despised democracy & British values, and was essentially a traitor.

That is why it's so devisive and ideologically rooted now. It strikes at the heart of identity. Brexit certainly isn't a socio-economic decision.

It'll damage our economy - so Brexit will hunt scapegoats for a decade or more....

In reply to Big Ger:

You can 'feck off', too...

In reply to Shani:


Completely agree. The choice should never have been delegated to the electorate. And especially not in such an irresponsible and haphazard way. But referendums were working well for Cameron up to that point...

In reply to Shani:


If our economy is the only thing Brexit damages, it'll be an incredible success.

In reply to captain paranoia:


There you go again, completely missing the point, as ever...

In reply to Trevers:


You cannot trust the blighters to vote the right way, can you?

In reply to Shani:


The only people who could mobilise all the resources for that to happen were the leaders of the government, basically Cameron and Osborne who were of course remainers.

You can't blame leavers for not doing all that stuff first because they were never in a position to override those running the show and authorise it to be done.
Nor can you really blame leavers for seizing the one and only opportunity they would probably ever get to bring about their political aim. I'm sure most of them would have loved to mobilise the governments resources to plan the process of leaving better but since they couldn't they are having to work it out as they go along, less than ideal but their only option in the circumstances.

Look at it this way, suppose in 10 or 15 years you got chance to vote in other in/out referendum but no preparation had been made for how we might negotiate our re-entry. Are you seriously going to say you'd vote to stay out because not enough preparation had been made?

In reply to Big Ger:


*sigh*

In reply to Martin Hore:


The problem with trying to find a compromise though is that too many remainers have given us a textbook example of how loose friends and alienate people. Throughout the whole campaign the scorn, insults and abuse flowed freely, followed by the biggest tidal wave of self righteous whining after the result that the nation has ever seen.
You may not see it that way but that's very much how it seems to leavers so its little surprise that they aren't too keen to bend over to accomadate people who've spent the last 18 months branding them racists, xenophobes, ignorant biggots etc etc.

Then to compound it the militant remain camp have gone out of their way to stop, obstruct, and generally make the process of leaving as hard as possible. Why on earth would you expect people to accomadate their views when its quite clear their aim is to override the decision taken by the electorate which the prime minister of the day promised would be respected?

If there had been a clear and unequivocal acceptance from remainers that whilst they deeply regretted the decision, they accepted that in a democracy the result had to be respected and that we would have to leave then their requests for a more moderate form of brexit might have been taken a bit more seriously.

In reply to pec:



You're completely correct on all this. Cameron and Osborne deserve our ire for the way they played games with democracy and gambled the nation's future to solve an internal issue. They should have left a much longer period until the referendum to allow both sides to organise properly and the leave side to formalise a plan and produce impact studies. Then we could have had a grown up campaign and debate. The current undemocratic mess is their legacy.

Presuming Brexit happens of course, my hope is that any future referendum called to take us back into Europe would be called by a government who backs that goal, which is as it should be. Referendums should be used to effect desirable change with the consent of the electorate, not assert political dominance.

In reply to pec:


Bravo!!

Though you forgot "Daily Mail reading "Little Englanders"" and "Thickos".

In reply to Trevers:


I agree.

In reply to pec:

Having agreed completely with your previous post, I now have to raise objections to this one. But I'm glad there's common ground we can agree on.


The insults and abuse flowed both ways. Which doesn't make any of it right of course. The result has been to disenfranchise people and enhance divisions.


I've never branded leave voters racist or xenophobic en masse, but I feel we also need to engage with the fact that the leave campaigns openly flirted with these things.


Because many of us believe (as I've alluded to in my post above) that the outcome of the referendum cannot possibly be democratic because the referendum itself was carried out in spite of the requirements of democracy. You give a very good example here - the EU Referendum Bill stipulated that the referendum was advisory in nature, yet the rule of parliament has been overridden by a statement in a pamphlet designed to scare people into voting a certain way. None of which is to say that the result of the referendum should just be ignored, and the votes of individuals scorned.


I won't repeat the point about democracy I made above. The result has to be respected, yes, but that that doesn't mean giving the government a mandate to Brexit however they like. As it stands, the result is not being respected because just shy of half of voters signaled their intention to remain in the EU, which cannot possibly be interpreted as a mandate to Brexit at any cost.

Do you also really think that capitulation by remainers would somehow lead to a softer Brexit? I just can't see how the logic of that works.

In reply to Trevers:


"Well, I never said those things, but anyone who I disagree with must be tainted with being racists, xenophobes, ignorant bigots."

There you have it folks, perfect spin....

In reply to Big Ger:



FFS Big Ger, do you ever wonder why people won't engage with you?

There are many remainers on the internet calling leavers bigots, racists, fascists, etc. Are you happy now?

Was what I said about the leave campaigns courting xenophobia untrue? Did I dream the Breaking Point poster? Or that Turkey was just about to join the EU?

In reply to Tony Jones:

>Interestingly, Brexiteers are now blaming remainers for our forthcoming economic woes:

Well, of course. If there's one thing which has been utterly predictable about this fiasco, it's that there's going to a betrayal myth.

jcm

In reply to Trevers:


Ironic much?


Not the point I was making.


You've done it again.

In reply to Big Ger:

Is there any way in which I can phrase my feelings, which run along the lines of "I don't think that the majority of Leave voters were motivated by racism, but I am deeply concerned that the campaigns courted bigotry, examples of which I have provided, and that this has exacerbated the divisions that the referendum exposed, and ignoring it won't help us to move forwards", that you won't misinterpret?

In reply to Trevers:


I've interpreted them just fine thanks.

Can I point out that I have not queried this?

In reply to Trevers:

... Spoken like a typical fascist.

In reply to Phil1919:


And where did you read that, what was the basis of that conclusion,and was it from a reliable independant source that has analysed meaningful data ?

In reply to Trevers


... my hope is that any future referendum called to take us back into Europe would be called by a government who backs that goal, which is as it should be...

Is it lawyers who say :- Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
Advice that Cameron failed to abide by, that and future governments will be acutely aware of, making any future referendums more unlikely.

In reply to Clauso:

Both sides exaggerated their claims, but both sides importantly DID have those conflicting claims challenged, and widely publicised ,so no one who then decided to believe either sides claims of future milk and honey, OR immediate economic meltdown, should complain that they were misinformed, any more than they are when they listen to opposing parties election broadcasts.

In reply to rossowen:


Therein lies the problem. I think it was dreadful that we were given the choice, because none of us had the slightest concept of what Brexit really meant, so we were voting blind. Governments are elected to make difficult choices on our behalf. Cameron failed miserably in this respect.

I still believe that we should be given another vote once negotiations are finished. At least then we will know what we are really voting for.

Democracy is all about the right to change your mind.

In reply to Shani:


I could almost agree with you, when you look at how many people voted for Corbyn a few months ago.

In reply to rossowen:


The question was ill framed and the interpretation of the very narrow result seems to have nbeen to asume a mandate for the most extreme views. The leave campaign was riddled with dishonesty, contradictory and incorrect claims. (Yes, Remain did have one assertion about rapid economic chaos which has proved wrong, compared to most of Quit's assertions).


Well, we look like we've damaged the economy, we've certainly damaged society (race hate etc), we're damaging culture, we're seeing a sustained assault on parliamentary democracy, there is likely to be an upsurge in politcal violence, we've lost control of key sectors of the economy, food stands may well suffer, environmental standards will suffer, we're increasing bureaucracy, we've lost influence,
counterbalanced by....we can have blue passports again (which we coud have if we had stayed), the elite have had a shock (got what they wanted?). Oh and the conservative party hasn't fallen apart (the main goal?)


I think this country will deteriorate much further and Leave with their media influence will need people to blame. I think this countr is going to become a much harder place to live in (and I know it is hard for many now) and a much less pleasant place, and those changes will last for much more than 10 years. We are going to lose alot.

And it would be quite easy to stop (some honesty on the Leavers part and some courage in parliament) ...although a lot of damage has already occurred.

In reply to Deadeye:

For me the worst aspect of the whole sorry mess is that it was the ignorant and racist who caused the disaster to happen; if the public had been better educated it might have been easier to bear.

In reply to Shani:

I agree we needed something concrete, but I don't think it would have been possible to create such accurate forecasts. Financial forecasts are infamously flaky and depend upon a multitude of factors that are unknown or unknowable - a bit like predicting what the weather will be like this time in three years.

Also, who could have produced them? The government was openly biased for remain, and came out with all sorts of doom and gloom. Likewise the IMF. Leave had their own BS figures printed on the side of a bus. The BBC is statistically shown to be pro-remain based on the percentage of pro-remain interviewees. Mark Carney apparently should not be involved in any side of the political debate one way or another, although did get involved and was shouted down by JRM.

Who is left, who can be believed, to provide the accurate, non-biased figures?

In reply to Big Ger:


Do you never stop to wonder if the campaign you exposed yourself to in Australia might have been filtered somewhat?

I'm not afraid to label some of the many leavers I met racists and xenophobes, when someone tells you they're voting out because 'we need to get rid of the pakis' or because there are 'too many muslims' or 'because of the Somalians init' I'm not going to jump through hoops making excuses for them. While not every leaver I met was like that by any stretch a significant fraction were angry, ignorant and newly empowered to express their bigotry openly. I didn't meet a single remainer expressing similar views.
jk

In reply to Shani:

Would that be the same ignorant populace that got us in in the first place?

To those who continue to call Brexiteers ignorant, racist, bigots many of those people consider Remainers, naive dangerous, ant-democratic, UK hating traitors but the reality is that it's two groups of people with equally valid but opposing political views. That's democracy, grow up and stop name calling.

Al

In reply to rossowen:



There are several technocrats - marco-economists like Chris Dillow and Simon Wren Lewis - who warned of a slow economic impact before Brexit (in contrast to the dire predictions of immediate collapse, by some). Indeed, they were not funded to dig deeper in to the economics of the situation.

But airing poilitical issues such as labour shortages (already hitting us in agriculture, and certainly mentioned from the outset), the Northern Ireland border issue, and the 'repatriation' of EU institutions such as the EMA, could have been quickly identified.

I spoke to several Brexiteers who did not know the different between the UK's ability to control non-EU immigration nor the value of EU immigrants to the UK (Europes brightest and healthiest tended to come to the UK). Hence Farage was able to pose in front of his 'breaking point' poster in a move that seemed to resonate with many.

True that remainer-politicians failed to deliver a coherent narrative, but then it is a technical issue - hence the requirement for impact assessments that would draw out the weakness of the leave argument.

There is a broader issue of economic illiteracy, as we see on UKC. Most approach economics from a household perspective. They've no idea how money is created (debt), nor how macro economics work. Thus it perhaps remains that we should simply not have been given such a massive decision, when we are unqualified to make a call beyond xenophobia or anything requiring more than 101 financial knowledge.

In reply to Trevers:


Yes, its nice to find something we can agree on, one of my biggest gripes on here is the sometimes blindly partisan nature of the debate prevents people accepting that sometimes the other side has a valid point. In the real world most of my friends hold different views on politics and Brexit to my own but we still find a remarkable amount to agree on.

I agree with most of your 2 replies to my 2 posts but would take issue with some of the following (sorry):


Yes, the vote was technically advisory but it was held in a manner which by any internationally recognised standards was free and fair and when a prime minister gives his word on such a big issue as this , even if he was mistaken to do so, it sets a very bad precedent for democracy to renege on it. Furthermore, we have a precedent in this country that the result of all referendums (of which I believe there have been 11) have been respected. The advisory nature of this one was not made clear during the campaign and to ignore the result would set a precedent which in the long term would probably do far more damage to democracy and society cohesion than Brexit ever could.



Again, I think the point about this is that the more extreme end of the remain camp have shot themselves in the foot as I explained above, perhaps tarring the whole remain side in the process? It would be hard for the leave camp to bring people on board when its pretty clear their intention is to stop Brexit altogether given the way in which some seem intent on wrecking the whole leave process in order to say I told you so.


I think a clear acceptance of the result from the outset and a "now lets work together for the good of the nation" approach right from the day after the result would have yielded better results for them by avoiding the total mistrust and combative "them and us" nature of the process we see now.

In reply to GridNorth:


Of course - a stopped clock etc.... You can't run a country as a plebiscite.

In reply to rossowen:


You can't create any forecast, accurate or otherwise, if you have no idea what you're forecasting. In or out of EEA? Co-operation with our European neighbours or competition against them? Reduce immigration by killing off our free trade agreements or swap European free trade and movement for Asian and North American free trade and movement? Peace in Northern Ireland or "secure our borders"?

The glaring omission from the government was a whitepaper detailing what a leave vote would mean - which allowed the leave campaign to make up anything they liked and promise all things to all people. There are still a great many who think we will be able to have our cake and eat it, because our "leaders" are more concerned with bluster and image than admitting we face these choices.

Two years prior to the Scottish independence referendum, the Scottish government released a fairly detailed whitepaper, which was pilloried by the Conservatives and the other major UK political parties for leaving certain questions open, to be decided by the parliament in the event of a leave vote. The conservatives then went on to create a similar referendum with no guidance whatsoever, for internal party political reasons. We're nearly a year and a half on from the brexit vote and we still have less idea what we voted for than the Scottish public had before they cast their votes. It's a shambles.

In reply to pec:





I actually think it's surprising how big a proportion of the Remain camp have done exactly that - accepted the result and decided to try to work together to Leave the EU with the minimum damage to the nation. This is the approach taken by almost all the Remain inclined Labour and Conservative MPs. Only the Lib Dems and Scot Nats have taken a different view, and they were very clear that that was their position in the 2017 General Election campaign so they have a democratic mandate to do so.

Just imagine what would have happened if the result had gone 52/48 the other way. Would Rees-Mogg, Cash, Fox, Redwood et al have just accepted the result?

Martin

In rep

I think you are flat-out wrong on that. It would have been (maybe still is) entirely possible to get most remainers on board by some combination of a) not going for the hardest possible brexit imaginable, b) not using brexit as an excuse for ministers to promote their personal ambitions c) not denigrating as traitors and enemies of the people judges, professors, journalists and anyone else who questions the approach adopted d) having vaguely competent minister running the procces, e) not setting up a "them and us" situation with the EU and EU citizens.

In reply to pec:

I think most remainers, even the hardcore remainers such as myself, accept that ship has sailed and we are leaving the EU, and now we should just try to make this shit shower work.

What I don’t accept though is the chaotic and nonsensical approach of the government.

Given that the vote was 52/48 it would make sense to strike a middle ground, and stay in the single market and the customs union. It would honour the referendum result whilst minimising the division in the country, make the negotiation with the EU a lot easier, preserve economic prosperity, and solve many of the issues in one go, starting with the Irish border.

They whole process is currently driven by what’s best for the Tory party brextremists, not what’s best for the country. They simply do not have a democratic mandate for what they are doing.
The irony is, the more they are driving us towards the cliff, the more it makes reversing the whole thing by any means necessary a compelling option.

In reply to Deadeye:




I have now decided that Brexit is indeed a sensible and rational decision that will only serve to benefit the UK and the remains of an increasingly fedural EU.

/sarcasm

Was a load of shit, still a load of shit but old racist "ex-pats" can have blue passports again so all is well.

In reply to GridNorth:




Hi Al, just to qualify, I wasn't using 'ignorant' in the pejorative sense; your "grow up and stop name calling" comes across as a bit rich.

In reply to ianstevens:

Why oh why do you have to revert to abuse. Brexiters are no different to Remainers, they just have a different opinion, Why can't we leave it at that and debate the issue. This is a recent phenomena, there have always been differences but I don't recall quite so much vile, vindictive, language to describe the opposition. Is it a symptom of modern communication an educational issue, a generational thing, a socialist habit or what? If anything is splitting the country it's this personal abuse.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:



It’s called populism, and unfortunately it seems to have gripped the country and the political classes.

In reply to Deadeye:

I voted remain. I’m fairly risk averse in these situations. I tend to vote governments out when I’ve had enough.

The vote was for Brexit so we need to get on with it and stop the arguing. People against Brexit need to get on board and find solutions instead of trying to derail the process.

The country needs a kick start in several places and a change could well do that.

People should embrace change - it’s how we evolve.

In reply to Shani:


Not sure why that's a bit rich but moving on. My second paragraph wasn't specifically aimed at you which is why I started it with: To those who continue to call Brexiteers ignorant, racist, bigots

Al

In reply to pec:


Thanks for engaging with me and fostering an open discussion



I mostly agree with this. Cameron, as the architect of the referendum, has a lot to answer for, not least of which was to make those promises which were meant as threats. The damage he's done will take a long time to undo. I don't support the idea of simply reversing or ignoring the referendum result, but I do support a second referendum as a legitimate means of reversing it.


You're not entirely correct about past referendums. The Scottish Devolution Referendum of 1979 was 52/48 in favour of devolution, but it failed to reach the 40% of the total electorate threshold that had been set, and so was rejected. This is a precedent that should have been followed with the EU ref (as in set into law in the 2015 bill, not invoked afterwards in a panic).

Can we discuss this idea of "respecting" a referendum result? I agree the result needs to be respected, but I don't read that as meaning full-steam ahead with the hardest possible Brexit. Let's say the result was reversed, 52/48 in favour of remaining. I'd say that this would have sent a pretty clear signal for an appetite both for reform within Europe (not just Cameron's half-baked attempt) and within our country too. To carry on with business as usual, as Cameron no doubt intended, would have been to completely ignore the result. But by the current government's logic, that 52/48 outcome would have signalled a clear intention to join the Euro and Schengen, fast-track towards federalism and push for an EU army.


I see where you're coming from here. But the same could be said of the leave camp too. From day one, May has surrounded herself with hard Brexiteers and attempted to make Labour and other parties irrelevant to push through whatever her version of Brexit is. There hasn't been any openness or appeal to the other side, and the concessions have been token at best. That's helped to entrench opposition to Brexit.

I'd also argue that those working to reverse Brexit are doing so because they believe it's for the best, not so they can say "I told you so". But I do agree there is a lot of self-righteousness being thrown around on the internet.


Well again, it's really not so clear a result. 48% is a significant portion of voters that deserve representation.

May I ask - what would it take for you to change your mind over Brexit? And if there was a second referendum that resulted in a clear preference for Remain, would you accept that?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


How does that fit with my freedom to travel, work and live anywhere in the EU?

I applaud your optimism. But the point above is my core desire for remaining in the EU. Nothing other than Brexit grinding to a halt is likely to guarantee it for me.

What exactly can I embrace?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Disagree. It's obviously proving harmful. The benefits are illusory (to ordinary working people at least). The mandate was weak and is diminishing slowly. It's not signed and sealed. The time for giving in to 'the will of the people' (against their/our interest) isn't now. Democracy doesn't happen on one day, it's a process and as harmful as it'll be to jack this all in with Britain a laughing stock, businesses and skills already lost to contingency planning, deep social scars re-opened it'll be a lot worse to go through with it out of sheer bloodmindedness.


Indeed but this change won't do it.


People should resist change when it's very clearly not in their interests to embrace it. Would you be saying we should embrace change if in a fit of pique we'd elected a fascist government bent ethnic cleansing? No, because you're a decent reasonable person so why this harmful change but not that one?
jk

In reply to DancingOnRock:


No, that task is for the government and those who believe brexit will be a good thing. Those who are against it should continue to put forward the case for staying. That's how democracy works - to borrow an argument from Big Ger, we don't want to live in a North Korean style dictatorship where political dissent is suppressed and everyone must toe a particular line.


Absolutely, let's change the brexit decision

In reply to Deadeye:

I was a borderline voter who ended up voting leave, so far I don't have any regrets and everything is moving along as expected (I fully expected it to drag on for ages). If anything I was expecting a more immediate and noticeable economic impact than actually transpired but I expect we'll still see some medium-term reduction in growth as our economy adapts to its new trading environment, after which everything should be rosy again but without the threat of being dragged under by a failing EU.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


The EU will likely remain our biggest trading partner by miles for simple geographical reasons whether we f*** negotiations up or not. If it fails it'll drag the global economy down with it let alone Britain clinging to the edge of it. Good thing it's thriving.
jk

In reply to David Martin:

Why do you think that will come to an end?

The deals are still being done. It would be economic suicide for both the EU and the UK to try and restrict it.

There are a lot of people who seem to be making massive assumptions in what will happen.

In reply to jkarran:

Proving harmful?

It’s only proving harmful because of the uncertainty. Business and markets don’t like uncertainty. Once the deals become clear, people can adjust to the new rules, put plans on place and everything recovers.

In reply to Ciro:

The government has been given a mandate. 28% of the electorate didn’t vote one way or the other.

Move on, it’s time for change, like it or not it’s going to happen and people should be preparing not arguing amongst themselves.

In reply to pec:


If Cameron had said the morning after, "I accept the result, and we are going into the EEA" then remainers would have accepted it as a fair compromise and a reasonable outcome of a 48:52% referendum. Instead he jumped ship and handed us over to the lunatic fringe of the Tory party who then allied themselves with the DUP.

Things could well get so bad that it will be an event for the Tories on the scale of the winter of discontent for the Labour Party. The sort of disaster that 20 or 30 years later a body of voters who lived through it will never accept them as economically competent for government. Maybe Corbyn realises this and is cynically
giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

In reply to Trevers:


Don't waste your breath?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

>> How does that fit with my freedom to travel, work and live anywhere in the EU?


Er... Brexit? The end of freedom of movement was rather a central policy of the leave campaign. I haven't seen anything to suggest this has suddenly changed?


Absolutely. Unfortunately it's not possible for the EU to allow contries to leave, stop contributing, stop accepting the responsibilities of membership but retain all the benefits - that would lead very quickly to the disintegration of the european union. Therefore brexit, which forces restrictions between us and the EU, is by your definition economic suicide.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


All democratically elected governments are given a mandate. We don't usually decide to suspend political campaigning until the next election, why should we do it now?


I have prepared - I've registered as an Irish foreign birth and applied for my passport. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop being vocal in support of those less fortunate than myself.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Does everything recover if the banking passport system is no longer available to UK firms. Does everything recover if businesses decide it’s better to be based in a eu country rather than the UK? Does everything recover if foreign investment doesn’t recover?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


But people ARE still arguing among themselves and probably won't stop unless Brexit is obviously beneficial after it occurs.
Personally I think there should be another referendum. I suspect it would be narrowly for Brexit and if so more people would accept it. If not then increased, slightly increased awareness of the pros and cons would have swung the result.
We have new elections every few years and referenda need be no different., especially as the long term consequences are huge.
However it won.t happen, both major parties are committed, and this devisise situation will carry on. I wouldn't want another referendum if I was a committed remainer.

In reply to Ciro:

It may well have appeared that way. Doesn’t mean that it will form a central part of the deal.

The evidence is already there that people resident here or in Europe will be allowed to stay, so I’d say that the extreme right wing ‘racist’ part of Brexit is only having lip service paid to it or I dare say, will be completely ignored.

In reply to GridNorth:



I that case my good man, I owe you an apology. I will take my thin-skin & delicate ego elsewhere!

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lots of ‘ifs’ there. I think you’re probably scaring yourself a bit there.

I’m fairly sure that both the EU and the Government are aware of them and will be part of any deal.

If not then you’ll find that the world economy will collapse fairly quickly, a bigger collapse and much quicker than in 2008.

In reply to GridNorth:



Well that's because they are. You really don't understand that when a group motivated by such things, funded by populist thugs (and probably Russia) destroys 50 years of progress on political, social and culture that they might get to hear what people think of them? Really? More than that, even though they are getting their own way, that group then labels anyone who disagrees with them as "traitors" and "enemies of the people". And you get upset when called out on your small-minded, jingoistic delusions!

In reply to DancingOnRock:




Of course there are lots of ifs, you'd have to be remarkably stupid to think there aren't a lot of ifs and to blithely assume that everything will recover.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That's the only sensible outcome for both sides to deal with those already living across the border, but that affects a small minority of the population - anyone not currently living in the EU will lose the right to decide to move, including generations of kids who haven't yet had the opportunity to give it a try.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Hate crime up, pound down, inflation up, earnings still suppressed, mortgage rate rising, government squandering billions on achieving something shit maybe while services are pared to the bone, businesses delaying investment and triggering contingency plans to move operations and staff offshore, growing skills shortages, growing labour shortages, academic funding uncertainty, loss of the EMA, loss of financial services passporting looming... How would you describe that lot because I'd struggle to dress it up as something good?


Or everything declines further. If we knew there were good times ahead the value of the pound and growth forecasts wouldn't be down but we don't and few seem willing to bet on it. As you say there's uncertainty.
jk

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Ok, let's start with a big problem - the Irish border. Everyone agrees that in the interest of peace, there must not be a hard border with the Republic.

The problem can be solved by the UK remaining within the CU and SM. But that's not enough for Redwood and co.

So the problem could be solved by NI remaining within the CU. But this will lead to an internal border in the UK, and lead to the possibility of the reunification of Ireland, something the DUP among others are vehemently opposed to.

The only other solution that preserves the current porous border is not to Brexit. It's probably closer to the hoped-for outcome of most of the 52% than a hard Brexit and hard border.

It's absolutely not my responsibility to find solutions to problems that the Brexiteers are causing.


True - but I currently fail to see how the government's plans will produce any positive results.


Not if that change is negative, or is change simply for the sake of change.

In reply to jkarran:

Hate crime is driven by something else. Brexit may have given some nethandreals an excuse.

The rest are due to uncertanty. People making contingency plans in case, is different to people leaving. It costs a lot of money to move a business and employ a complete new workforce. It’s just completely impractical and a worst case scenario.

In reply to MG:

Well to be fair I haven't really seen much of the "traitors and enemies of the people narrative" but the press and the media are full of racist, ignorant bigot quotes against Brexiters.

Again there you go being personal and offensive. There really is no need, it's pathetic and suggests that you don't really have anything to say that is worth listening to. If you read my posts I wasn't being personal I was talking in the third person.

IMO the majority of people on the Brexit side are NOT ignorant, racist bigots and those on the remain are NOT naive, idealistic, traitors.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Well I met a lot of them out on the street (York, socioeconomically mixed, ethnically homogenous, remain leaning even without its students) and I reckon about a third of them any reasonable person would describe as having expressed clearly biggoted or xenophobic ideas as primary justification for their vote. Frankly the vast majority were ignorant of what they were voting on and the possible consequences, plenty had no meaningful idea what the EU is or does. Now it's possible, likely even my experience was skewed but it was one of the most profoundly depressing experiences of my life realising that people mainly it seemed angry at austerity and stagnating living standards were going to vote for more of it in blissful (furious) ignorance.
jk

In reply to GridNorth:


Well that's very convenient. Here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3291540/traitor-peter-mandelson-has-reached-n...


No it just states my opinion of those supporting brexit. If you find it offensive, well, tough. I find it offensive that my country has been f*cked up you and others like you.


Probably as result of conveniently not noticing such headlines as above, or the leave campaign posters, or what Banks, Farage etc spout. An lack of attention that might reasonably be called ignorant, in fact.

In reply to jkarran:
But your experience is not necessarily my experience and it does not give anyone the right to be so thoroughly offensive, as per MG's last post and many others of the same ilk.

In reply to MG:

“May possibly have been f*cked”

Nothing is certain, there were and remain very few facts, just opinion.

The whole thing is being driven by emotion and as such it’s unlikely that anyone is going to change their mind. Especially if you keep going on in that manner.

In reply to jkarran:
>



But how many remainers live in areas with "working class" uneducated immigrants. I know plenty of remainers, and they live in nice areas, and the immigrants they seem to know are students or of the Professional classes, or at least well educated.
Where as many of the Xenophobes, live in areas populated by uneducated immigrants who they perceive as changing the place they live.
If you were uneducated and fearful for your life prospects, and someone built this baby down the bottom of your street http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/46/55/2465524_3141ad35.jpg it may make you fearful of change, maybe even of your house price going down, precluding you from moving.
This is one of the definitions of xenophobia "fear or dislike of the customs, dress, etc., of people who are culturally different from oneself:" and one I chose to go with in this instance. If someone is fearful, they cannot help it, its not a choice, and I would say its societies failing in explaining things correctly.
I have asian neighbours near my new house, give em a wave and they seem Ok, never spoken to them yet, but not spoken to the white ones. Got a mosque 200m` down the street, no problem to me, but I would be pissed off if they slapped an Onion dome on top, as I suspect it would impact my house price.
Would you buy a house if this was next door http://www.constructionphotography.com/ImageThumbs/A178-01013/3/A178-01013_...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


No, there are plenty of facts about brexit so far. Choosing to pretend they don't exist, doesn't change reality. The fall of the Cameron government to be replaced by incompetents; the currency devalued by 25%; financial and human resources diverted from doing something useful to trying to Brexit happen; EU agencies leaving the UK, taking their "ecosystems" with them, industry already leaving; EU nationals not taking jobs in the UK, etc.etc.

Claims of "sovereignty" and "democracy" and "self determination" are hollow when you consider how the landscape has been controlled by News International, the Barclay Brothers and Daily Mail and General Trust.

All of whom have an agenda against the EU, not least because it could / did shine an uncomfortable spotlight on their business activities.

The country will be increasingly in the grip of powerful, unaccountable media corporations.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think you have got a bit of a serious issue with that attitude. I've seldom experienced such self righteous, offensive, arrogance.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


I acknowledged that and I'm not abusing you but I can't stand for this revision of history with people claiming bigotry and xenophobia were not significant drivers of the leave vote, they very clearly were (among others of course).
jk

In reply to MG:

Really?

Are they all bad things? In your opinion maybe.

In reply to GridNorth:

Nice.

In reply to jkarran:

I've never denied that there was bigotry and xenophobia. Of course there was but equally there are some naive, idealistic , champagne socialists who think a federal Europe will solve all the problems on the other side. I don't believe that either of those represents the views of the majority of people who voted. Calling them nasty names only has the affect of shutting down debate which may of course be the intent. But that's another generalisation of course.

Al

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Sorry my reply was directed at MG but in my anger I got carried away. I can't honestly remember if you called me offensive names.

Al

In reply to J1234:

Well I live in a mixed lower-middle, working class area, mines an ex council terrace, mainly 2 up 2 down as far as the eye can see except the towers at the top of my road. Can't speak for everyone.

Yeah, most of the foreign folk I know are better educated and employed than me but very few of the working class folk I spoke to were upset about job availability or wage depression, frankly it was mostly the comic-book islamaphobia of the tabloids which is ironic really for a town with a Muslim community that would struggle to fill a couple of mini buses.



Would that bother you? I'd love to see evidence of new mosques depressing house prices. The new mosque that was built here is a massive improvement on the old pre-fab they were worshiping in and it's now big enough that they can host community events which is great.


Still, it was a major motivating factor for many in voting out, not that their vote will change their world for the 'better' of course. I don't much care who's fault it is they hold those opinions. I'm just refusing to gloss over the fact they do and they were instrumental in the referendum result.


Good for you. Me too and they always ignore me. People eh.


Can't see why not. It's no uglier than the Mormon Church at the end of my road or the brutalist Catholic chapel in stained concrete I pass on my way to work.
jk

In reply to GridNorth:

Ha. No. I thought it was a bit of a strange reply.

In reply to Deadeye:

I suspect there are some unresolvable parts to Brexit, particulary in respect to the Irish border and customs issue. I smell an election early next year.

In reply to J1234:

Stopping migration from outside the EU was always possible, so if white anglo saxons in your neighbourhood were alarmed at the prospect of a big onion domed mosque they could have protested to their MP and the foreign office, shirley?

In reply to J1234:

So they voted to leave the eu in order to keep out the Muslims and you're worried about the funny forrin's architectural taste.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It certainly appears to have. I don't think it's reasonable to simply dismiss the rest as 'uncertainty', that uncertainty stems from the very real possibility the future will not be bright for us, it's not a thing in and of itself.


Plenty of companies are now triggering contingency plans, not making them. They're relocating staff and offices offshore precisely so they don't risk losing their access and talent, don't risk having to rebuild and retrain teams if the tories totally f*** this up.
jk

In reply to J1234:


And what, other than bigotry and xenophobia, would cause your house price to drop if a qubba was installed nearby?

In reply to jkarran:
Its all rather complex and emotional. But I certainly think that peoples sense of disorienation is at the root of it. One problem is many of the Brexiteers are less well educated so cannot see the other Point of View (POV) and as they won do not need to. Wheras the remainers, many of whom are better educated are unprepared to see the other POV. But as they lost, if they want any chance of changing things, they better see the other POV damn quick, beacuse if you cannot see that POV (even if they totally disagree), they will not persuade the Brexiteers of anything.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Which of those do you think aren't facts?

In reply to Ciro:


I think this is maybe where, how the world is and how we want the world to be, collides.

In reply to J1234:


I can see it but I still think it's trumped up horseshit, that they're mostly being played like pawns and their life chances will be no better. I don't expect I'll convince anyone whether I come across empathetic or as an elitist snob/pinko libtard snowflake (take your pick) but then I don't really need to, for now I can just wait. If the government does a good job and we withdraw gracefully with good market access and free movement then fine, so be it. If we don't and they f*** it all up then I won't have to convince anyone they've been conned and it's time to resist. They'll know.
jk

In reply to J1234:
Can you not see the offensive arrogance of that statement?

I express my thoughts but not asserted in such a way as to make them sound like absolute facts. It's opinion. I'm not uneducated but to assert that the opinion of someone less educated is of less importance is just plain wrong. I know lots of people with University Degrees but when it comes to common sense they are sadly lacking.


Al

In reply to GridNorth:

' Of course there was but equally there are some naive, idealistic , champagne socialists who think a federal Europe will solve all the problems on the other side. ' Point to a single comment on here, a single opinion piece in the media, a single commentator - serious or otherwise - who has EVER said this.

'Everyone' has always acknowledged that the EU is less than perfect, that it has failings, that it has on occasion overreached itself and/or presented its case poorly. No sh*t Sherlock. It's a human institution, not the Kingdom of God.

But it has and will continue to change, in accordance with the democratically expressed wishes of its participants, and we had significant role in influencing that. And now we've lost it.

And for those who seek to trivialise the issues by equating the process to 'quitting the golf club' I'd like to say this. One of the key drivers of the formation of Common Market was the recent European history of 2 world wars - and many more regional ones - that had resulted in over 40 million dead. However imperfect the EU might be, not a single shot has been exchanged between member states since it was formed. But now, with Brexit, the harsh words, the practical difficulties, the mutual suspicion, the rabble rousing by pathetic demagogs, it doesn't seem so improbable that Ireland will return to the Troubles, that France and the UK start to fall out more significantly over issues such as dealing with refugees and border controls, that the Mediterranean will be increasingly destabilised by issues such as Gibraltar, Ceuta and of course refugees again. Children like Johnson, Farage, Gove and Fox have opened a Pandora's box and no-one can possibly know the likely outcomes. Except one thing - when there are many, many possible outcomes, as there are here, it is highly improbable that the outcomes we actually experience will be good, as the number of possible poor outcomes invariably outweigh the good - that's the science behind Murphy's law. And that's what we're now committed to.

In reply to jkarran:

>They'll know.


But they will never admit it. Have you read Hillbilly Elegy, rather analogous to this situation, well I thought so anyway.

In reply to J1234:


If they voted for brexit in order to reduce immigration of Muslims, then that is the point where the world as brexiters want to be, and how it actually is, collide.

In reply to GridNorth:

One problem is many (I did not say all) of the Brexiteers are less well educated
I do not correlate education with intelligence.

In reply to J1234:
You did not say all but you have associated lack of education with Brexit and being educated with remain.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

In reply to MG:

Why don’t you answer my question first?

In reply to GridNorth:



It's hardly a secret the better educated voted remain.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-de...

In reply to DancingOnRock:
I just did !

In reply to GridNorth:



Well if people voted for brexit thinking it would be a way to keep out Muslims then I think it does leave a question mark over their intelligence.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>Children like Johnson, Farage, Gove and Fox

Oi! That's child abuse! Could we rephrase it to "Fools and self seekers like Johnson, Farage, Gove and Fox"???

In reply to MG:


There are a few caveats in that article and one chapter even admits it not much more than guess work. But so what are you suggesting that less well educated people's opinions are less valid or is it that you think that people who don't think like you are less valid. I'm thinking the latter.

In reply to MG:

More data here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referend...

and some interesting analysis here:

http://www.statsguy.co.uk/brexit-voting-and-education/

In reply to pec:


It was an advisory referendum. The government was not obliged to leave. They chose to appease UKIP voters and the right wing of their party for electoral advantage and party unity, instead of facing their responsibility to act in the best interests of the country.

As for your other point about remainer whinging, this is pure hypocrisy when the Leave faction has whinged about Europe for forty-odd years.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


They didn't whinge in the context of leaving they just complained about the EU and to be fair so did a lot of other people.

In reply to MG:


Think you must have missed this bit:

“Are they all bad things? In your opinion maybe.”

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well said.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

As it happens yes. However, I was responding to your claim there were few facts. Do you see now there are plenty?

In reply to GridNorth:

Are you trying to make a distinction because they didn't whinge about winning the referendum? Well of course they didn't!

But it is ludicrous to say that some people didn't whinge about wanting to leave. Farage has made a career out of it (rather gallingly, with us paying for it)

In reply to andyfallsoff:


No I meant that a lot of people whinged about the EU. Of course some of those wanted to leave but I would say most just disliked the way it was operating.


I didn't

In reply to GridNorth:


They couldn’t really whinge in the context of leaving forty years ago, or until relatively recently.

In reply to MG:

There are lots of facts but they’re open to interpretation. So there are no facts for or against Brexit, only opinions on whether those facts are good or bad.

For example, why do you see a drop in the pound as a bad thing?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Falling real wages, EU citizens feeling insecure and unwelcome, economic uncertainty, deterioration of our relationship with EU countries, loss of global influence, etc etc..

Good or bad ?

In reply to GridNorth:



You said "they didn't whinge in the context of leaving".

Does that not mean whinging about wanting to leave? Is wanting to leave not in the context of leaving?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

No I don't think people whinged about leaving because leaving wasn't an option at the time,they just whinged about the EU.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Falling real wages? Due to Brexit? Are you sure about that?

Anything else you want to convieniently blame on Brexit?

In reply to GridNorth:

Ok. So to be fair, it would be fine for remainers to whinge about not being in the EU?

It just isn't fine to whinge about leaving it?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Of course, it's a compete coincidence that real wages are falling after the fall of the pound, and the fall of the pound is a complete coincidence that has nothing to do with the loss of confidence in the Uk economy following Brexit, also the earth is flat and my grandmother is superwoman.


Anything else you'd like to conveniently blame on something else ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Real wages have been falling since 2008.

In reply to Deadeye:





Was this a troll? If so, well done, you've gone way past the hundred mark.

Judging by this thread, I'd say the overwhelming answer from the loudest voices is a definite NO.

Personally, I've moved slightly, I think a Norway solution could actually be better for the UK than full membership. We have never been fully engaged.
But I'm actually more worried about Brexit now than I was on 24th June 2016. I think there is a big risk that it's going to be worse. All moderation and sensible options are being shouted down, and diplomacy is out of the window as everyone plays to their domestic audience. Also Germany is in a mess politically, so Brexit is a long way down the agenda of thenEuropean powers at the moment.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

... up to late 2014. After which it started growing strongly. Up to the Brexit vote.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yeah, you're full of shit as usual.
Try telling my wife (public sector worker) she's had a pay rise in the last nine years.

In reply to Lusk:



Hint : your wife is not a representative sample.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Hmmm. Lots of things started growing strongly ahead of the Brexit vote. Another coincidence?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Ahead, but not after, odd, isn't it, I wonder why...
But sure keep telling yourself that inflation caused by the fall int he pound following the brexit vote has nothign to do with falling real wages and keep making us laugh.

It just beggars belief really, that the brexiteer on these forums seem to ignore all the rational pro-brexit arguments that could be made, and instead seem intent of ridiculing themselves and their cause by systematically peddling the most obvious bollocks possible.

So far we've had "The fall in real wages has nothing to do with brexit" and "Wages were not growing before brexit because my wife has not had a pay rise". You're not helping your cause frankly...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Try telling that to the 10s of millions of piss poor paid workers here in the UK.
Don't lecture me about pay from your comfortable lifestyle over in Cyprus. You haven't got a f*cking clue what you're talking about when it comes to real life.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I wonder what the opinion polls were saying in the lead up to the vote... that might help us unravel this mystery....

In reply to Lusk:


All of whom are and will continue to be substantially poorer than they would have been had we remained.

In reply to Lusk:



Under the Conservative government, wages have been getting squeezed for some time. Things were starting to pick up, but voting for brexit has damaged that recovery. Getting angry with the messenger won't get us anywhere, it's time to get angry with the people who convinced us to vote leave so we can sort it out.

In reply to Deadeye:


We'll find out how many have changed their minds when they announce a second Brexit referendum following months and months of negative news stories. I predict we'll vote to stay.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I wonder why they suddenly started to pick up in 2014.

I wonder why the bank of England have been trying to increase inflation for years and suddenly when it starts to happen the Brexiteers think it’s a bad thing.

I also wonder why some people have convinced themselves that these are all problems and are a result of a Brexit that hasn’t happened yet and have nothing to do with people feeling uncertain in the short term.

It beggars belief. These are people who are claiming to be the most intelligent.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Inflation at a time when wages are rising can be a good thing. Inflation at a time when wages are stagnating is a bad thing... it means it's harder for the well off to affort the things they like, and for the poor to afford to live.


What's causing the uncertainty?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I presume you mean interest rates? The Bank’s aim is to keep inflation low.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

No. They’ve been trying to increase the inflation rate to around 2% by keeping interest rates low. Now that inflation is rising they’re increasing interest rates.

In reply to Ciro:
Wages are stagnating because inflation is low and there’s no pressure on employers to increase wages, and there’s no ability to increase wages if prices are continually being pushed lower (allegedly good for the consumer).

The uncertainty is being caused by people who are constantly harping on about how dreadful Brexit will be. It’s short term. Easentially the uncertainty isn’t caused by Brexit as it hasn’t happened yet, it’s caused by people worrying what will happen.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Wages are also stagnating because we have an insecure de-unionised workforce.

Yes, people are worrying about what will happen after Brexit.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Sorry, yes, that’s true. I was thinking rather more long term. The last couple of years before January saw inflation below 2%.

In reply to Offwidth:



That analysis is really telling. Thank you for linking it. Everyone should read and digest. It makes clear from real voting figures (not opinion polls) that voters educated to graduate level were significantly more likely to have voted Remain. And not because there are more graduates in younger age groups or because there are more graduates in higher socio-economic groups. It really is the level of education that correlates with voting Remain independent of these other factors.

That doesn't imply for a moment that all Leave voters are uneducated. But it does mean that the country is now following a path determined by the preferences of half the population that are on average significantly less well educated. Real food for thought.

Martin

In reply to Deadeye:
We should get a good chance to reconsider now David Davis has released the 58 impact analysis papers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42142882

Oh wait, no, they've all been edited before being given to MPs. I don't recall the carried motion to release them asking for edited analysis...

In reply to Martin Hore:


Yes, very interesting. I hope that this kind of data isn't used as an excuse to brand Leave voters as stupid though. Having genuine concerns, accurate or not, manipulated by the unscrupulous educated is not something to pillory people for. (A general point, not aimed at you Martin btw.)

In reply to Ciro:



Construction price indicies are forecasting price falls for the first time in many years. That's despite all the talk of more house building and the upward cost pressure on materials due to exchange rates. I am no economist, just a simple builder, but in that context if prices fall then wages are falling too.

It is indeed all about uncertainty, but I am sure that those who voted us into this mess will continue to pretend it's nothing to do with Brexit.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

I think that's an excellent point.

Putting aside the difference between being educated and being intelligent, (there's a bit of a venn diagramme in there, although there's a broad correlation).

Being in the EU is a far more attractive prospect for those with a graduate level of education, particularly younger ones with the mobility to take advantage of opportunities in other EU countries.

For those without that education, (particularly older ones who due to families, ageing relatives can't become itinerant workers), the benefits are far less tangible. There are positives in trade and the economy that they don't see if they're on a ZHC in a warehouse, and there are positives in EU funding for deprived areas (although that can be spun as 'only getting a bit of our own money back from the EU).

Other than that, they're in completion with EU workers who may be better educated and for who a ZHC in a UK warehouse is a far better prospect than being in a professional job in Eastern Europe. If they're a tradesman they're outcompeted by cash in hand plumbers, plasterers and joiners. They may even be a minority in their own street and feel threatened by immigration, (even if that immigration has nothing to do with the EU). Being told they should vote for more of the same, just because it's good for the more educated and far more advantaged in society, isn't really going to convince them.

For what it's worth I think they've been duped, and things will only get worse for them. However I can understand their desperation to try anything that could make things better for them. For me it was a fairly easy choice, vote remain because it gives me, (in a fairly privileged position in society), tangible benefits. For them, not so much.

Also what's the alternative? Weight votes on educational and socio-economic factors?

In reply to DancingOnRock:



I just knew it wouldn't be any fault of yours in any way.

W

In reply to Ridge:


I think the "new Left", comprising as it does of middle class young people, not only believe this to be worth considering, but also, part of their benevolent patrician role in helping the working class, (by which they mean the underclass and minorities.)

In reply to Martin Hore:


Just to be nit picky, it shows ‘areas’ with higher numbers of graduates where more likely to vote remain, no individual level analysis was done. (See the ecological fallacy refererenced in the blog post).

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Why would it be my fault? I voted remain.

The uncertanty is short term. Why can’t anyone see that? It’s caused by not knowing the outcome of the process, which by definition you can’t know until it’s completed.

I guarantee that once Brexit is completed the uncertainty will (mysteriously?) completely vanish. Surely I’m not the only ‘educated person’ who voted remain that can work that mystery out.

In reply to GridNorth:



Now you have had time to review the evidence from MG and Offwidth, what do you think?

In reply to Deadeye:


In a funny kind of way, yes, but only when it comes to my opinion of certain former friends who sadly, I don't think of as 'friends' any more because since the goddam referendum, some people have become complete rabid bigots when it comes to discussing these subjects and I can't be bothered to talk to them any more. As it happens, they mostly tend to be 'remainers', but that's probably because their side lost - if the vote had gone the other way I daresay the 'leavers' would have been just as bad. I was personally fairly undecided during most of the run-up but I found that with both camps, if you didn't pretty much agree with what they were saying 110%, you were denounced as being somehow stupid and a lower form of life. I came to the conclusion that all of those vaguely rabid kind of people on whatever side were pretty much the kind of chaps who put the *expletive deleted* in Scunthorpe and so I left them to it. So yes indeed, since it's all been going on I have reconsidered my voting position. But only when it comes to those people I vote to keep in my life and those I don't.

In reply to DancingOnRock:




And the uncertainty is whether we will be in a better situation after brexit, a worse situation or an unchanged situation. If it transpires we are in a worse situation the uncertainty will certainly have vanished, but why do you insist that being in a worse situation after brexit would lead to a complete recovery?

In reply to DancingOnRock:



The uncertainty is short term, but the uncertainty relates to a worry that we will have a significantly worse end state economically.


The uncertainty might end "once Brexit is completed" (although what does that mean - April 19, or once we have established a new network of trade deals?) but that doesn't mean that once we're there things will be as good as they were. That's the issue, and that's why lots of us aren't happy.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Everything is uncertain. If we had remained in the eu, we don't know how that would have developed in the next 10 or 20 years. They are no end of possibilities. Southern Europe is still up poo creek, eastern Europe doesn't want to play eu ball, the biggest eu nation is struggling to form a government etc.. things change, that's life, look at the last 20 or 30 years whilst in the eu. Being out is no different.

In reply to J1234:



There’s a very strong correlation between intelligence and education. Correlation is a stastitcal measure not an individual formula.

You may find individuals who are intelligent but not educated but their descisions will be based on evidenced gathered by personal experience rather than wider learning. So they will be somewhat biased.

You won’t find any unintelligent educated people.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Thats one of the funniest things ever on UKC, thanks, cheered my day up.
Up here in Lancashire we call them educated numb #unts.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I think you're onto a safe bet there.

The temporary uncertainty, caused largely by the overwhelming expert opinion that is sure we'll be a lot worse off after Brexit, will indeed completely vanish.

Almost surely to be replaced by a more permanent certainty, that we will then be a lot worse off after Brexit.

In reply to J1234:

Thanks for that highly intelligent post.

In reply to Ridge:

. However I can understand their desperation to try anything that could make things better for them.

Yes. I read an FT piece about Blackpool and its health problems that described how doctors there talk about patients with multiple health problems suffering from ‘sh*t life syndrome’. Blackpool was a Brexit town and you can certainly understand why.

(That article is well worth reading if you can get behind the paywall - this link worked for me: https://amp.ft.com/content/b6dbf34e-c987-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c )

In reply to summo:

I find this the least convincing of the leave arguments, because:

1. We had a veto on any material changes to the EU structure / new entrants etc anyway - so were in a position to resist changes;

2. In any event, it isn't clear why we would be insulated from the changes you set out above because we've left. What is the risk of being in the EU if something bad happens to a member state - economic? If so, then we are exposed to it either way, unless you're saying that leaving will mean we cease to trade with the residual EU states (which is contrary to the "nothing will be affected" stance taken by many.

3. Being out is tangibly different - we are voluntarily choosing to renegotiate our relationship with the rest of the world. That brings with it huge uncertainty, as the whole thing is a negotiation! We can't yet say what even the most basic aspects of our relationship with the rest of the world is; plus we are still exposed to international events if they happen. So no, being out isn't "no different". It's fundamentally different.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Agreed. I've not read up on the "ecological fallacy" but I understand the point. I thought it was indicative of the rigour of the analysis that this potential error was admitted in several places. For the fallacy to prejudice the overall conclusions though wouldn't it be necessary to believe that the presence of a higher proportion of people educated to graduate level in an area influenced their non-graduate neighbours to vote Remain in higher numbers than the graduate residents themselves? That seems highly unlikely.

Surely you can't do an individual level analysis on actual votes, only on the way people say they intend to vote or the way people say they voted, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the way they actually vote as opinion pollsters know. Actual votes are secret.

Martin

In reply to Lusk:

try telling me (ex private sector) that I still have a job/career at all!

In reply to Ridge:



Thank you Ridge - your whole post was interesting. I've just quoted two snippets above.

Clearly there is a distinction between being educated and being intelligent. There are plenty of intelligent people who for various reasons (eg personal choice or circumstances) don't have degrees. But there is a broad correlation as you say. The analysis linked to by Offwidth is very careful to refer to "educated to graduate level" rather than intelligent. I was careful to follow that in my short post.

As for weighing individual votes on educational and socio-economic factors, it's clearly not democratically possible. But I think making decisions through representative democracy is more likely to produce intelligent outcomes than a referendum. Voters are, in general, likely to choose as their representatives people they perceive to have the ability to represent them well - and therefore we end up with a parliament that is on average better educated than the population as a whole. We also pay our representatives to spend time properly researching difficult issues on our behalf - time that individual voters do not have.

I may be wrong, but I think it's true that the current parliament, on a completely free vote, with MPs voting according to their personal opinion rather than on a "mandate" from their electorate, would still vote to remain, and by some margin.

Martin

In reply to Trevers:
Sorry for the delayed response, I had a lot to do yesterday evening, I did try to post a reply but it was too long to be allowed! It was also very late so I've split my reply into two posts this morning.


I shall try and continue in that vein


A lesson for future referendums, is that some preparation should be made for either result. All the "planning" seemed to be aimed at proving why we should stay in rather than how leave might look.
Personally, I never imagined the process of leaving would be easy though that in itself isn't a reason not to, this is a medium to long term game, but no doubt things could be going a bit smoother if May, Davis &co. had some sort of blueprint to follow. Effectively they are having to make it up as they go along since none of them could have known what roles, if any, they would be playing in advance.

I think a second referendum smacks too much of the "keep voting until you get the right answer" approach which has done the EU no favours with UK public opinion. It would be highly divisive, re opening all the old wounds and simply launch another round of national in fighting.


Presumably this was part of the rules and known about in advance, had the same bar been set for the EU referendum then it would have to have been respected.
I find it curious why that 40% bar was set for that one Scottish referendum but not for any others, it wasn't set for the Scottish independence vote.


If a clear signal had been sent that the result must be respected (in that we must leave in some shape or form) from the vast majority of remainers then I think they may have had more of a say in how things have played out. However I think the clear impression which was created that many were determined to overturn the result by any means possible helped to foster the bunker mentality in which any sign of a concession could be seen as a weakness to be exploited to prevent Brexit.
When you have powerful and influential figures like Blair, Clegg plus some MPs and Lords openly trying to organise resistance with the aim of overturning the result then its not a surprise that leavers should act defensively.
I do appreciate the viewpoint that EEA membership or something similar would address many leavers concerns. Its not my favoured option but its a rational position to take. How we could have decided which model to adopt in the time frame available and with the political temperature so high is potentially a whole new can of worms. I think the remainers have shot themselves in the foot over this one as explained above but I accept your criticism that the leavers haven't even tried has some validity.
In reality I think a sensible trade agreement and continued amicable co-operation with the EU would result in something not that different anyway. With the bonus of being able arrange independent deals worldwide, which given our direction of travel on trade and world economic growth patterns is where the future lies anyway as well as being able to adopt a more sustainable immigration policy.

I don't think a remain vote by even the narrowest of margins would have been accepted by the EU as a mandate for change, nothing the EU has ever done leads me to that conclusion. I don't believe those at the core of the project will accept change unless it's on the brink of imploding. That is part of the problem.


I think my response above addresses this as well.

In reply to Trevers:

part 2


I don't doubt the sincerity of many remainers beliefs even if I disagree with them but you don't have to look far (like elsewhere on this very thread) to find the "I told you so mentality" in spadefuls.


48% is indeed a lot of people but on the other hand more people voted to leave than have ever voted for anything in the history of the UK so leaving, if not the form of leave, is clearly a legitimate outcome.
Also the 48% aren't the cohesive EU loving block many seem to portray them as, I know a lot of remain voters who could accurately be described as Eurosceptic in the literal sense.
Again I come back to my point that moderate remainers have been as badly served by what I term the militant remainers as they have by the leavers. Their voice has barely been heard in all this so its hard to know where they stand, probably in lots of different places!


As explained above, I don't think we can legitimately have a second referendum on the in/out question without doing immense damage to democracy and societal cohesion. Even if we changed our minds I don't think it's at all clear that the EU would have us back on the same terms as before, they would seek to wring concessions out of us on all our opt outs which would only inflame things even more. I think we're going to have to let things settle down and give leave a chance to take shape before we could sensibly hold a second referendum, so certainly not less than a decade. I don't think that's unreasonable given that we had to wait 25 years from the Maastricht treaty to have the referendum we should have had then.

Personally I was quite happy with our membership of the EEC, it was Maastricht that changed everything.
In the intervening period there's has often been mention of a two speed Europe, usually in a "must be avoided" way. My view was yes please but the EU has shown no willingness to accept anything other than ever closer union, whether by the front or back door.

David Cameron went to the EU asking for relatively little and came back with even less. Even facing the threat of losing is second largest contributor and the potential existential threat that could pose to itself it could still not make any meaningful concessions. That proved to me that the EU is not capable of the sort of reform it would take to win me back, not at least until a lot more damage has been done to it (in the form of other countries leaving perhaps).
If at any point we could genuinely return to something more like the EEC without the ever closer union then I could be won over. But a UK opt out on its own from ever closer union would not be sufficient reassurance for me.
I don't believe that a free trade area with high levels of co-operation between nation states has to involve acceptance of freedom of movement. The “four freedoms” are not inviolate, they are a choice. People are not like money, goods and services, they need houses, schools, healthcare, transport etc. Unsustainable population growth, of which migration is the biggest driver, is the biggest threat to quality of life in this country.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Possibly the product of a near decade spent hosing public funds into failed banks that were finally on a stable ish footing and able to start fueling another consumer credit spending bubble perhaps? Among other things like Obama's America starting to find its feet again.


Because the bank of England wanted to see an increase in inflation through stable growth in the economy and productivity. Brexit has increased inflation through collapsing confidence in our medium term economic prospects leading to a fall in the value of the pound which for a net importer has the knock on effect of making life worse for most people since price inflation is not linked to pay inflation, living standards fall and export gains are likely to be transient as energy and feedstock price rises begin to feed through squeezing profits or reducing competitiveness. HTH.


They're not all but Brexit hasn't made and won't make any of them better, also because for some there like the value of our money there was a negative step change June 24. Because we feel noticeably worse off this year than last and now with brexit there is no obvious cause for hope that trend will change in the coming decade. Because a lot of us no longer feel at home in our home and increasingly feel no long term commitment to it.


Pointing to studies showing a strong correlation between educational attainment and referendum vote is not the same thing but whatever. It shouldn't even be controversial, I thought one of Leave's key arguments was that poorly educated migrants out compete poorly educated Brits, if that were the case or widely perceived to be the case this is exactly the voting trend you'd expect to see.
jk

In reply to Big Ger:


Incisive given your extensive exposure to the 'new left' in Britain... as right leaning reactionary stuck on transmit and living in Australia.

TLDR: Bollocks.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


You've not met some of my colleagues, have you?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Quite possibly to be replaced by the certainty we've done ourselves great harm.

If that weren't a real possibility we wouldn't be facing 'uncertainty', we'd be certain of a bright future. We're not. You seem to have this weird idea that uncertainty is a thing in and of itself. If that stems from a naturally optimistic nature and belief our elected representatives are acting in our best interest, that it'll be alright on the night then good for you but you should recognise a lot of people don't share those beliefs. We face very real danger if we get this wrong and no real benefit as the medium-long term outcome of getting this right. So far it appears we're getting it wrong lead by useful idiots, themselves propelled forward by ideologues with no interest but their own on.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I’m only looking at facts. There is no point in worrying what will happen after as we have no idea. Certain things that people are worrying about just won’t happen. The biggest, I’ve outlined above, free movement of goods and services will become restricted but won’t be stopped altogether. The details have yet to be worked out. The only people panicking are the ardent remainders. Who we are supposed to believe are the intelligent people.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Do you take that view for all future events? Or is it just brexit where you feel it is impossible to make any predictions?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Upthread you claimed that everything would recover after brexit, now you're claiming that "free movement of goods and services will become restricted". Which is it?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I find this somewhat ridiculous as well. Either movement is free, or it isn't...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No point in worrying ... a bit like being on a gentle slope of hard icy snow above a precipice without ice axe or crampons, and starting to slide. .... 'No point in worrying ...' Thanks for the tip.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Erm... Yes there is. If inflation and interests rates spike I'll lose my house unless I act soon to mitigate the risk. If tariffs and divergence of standards mean the small specialist exporter I work for folds or downsizes I'll not be able to pay loans so I plan now...


Which will easily be enough to drive a lot of talent away, to stifle development of buisinesses and academic groups for many years to come. Many businesses are still scraping by on the edge of survival so new pressures will force them to either fold or cut costs likely through automation and offshoring raising unemployment and that's assuming credit remains available even at today's depressed levels for investment which seems unlikely as our economy declines and our credit rating erodes raising the cost (financial and political) of further wealth transfer into banks to prop up lending.

Good for you if you're the happy go lucky sort who genuinely believes none of this matters and it'll all be fine, perhaps it will but not everyone thinks the same and not everyone is at the same stage in life with the same needs and pressures.


Perhaps we should pause to wonder why that is. Perhaps those who've taken the time to develop an expertise aren't so easily tricked by the "we've had enough of experts" horseshit we're fed every time a serious academic or think tank or institution like the BoE dares to suggest the future does not look anything like as rosy as promised whichever course we eventually steer through brexit. Perhaps people who've taken time to develop expertise tend acknowledge and value the expertise of others over empty promises and politicking.

Speaking as an 'ardent remainer' I'm not panicking. I am despairing and disappointed and actively considering how to cut my losses should the next couple of years not play out as hoped (still 50/50 I reckon). I doubt I'm alone, in fact I know I'm not and therein lies another significant cost to Britain of brexit, a lot of the relatively young and well educated, many who have already moved far from family for education then work so have weak roots will look to pull those meager roots up and rebuild the lives they wanted and expected elsewhere.
jk

In reply to andyfallsoff:


There has been free movement within the European trade zone, but the world is much bigger than that. How this will all pan out, I cannot pretend to know. Personally and by a thin margin I agree with Brexit, not going to explain why as no one is listening .
But what this thread shows is, and has been highlighted again and again in the brexit debate, is the completeley polar views of our society and the divisions that exist. Sadly until people start listeneing and try to understand the other perspective, rather than calling the other side names, we will not move forwards.
Its all a bit sad really

In reply to J1234:

"Sadly until people start listeneing and try to understand the other perspective, rather than calling the other side names, we will not move forwards."
"Personally and by a thin margin I agree with Brexit, not going to explain why"

You're not going to explain but you want us to listen.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That’s exactly what people are worried about.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
No, beacuse to be honest I do not care if you listen to me or not, just listen to each other, Postmanpat and Shani and JKarran and others.
I am in the seventh year of a degree course pretty much studying everything pertinent to Brexit.
Economics
Migration
Climate change
International negotiation
Sociology
and a whole host of other things.
and to be frank its way to complex for internet forums where people just want to stick with ideological entrenched views, on either side.
Now I have an essay to write to work towards my honours, so ta ta for now

In reply to J1234:


Bye bye.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Frankly, sometimes I think that even as a hardcore remainer “traitor”, and enemy of the people, I could still come up with better pro-brexit arguments myself than what the leavers on these forums are making, they are doing no favour to their cause.

Actually, I’ll do just that. From now on I’ll argue the case for brexit. It’ll be an interesting experiment.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You ill-educated racist!

In reply to pec:


What makes you think the EU will allow the precedent of a country leaving, and getting a trade relationship with the block that's "not that different" with added bonus of freedom to compete against the interests of the EU internationally? They would have to be completely mental to allow it, as it would most certainly result in other countries leaving to gain the same advantage, and ultimately the disintegration of the EU.

In reply to J1234:


So please share your expertise. It's always good to learn.

Yeah, my views are entrenched. Your arguments will have to dig me out of the "we were doing pretty well and in control. Brexit doesn't address the problems we face." trench. If your arguments are strong, evidenced and well presented I'll listen and you never know, you might get me peeping out over the top of my trench, after all "we're all brexiteers now".

Can we skip the section on mosque architecture or is it key?
jk

In reply to jkarran:


I'd dearly love to hear some reasoned argument pro-Brexit. All we ever seem to hear are negative observations and even more negative predictions, so it would be good to have this balanced by well justified, more positive expectations that aren't simply a case of wishful thinking.

In reply to J1234:










*seventh year????*

of course you realize, that when you complete it that will make you an expert- and we've had quite enough of those....

In reply to jkarran:

One of the few intelligent people trying to make a thought out and principled decision for the good of the rest, or just self interest ?


Yes, you're probably in trouble if you've assumed interest rates were always going to stay low.
Although a John McDonnell spending spree would probably be worse for you than leaving the EU.

I hope your company does well and pays you more.

In reply to Martin Hore:



I don't dispute that the analysis shows a clear education deficit in the make up of the vote. However we've go to be really careful before attributing that to the idea that Remain was the wiser choice, or that Remain voters had definitely considered the arguments and reached a rational decision, as opposed to Leave voters.

Firstly, the split in the vote seems to have as much to do with identity politics as with the actual issues of EU membership, and level of education or at least access to higher education is a large part of that.

Secondly, it could well be the case that the effects of Brexit will be unevenly distributed, adversely impacting those with a higher education and hence better employment prospects while positively impacting those who haven't had the benefit of a university education.

It goes without saying of course that you can't just call one block of people stupid and ignore their vote as a result.

That said, I strongly believe that Brexit was the wrong choice, and will have the most harmful impact on those regions and demographics already struggling. And there's a clear difference in parliamentary debates between the quality of debate coming from the hardline Brexit and the Remain sides. But this education deficit should not be used as an argument to try and discredit the Leave vote.

In reply to jkarran:

Yep. Lots of things you can do to plan for the worst. IF things turn out bad then you’ve covered your bases.

Running around crying and wailing and shouting that the sky MIGHT fall down, won’t help and there’s no guarantee that the sky will wall down.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


True but of course no one is doing that.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Stopping pulling it might just be worth a try.

In reply to David Riley:

Me? If so it's both I think, I don't think my needs and desires are exceptional. I also don't think I'm one of the 'few intelligent', there'd be no crouching for me under the IQ bell curve, i'm solidly in the tall bit with pretty much everyone else.


I didn't assume they'd always stay low. I took a calculated risk that they wouldn't spike catastrophically especially in the early years where repayments are mostly interest and my pay is still low so that I could get on with my life. Still, even a fairly modest 3%pt rise not accompanied (driven) by a pay rise doubles the cost of my mortgage which radically changes my quality of life while probably remaining survivable for a few years.


Debatable. We're hardly thriving under this criminally inept shower of s**t though so that's one change I'd be willing to explore especially since it can easily be unpicked at the ballot box in the near future if needs must. Unlike brexit.


Me too but they won't. Thanks for the concern.
jk

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
You are familiar with the idea of things that Might Happen and things that Will Happen. Things you Can Do Something about and Things You Can’t Do Something About.

I’m certainly not a happy go lucky type. I’m a philosophical type. There are things I’m doing to try and mitigate should the worst happen. But as I have no idea what that worst is or even could be, it’s not worth worrying too much about as Incant do anything else about it.

In reply to MG:

Mainly. Worrying that the worst is always going to happen is for risk adverse people. They can hide in their caves.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Expert, thats me. An ex is a has been, and a spurt is a drip under pressure.
Its OU, so thats why taking so long.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


No it's not. It's for rational people who then take reasonable steps to avoid the most serious effects to them if the worst should happen. Ignoring the possibility is just foolish.

In reply to jkarran:




Its key. It looks alien to people and upsets their feeling of security (in many of its senses). Its how many people feel, not saying its correct, just is. Trevor Phillips in the end had to admit you cannot tell people how to think/feel.

In reply to MG:

Lots of people on this thread and elsewhere are. And they’re trying to derail Brexit because of their fears.

In reply to MG:


Who said anything about ignoring it. I’m talking about worrying and fearing it so badly that you don’t want it to happen. When you don’t actually know exact what ‘it’ is.

In reply to J1234:

Ok so let's say we accept and include people's immutable innate fear of the other (I don't but I'll suspend my disbelief and hear your case for it). Will you share your clearly learned opinion on why we're making the right choice? I haven't studied any of those subjects formally (which I'm sure shows to one who has) so surely I'm missing and misunderstanding plenty. Turn me.
jk

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Which is totally different to thinking "the sky will fall in". In any case, I don't think many are trying to derail brexit - it's clearly happening. What they are trying for is something that isn't the most extreme, unplanned, and chaotic version imaginable, which is what we are heading for.

Your c'est la vie, shrug it all off, so what attitude is a bit childish really. Pretty much everyone on whatever side agrees brexit is momentous event with deep implications.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I don’t see that the two are mutually exclusive. Depends on the deals. Stopping all movement of goods and services isn’t going to happen is it? So there is going to have to be some movement. Exactly how relaxed that is has yet to be decided.

In reply to MG:


There's the nub, for me; we were asked to make a huge decision with incomplete data, weak debate and a nebulous outcome (hard/soft Brexit).

As we have headed in to fulfilling Brexit, some incredibly difficult and complex problems have arisen, alongside voluminous work loads for which we are ill prepared - because of the incomplete data, weak debate and a nebulous outcome outline above. Worse, the chaos has a heavy dose of Soviet interference on social media.

But rather than pulling the whole thing we are pushing ahead at all costs, doubling down, blaming others for the difficulties (Remainers for 'talking things down', Ireland for trying to bully the UK - thanks Kate Hoey for that gem, Judges for being traitors etc....).

That is not to say that Brexit couldn't or shouldn't happen. it just needs a decade of preparation, which we could begin to undertake had we not hit the START button. I am surprised at Tories for this self inflicted act of gross incompetence.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No one has ever claimed there will be *no* movement of anything. The question is whether it will be free or not.

Your answer appears to be "no it won't".

In reply to Shani:

I am in total agreement with you but wasn't Cameron elected on a mandate of having a referendum?

In reply to jkarran:

My personal gut feeling is that in the medium to long term, the EU will not hold together. Too many different conflicting societies, issues and temperaments. Greeks and Germans, Brits and French, and so it goes.
In the short term ( I am hoping to move to Catalonia within the next 2 years) Remain would be best for me.
Like I said it was knife edge for me. As a contraian I eventually made an emotional decision based on George Osbornes threats, I do not like to be threatened.

"(which I'm sure shows to one who has) " sir you protest too much, I would like to be a step behind you in the brains game.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Suspect it's an OU degree. Took me eight years for Hons.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

It’s not free in the financial sense at the moment anyway. We pay to be members. Paying for access could just end up costing the same.

Free in the sense of being able to move around and go wherever you please? I suspect the only restriction is you’ll have to pay for a work visa.

In reply to Deadeye:

I've changed my my several times, even a few times during the course of this debate. I sometimes play devils advocate to help me gain a better understanding but I always end up back at my original reason for wanting out and that is that IMO the EU is a very convoluted form of democracy and therefore not democratic. Democracy should be simple. Every few years the parties put forward what they are going to do. If you, generally agree, you vote for them, if not you don't and you get them out. The only manifesto pledge that I can see that applies to the EU is to become more federal. If someone can tell me how I get rid of the Kinnock dynasty I may change my mind again.

Educated, informed, intelligent people got us into this mess perhaps it time to give the rest of us a chance, there is a great deal to be said for plain common sense and trusting the voting public.

Al

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Lots of people (headed by a dodgy elite and mendacious media) sought to derail membership of the EU and a more likely avenue of prosperity and peace for the consolidation of their own power, and succeeded. Campaigning preyed on fears, some with rascist tones: 'Turkey is joining the EU...'

Seriously, how do you expect people to act when, metaphorically, they feel are in a car heading for a cliff (well, probably a moderately steep slope), when little shows this belief to be wrong.

Some Brexiteers and their media voices come across as childish hypocrites, expecting Remainer to shut up and help them salvage something from their mess while having spent the last decade or more raising EU scare stories and doing nothing to help create a better EU.

You act according to what you feel best and try to bring that about.

Fair enough if you believe Brexit to be of benefit: act / vote accordingly. Likewise if you think it's not: do what you think best, which could be derailing Brexit or it could be trying to make the best of Brexit.

In reply to J1234:


This is the core point of the EU, the very heart of the project, binding the interests of nations with difficult histories and different cultures so tightly they can prosper together but cannot benefit through aggression. That Gordian knot is tied and cannot be unpicked bit by bit as we are learning. My gut feeling is they will, falteringly and doubtless with setbacks work together to make it work as they already have for long peaceful decades. The alternative is appalling and will surely engulf us whether we're in or out as it has before.


I really don't know what to say, reading this just makes me put my face in my hands in sadness.

I'm sorry, thanks for coming back to me honestly I really don't wish to be rude but I'd hoped given the course you're studying you'd challenge my ideas. Good luck with the degree and I hope you can still find a way to make your move work.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


I am a much different person to what I was 6 years ago. I cannot challenge your ideas because I agree with you 99.9%. I think that humans act rationally but only from their (micro) perspective, which means they make irrational decisions in the (macro) broader context.
Sadly I think it will all be decided by emotions.

>Good luck with the degree and I hope you can still find a way to make your move work.

Thanks. There is always away. I will give it a go and see what happens.

In reply to GridNorth:


That's rather a bold statement. Why should democracy be simple?

This was the key argument made during the AV Referendum in 2011. It seems sensible at face value but I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. In the AV ref the suggestion was that FPTP is simpler to understand than AV, and simpler at the ballot box, therefore better. Yet AV would result in broader representation than FPTP. In my opinion it is therefore more democratic.

Taken to it's logical extreme, this argument for the simplicity of democracy suggests that the best system is a dictatorship. It's the simplest system - one guy (or girl) making the decisions, no questions asked. At the very least it suggests that plebiscite trumps representative democracy, and majority rule over every single issue is preferable.

Not least of the problems is that many of the problems with which politics deals are inherently very complex and can't be reduced to binary options. It also requires checks and safeguards and balances.

I agree the democracy should be transparent, but not that it should be simple.

In reply to Flinticus:

Do you not see the difference between an economic situation and a Car careering down a slope?

I’m not sure we are all about to die because of Brexit.

In reply to Trevers:

I'll amend that to "the voting process should be simple", to encourage every eligible person to engage with it.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

You mean like EU elections, which are PR based, unlike UK elections...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


You're saying we can restrict the free movement of goods and services and that the current losses (the ones you say are due to uncertainty) will be recovered after brexit. How? How is it going to put us in a better economic position?

In reply to MG:

No I mean like I have stated before. The parties put up a manifesto with which you either agree or disagree and every eligible person votes accordingly. The Civil Servants are there to facilitate that manifesto but the elected MP's are ultimately responsible and accountable. There are too many unelected officials in the EU and it seems to work the opposite way round.

In reply to GridNorth:


That's exactly how the EU works...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Because long term economic trends are always increasing. Once the uncertainty is removed people are in a good position to play by the new rules and make plans for growth. You can’t plan for the new rules until you know what they are. Hence the uncertainty.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


So in essence, on the back of one decade of economic stagnation, we shouldn't worry about the prospect of another one, because in the long term things will improve and we'll only be 20 years behind?

In reply to Deadeye:

I see a new scientific study backs up others finding that a high proportion of Brexiters are xenophobic.
Not really a surprise.

In reply to GridNorth:


Here is some reading for you:
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/06/23/is-the-eu-really-run-by-unelected...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You seem intent on ignoring the fact that the EU has evolved to be mutually beneficial to its member states. If there were no benefit to be had, it simply wouldn't exist. So remind me again what is the basis of your confidence that, outside of this mutually beneficial framework, the 'plans for growth' you anticipate for the UK would be as successful as those that would have been possible while still playing nicely with the trading partners we need to rely on the most? Obviously assuming there will be no race for the bottom in terms of things like labour or environmental standards, because surely our government would be more responsible than that.

Are UK people somehow better than other Europeans? Do we have a secret formula for prosperity and happiness the others don't know about? What exactly is it that will make up for the lost opportunities of free trade and movement of labour within the EU?

And please, no answer that includes the word 'believe'.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Yes, but if the uncertainty has slowed growth then when the uncertainty is resolved we will have to grow even more to make up for those 5(?) years where uncertainty has slowed growth - it's playing catch-up.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Yes that is very interesting and educational but to some extent reinforces my case. It's complex and remote compared to the UK parliamentary voting system. The article effectively admits that we in the UK do not understand it and that's my point.

I explained our system in two lines albeit simplistically.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

So despite your objection to being called ignorant above, you agree you don't in fact understand be basics of how the EU works!

I'd bet in fact you couldn't begin to describe how UK law is made - can you outline the role of the Lords, select committees, civil service etc? It's far less simple that the EU process.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No. The possibility exists that in spite of careful planning, management and an adjustment period we will still be significantly less free to prosper after negotiations than we were before. Not that we'll be adjusting to new rules but that those rules will be restrictive in which case you're right, uncertainty becomes certainty. At the moment the pound has fallen slightly because people are hedging their bets moving some of their money elsewhere for now, we might do ok, we might not but either way best not bet the house on it. Ultimately we might do ok-ish out of the negotiations (Norway style, pointless but prosperous) in which case it'll rebound slightly and the economy will resume a generally upward cyclical trend broadly in line with other developed economies though a few years behind where we might have been had we not embarked on this little adventure. Or we could really spectacularly cock this up ending up effectively blocked out of the European services market, trading on WTO rules facing a relentless stream of disputes as 160 something nations individually seek to exploit our moment of weakness to improve their terms vs those they accepted from the EU. Meanwhile we hemorrhage jobs, skills and investment. In which case we don't go back to normal dismal growth, potentially worst case our economy spirals out of control with an attendant crash in living standards, revenue and fire sale of state services and assets. Both (and other) possibilities exist.

The uncertainty is real, it's not just a period of waiting before we go back to normal, it's a period of waiting to see which path we chose or stumble down. They have very different destinations.

It's really puzzling me, why did you vote remain?
jk

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Do you know the difference between a metaphor and the literal? I'm sure you do so that saves me an explanation.

In reply to GridNorth:

I beg to disagree, it’s a lot less complex than the arcanes of the archaic U.K. unwritten constitutional system.

But I agree that a lot of people in the U.K. do not understand and are ignorant about the functioning of the EU, even though it’s pretty simple. All they know is the general vibe which is “unelected bureaucrats”. That doesn’t help with making informed decisions for sure.

From my little experience canvassing for the Lib Dem’s in Fife, I would say many people don’t even have a clue about the U.K. system anyway.

In reply to john arran:


It’s the myth of British exceptionalism again.

In reply to jkarran:

There is another possibility but that doesn’t fit your agenda.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Well the UK has exceptionally low productivity, despite decades of trying to improve it. Perhaps a system reset might give it the kick up the ars.. it needs.

In reply to summo:


What's your reasoning for thinking it would be likely to improve after a 'reset' rather than get worse? Blind optimism? Wishful thinking? The government couldn't do worse if it tried?

Genuinely curious.