UKC

....may not be reaped for another 50 years according to Jacob Rees Mogg.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-economy-brexit_uk_5b...

...and we shouldn't be afraid of not getting any deal out of the negotiations.

It must be nice to be filthy stinking rich and not give a shit about the lower classes.

2016: "Brexit will be great, we'll get cake and eat it"

2018: "Brexit will be great, one day, when you are all dead. Ho btw better stock up on food and medicine:"

If the transcript of the interview is correct that's not what he says at all, he says the benefits will be over the next 50 years, not after. Much like the benefits of being in the EU have been over the 45 years of our membership. But hey, don't let accuracy get in the way of UKC's favourite polemic.

Have you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists? I have, pre Brexit I think it was, and one thing that jumped out at me was, nothing much has changed in the intervening 100 years.  It seems that the masses were, and still are, quite happy to be shafted by our rich superiors.

Sad but true!

Read it a couple of years back and I can see why it wasn't allowed to become more popular! Nothing much has changed! 

From the article:

Rees-Mogg: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time, we really won’t.”

Guru-Murthy: “Of course not, but I mean we’ll have an indication. We’ll know if there’s been chaos, we’ll know if there have been job losses.”

Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”

What he is saying has no meaning.

We will not be able to evaluate the benefits or otherwise of Brexit in 50 years time, because there will be no counterfactual. 

In the short term however, it will be clear whether the economic impact of Brexit is positive or negative because modelling of the counterfactual and determining causality is far more reliable.

Believing in the long-term benefit of Brexit is an act of pure faith. It is outside the reach of evidence - you can believe whatever you like, and there is no justification.

Pec can enjoy watching the interview here (many others may prefer not to, or to arm themselves with a sick bag first):

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1020671636524191745

The masses are now in charge, surely? Hence Brexit.  Almost all the great and the good campaigned for Remain, but we (the masses) had our say and Brexit was the result.  It's not our rich superiors that are shafting us.  We are shafting ourselves.  Brexit was not imposed from on high.

No they stuck two fingers up to the establishment when they voted leave. They’d had enough of being told by middle class, Guardian reading tossers what was good for them.  

Spot on. But a lonely voice here.

reminds me of Chou en lai’s comment about the French Revolution... and yes, I know the quote is disputed. 

Yeah, the public just came up with the idea themselves. No twenty year campaign led largely by the media and politicians predominantly from backgrounds of overwhelming privelege. Just a little grassroots campaign led by grubby streetfighters such as Farage, Lord and then Jacob Rees Mogg, and the simple miner Arron Banks. 

You can't blame politicians for Brexit.  All the main parties campaigned for Remain.  UKIP and the BNP are, largely, working class parties.

You can see that with Trump in the US.  He generally wasn't backed even by the Republican establishment, but by "blue-collar" Americans.  In many ways Trump's diplomacy and foreign policy is that of an "average blue-collar American, who just happens to have a bigger bank balance".

In the UK and US and Western Europe policy is determined largely by the masses.  Political parties must appeal to the masses.  We cannot shift the blame to a "ruling elite" anymore.  

We all had our chance to vote for Brexit or not.  Both sides had a voice.  And it was a free vote.  You, me and everyone else cannot evade responsibility for it.  There was no evil power controlling us.  It was our decision.  No one else's.

What's he got a crystal ball or something? He doesn't know.

Nobody knows what the consequences of Brexit will be tomorrow, next year, ten years from now or in 50. It's all speculation and the tendency to attribute any sort of value to speculation just because of who the speculator is is one of the things that lead to this whole mess in the first place.

That's primarily the reason why I'm a remainer. I refuse to trade the near-certainty of negative impacts against the chance for some speculative, positive outcome in the far-flung future.

I think that Brexit is a damn fine example of the danger of faith in a non-religious context.  Though the private faith in self-profit of the proponents may be justified.

I think you're right that a lot of the leave votes were a protest against the current state of politics and marginalisation of those on low incomes.

Unfortunately they voted to replace the status quo with something worse, a plan by extremely wealthy individuals to make themselves even richer by profiting from the destruction of the UK economy and employment rights.

I’m as concerned about Brexit as you are but I’ve yet to see any evidence that the likes of Banks or Mogg expect to profit from the shrinking of their substantial GBP wealth or from the diminution of employment rights. Mogg runs an investment fund where his average employee makes him £millions. Why would he want to fire them?

Yet I read this every day on UKC. Where’s your evidence?

Personally, if it is a choice between Guardian reading tossers and JRM then I choose the tossers!

Arguing about when we might get some imagined benefits from Brexit is something of a side issue. The main problem is that Brexit is a really high-risk bet. We don’t know what the return is because there are no defined odds. All we know is that the stakes are huge: the economic prosperity, security and political stability of the U.K. 

I'd not associated the BNP with Brexit before, but I'll not stop you. During the campaign the main political parties campaigned for Remain (that's being incredibly generous to Labour), but in the years preceding it, Cameron et al did great business in blaming everything they could on "those guys in Brussels" partly because it appeased his back benchers but partly because it was easier than taking responsibility. The public didn't come to blame the EU for its woes out of nowhere. I think you have a short memory.

No. It's not politicians' job to pander to the masses, it's to best represent their interests. Trump pandered to blue-collar America's worst fears and prejudices and has governed, if not just for himself, for the interests of the super-rich.

There shouldn't have been a vote. I voted for the status quo. I will do my best in whatever little way I can, but I take no responsibility for the absolute pig-f*ck unfolding in front of us as I was, am and will be screaming to not do it.

Well, there you go.  Two very different views.

a) Politicians are responsible for everything.

b) The British and US voters are largely responsible for the state of their respective countries.

The US Constitution begins "We the people ...".  We don't have anything like that.  In fact, that leads to a third option:

c) The Queen is responsible, since it is officially her government after all!

The problem is that Trump hasn't lost his base despite the fact that he's done nothing for rust belt USA. I suspect if you conducted a poll amongst the folk of Middlesbrough or Merthyr Tydfil you'd still find a majority in support of Brexit too despite there being little evidence that they will benefit.

It's a funny old world.

Those points about Trump are plain wrong. His roots and main backers were money and power and he used popularism as a tool to get kick started as a candidate for the Republican nomination but still with big money power backing like Fox. By the time he was fighting Clinton for Presidency the Republican party were solidly behind him., over half college educated white men voted for Trump (only a very small, proportion of the same in the UK voted for Brexit). The only thing that is true is that the blue collar workers made a differemce in some key states (but were duped... nothing changes for them ). Unlike you, I think ruling elites mostly control the agenda in the UK and EU: they have never been richer post 1945 nor controlled as much of the media.

I didn't say that. I massively disagree with your statement that Brexit didn't come from on high. I'm sure that's exactly what the interested parties in politics, capital and the media would love us all to think, but that's exactly where it came from...

Do we get the politics we deserve? I'd say as a country we are relatively politically illiterate. Whose fault is that? I'd say the public are guilty of letting politicians appeal to their vanity too successfully for too often, but this comes from conditioning. Do I personally feel I'm responsible for Brexit? F*ck no.

What good is the constitution doing for a lot of Americans? It's just another excuse for division. I'd forgotten about the Queen. What's she up to these days?

Really? My interpretation would be that the little turd is getting worried that when it hits the fan he'll be one of the ones who gets the blame for lying to the nation and this is his first arse covering manoeuvre. An act of moral cowardice if you like.

It's a pity he hadn't been so expansive in interviews conducted before the referendum, maybe it would have caused some folk to reflect a bit more deeply on what the consequences of "getting our country back" might be.

I think they're rich enough that it doesn't make any difference to them. Their reason for promoting Brexit was a nationalist one and just like the nationalists in Scotland they're quite happy to take on a fair bit of collateral damage if as a result they gain their " freedom". After all, they won't be losing their jobs and their children will still get nice jobs from one of their friends or associates.

Really? I suppose the owner of the Daily Mail and the Owner of the Sun had no influence on the decision.

You believe that, that we the little people all simultaneously alighted on this course of action organically, that it's a true peasants revolt? Bless.

jk

The problem with that logis ls that the number of years stated then becomes meaningless. Why not say 15 years, or 100? Are benefits going to cease again after 50 years?

The implication was clear, and that was that positive outcomes of Brexit will likely not be visible until around 50 years have passed.

That, to me, is unacceptable, even if it somehow were to be true - as opposed to yet another piece of wishful thinking (albeit now downscaled massively from the immediate land of milk and honey lie that voters were sold.)

I just read the first chapter of Darkest Hour.

It could have been written last week, so many parallels, - May is Chamberlain, stubbornly hanging on while the country is being humilated, and everybody agrees we need a National Government, but nobody will challenge the P.M. because Boris/Churchill is the only other option in the crisis and nobody wants that given his (their) catastrophic political record(s).

There's an interesting analysis of this is "Freakonomics" (in general, rather than specifically about Trump), which is that money and power only back a candidate when they have popular support.  In other words, if Trump hadn't been popular, then no amount of money would have won him the election.  Of course he needed his own money to get himself started, but no one would have touched him until they saw he had a chance.

But, this cuts across the glib preconception that money can buy an election and that the voters are duped by this.  So, do you believe it?

a) Power and money can buy a candidate the presidency.

b) Power and money cannot buy a candidate the presidency.  But they are necessary for a candidate who has what it takes.  The same money and power backing someone else would fail.

Which is it?  Is it a) the obvious, glib certainties that everyone knows?  Or, is it b) the more subtle analysis?

And what about the money and power backing Clinton?  Was she really a poor, outsider, anti-establishment candidate?

In any case, my main point in this thread is that most people seem to be in denial about the extent to which we now run our own country and if things go wrong, well it's we the voters who need to look at ourselves and stop trying to find someone else to blame, like the the editor of the Daily Mail.

Okay, given I have some confidence in my own intelligence and analytic ability, I can ignore the condescension.  You need to be careful, however, that you are not the one holding quaint naive beliefs.  And not those who disagree with you.

Effectively, yes.  Motivated largely by the immigration issue.  There was grass roots support for UKIP, which pressurised the main parties, which led to the referendum.  This was exactly democracy in action.  The Tories have perhaps never really stopped internally fighting about Europe, but the catalyst for Brexit was, I believe, grass roots (including working class) opposition to immigration.  Without that, UKIP and the Referendum would never have happened.

The motivating force for Brexit was Farage, who was not a mainstream politician, had no great power or wealth.  Whether he tapped into anti-immigration beliefs or created them, you could argue.  But, I believe, in a large part the anti-immigration views were there with or without Farage.

That's what I believe I have seen in British Politics in the past decade.  And very different from China, say, where things are directly mandated from the Communist Party.

Totally different from the Scotland.   There are no shady billionaires with newspapers, diamond mines, hedge funds or insurance companies bankrolling the Yes campaign in Scotland.   There was no dodgy campaign financing, collusion with Russians or misuse of personal data.   The SNP proposal for Scottish Independence was the softest possible exit from the UK and designed not to disrupt business or families.  The SNP wanted to stay in the EU single market, share a currency with the rest of the UK, co-ordinate with the rest of the UK on defence, no borders, no immigration barrier for people from England who wanted to live in Scotland.   

The establishment in Scotland with the power to hand out jobs to their kids are largely unionist.

While I am a firm supporter of the rights of the Scots to self determination the SNP proposal does sound a bit like having your cake and eating it.

UKIP. You say the rise in support was organic, a grass roots movement motivated by concerns over immigration but the strongest support for UKIP, the strongest concerns over immigration originate not in the areas with high immigrant populations but those with none so we should ask ourselves are those concerns genuine or were people being manipulated? The reality is of course a bit of both but without the relentless drip drip drip of alarmist xenophobia from the press (controlled by a few powerful men, not 'the masses' nor pure commercial pressure since only a section of the press indulged) UKIP would still be a few disaffected tories ranting into their pints.

Farage, like UKIP and it's electorate is the tool more than the hand controlling it.

jk

Perhaps no shady millionaires, but 80% of the Yes campaign was financed by a couple who won the Lottery. Hardly the voice of the people. 

I think JRM and the other free trade Tories fundamentally don't get it.  Running a business or the economy of a country is more like medicine than engineering.   You don't get to take out all the bits, replace most of them and put it back together to make something which you think might be better because if you try the patient will die or be in so much pain they refuse further treatment half way through.   

Because normal people don't play the lottery?

Do you think it a good thing that the independence campaign was so utterly dependent on just two people?

I think getting money from lottery winners is better for the campaign than having no money or being sponsored by the kind of people backing vote Leave.

This. This with big f*cking bells on.

One of these truisms that doesn't seem to be true.

From the other thread - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36622039.  Top votes to leave: Boston, very much affected by immigration, and you can go down the list from there.

Those areas where the population is made up of immigrants aren't anti-immigration, generally, true.  Which is as you'd expect - immigrants aren't anti-immigration and those who have chosen to remain in or move to those areas aren't likely to be anti-immigration either.  Those areas with a settled non immigrant population and recently affected by immigration, like Boston, are the areas with the strongest concerns.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't be so sure.  There's an old saying isn't there "know thy enemy".  I suspect that in terms of the Brexit referendum (and in terms of Trump supporters) you don't actually know them or understand them at all.  You can caricature them, but you have no real understanding of why people voted Brexit or for Trump. 

And, if I am right, then you have no hope of defeating them, because you cannot accept anything about them except your own caricatures.

I might be wrong, of course. 

You wrongly assume that Remain voters consider Leave *voters* the enemy.

That's the answer to a different question. Good Lord, it's bad enough having dishonest politicians lying through their teeth, but it's clear to see their lessons are not going unlearned among the general public. 

And as for dodgy donors - Brian Soutar, anyone? 

The clear fact is that all parties and all campaigns are in hock to a small number of wealthy donors. Trying to pretend otherwise is arrant nonsense. 

Well, of course, that's even more fundamental.  If your enemy really is the Leave voters, then you do not even know who your enemy is.  Let alone understand them.

I guess "opponent" is a better word in this context anyway. 

I know a couple of Trump supporters from my school days, one a gun nut, the other has gotten into Scottish sectarianism and racism in a big way, I don't pretend to understand either.

I do however count plenty leave supporters among my friends and met many hundreds more while out campaigning for Stronger In plus of course those I've debated with for years in here so I have some insight into what motivated them, frankly it was a mixed bag but a lot of it was pretty dark and absurd. They are not however the enemy. I don't suppose a new campaign will change many of those views while the tabloid press still supports leave though the relatively common 'sticking it to that smug c**t Cameron' vote will obviously have to find a new home. Among those I know and see regularly there has been a notable melting away of support for brexit as the reality has become clear, how that would translate into voting intentions I don't know.

I don't expect they will be defeated with or without my help. I think leave would (unless something changes) win a thumping majority in a Remain/Ratify referendum. I think if that's what we really want that's a good thing, people should be able to make an informed choice about their future, I think we need a way out of the crisis we've created one way or the other.

As I want something more from life than a blue book and 'adequate food' I suspect I too will opt to up sticks and leave.

As might I, hopefully we get the chance to put it to the test.

jk

I'm pretty sure that this Leave Kampfpaigner wasn't looking for Deferred Benefits any more than he wanted Deferred Benefits in Lesotho

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44939665

This is the morality of the rich manipulative clique who are railroading our country out of its most valuable political and trading alliance in favour of chaos.

Traitors

More lazy pop analysis and no apology for your earlier misrepresentations.

The excellent Freakanomics team do not claim what you do from their research and they never looked at presidential races. Yes Hillary was very well funded (....sort of contradicting your claims) and she got 3 million more votes than Trump, so was the most popular candidate across the board. Blue collar voters were duped by the Trump advertising which was funded by his campaign chest and strongly supported by biased media (like Fox). They were also previously let down too often by elected Democrats, but the alternative they chose, based on many lies and misinformation, already looks far worse (even to them...the ex democratic voting blue collar vote for Trump is far from being secure, as you implied...unlike the lunatic fringe of republican gun toting hicks who are solid for Trump but they don't often influence elections... at least not the way Trump, would want...the crazy policies they support have cost (or nearly cost) some big Republican names in elections this year). In the end swinging those blue collar democratic voters would have been pointless without the solid support from white, well-educated, middle class, republican voters, sticking to their tribal habits, rather than calling out the terrible behaviour of their candidate.

I don't blame desperate manual workers for poor choices. I blame the lying media and ineffectual and often corrupt political classes and the US white middle class tribalism that led supposedly thoughtful intelligent Christians to support this feckless immoral buffoon. Back in the UK, the editor of the Mail, was very much one of the most guilty parties for misrepresentation of Brexit arguments, only a very small minority of the well educated believed the Mail stance.

Banks a miner? Are there mines in Basingstoke? Hmm

Good point. Why would evil capitalists want to destroy the economy? 

Brave man. But well said. The assumption, deeply patronising and arrogant, is that the leave voters were all gullible thickos easily manipulated by a monopolistic media. There’s more Remainer untruths in that view,  repeated ad nauseum on this site, to paint the sides of a thousand buses. 

But is that the only choice? 

No, it is assumption on your part that all three of these things are at high risk from leaving the EU. Most of the early forecasts predicting such outcomes have been proven to be wrong. The response to which from remainers is that it will take more time to prove them correct. The same point Migg appears to be making no. Bob. Your ‘evidence base’ is built on sand. You’ve fallen hook line and sinker for the Tory fear campaign by Osborne! Lighten up, when in doubt, run it out. 

sorry fella, could you scream a little louder. Couldn’t hear you above the high pitched whingeing noise all around you.,,,

Perhaps the latter is why the majority voted to leave. They put a premium on sovereignty. And that has nothing to do with the colour of the passport. 

The clear fact is that some parties and campaigns are massively worse than others in this regard.

I'd be all in favour of having a basic set of 'moral probity' tests that people need to pass before being able to give any significant sum to a poltical campaign or take part in its management.   Not having a diplomatic passport from Belize would be on my list as would not bribing public officials in Lesotho or discussing mining concessions with the Russian ambassador.

The ruling classes wanted Remain. Mail and Sun are upstarts, truculent, awkward and subversive of entrenched power. Mail especially is a destroyer of politicians. They led the charge on MPs expenses. Daft thing is most of those on UKC are on the liberal left. Hence my earlier point about useful idiots. All those who voted remain voted for power to remain in the same old hands. And it probably will. You all seem to think they were making a bloody good job of it. Risible. 

Sorry John, whether you think it is unacceptable counts for diddly squat. Climb down off that pedestal. 

In other words:

Lying politicians ... biased media ... duped voters (all, except me and my monkey, too stupid to see they are being duped) ... don't blame the voters (I appreciate the poor, uneducated masses don't have my intellectual capacity to see the truth) ... I forgive them ... it's the lying politicians I blame ... and the gun-toting hicks ... and the newspaper Barons, out for their own vested interests ... anyone who doesn't see the world through my eyes ... anyone who disagrees with me should apologise immediately for misrepresenting the truth.

The Gospel according to Offwidth, so help me help God!  Amen

It was the Daily Telegraph. Not the Mail. Who uncovered the mos expenses scandal. Get your facts right. 

The bit  I’m just not following is how JRM, Rupert murdoch, viscount rothermere, and Boris Johnson  are anything but ‘entrenched power’. 

Or how the brexit vote is anything other than a vote for power to remain in a narrower subgroup of the old hands, with fewer checks on how they exercise it. 

No they haven't. 

Not relevant to my post. You seem to be confusing me with someone else. 

I said that Brexit is a high-risk bet. That's a reasonable judgement when we just don't know what many of the outcomes will be. 

That's just patronising rubbish. I haven't read anything by Osborne. I haven't fallen for anything. I've made a reasoned assessment based on a whole raft of evidence that suggests that no-one can be sure how Brexit will turn out. That being the case it's high-risk.  

Never heard of disaster capitalism then? 

AHAHAHAHAHA! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! AHA! AHA! AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!...

Phwoooosh!

This is pure fantasy. The ruling classes didn't all want Remain. That's why the Conservative party was so divided. As for the Mail being an upstart, how long do you think it's been around? Check the history, check the ownership. The Mail likes to destroy politicians only when it suits Dacre's agenda. He's as much part of the establishment as anyone. 

It's also worth pointing out that people aren't all in your black and white world. It's perfectly possible to see the EU as very much less than perfect and in much need of a democratic overhaul and still vote Remain. More power to influence the development of the EU if the UK's in it, see? 

It's a shame you didn't take any notice of the facts. The UK has sovereignty already. It always did. 

"Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

They include:

The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

The Human Rights Act 1998.

The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973.

The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.

These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."

- https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

Don't bother. Nobody arguing for sovereignty can actually say what it is, and how leaving will take it back.

Resorting to ad hominen attacks when someone points out your analysis doesn't match the facts is pretty low.

The world is highly complex and simplistic polemic is usually wrong. However, Trump is a rare and obvious exception to political nuance and its scary and fascinating to me watching the intelligent Republican voter class tie themselves in moral knots for what they have done to the world. This is intelligent informed people making unforgivable mistakes. The issues with the press are the large proportion who have given up on their independant journalistic role and bend to owners politics; and the way in the US in particular they allow an especially unconstrained owner driven agenda to lie and misrepresent in the name of free speech. Similarly politicians in the pockets of doners or lobby groups are a blight on democracy.  So, more relevant than the black and white view on agreements and disagreements, is listening and learning and the capacity to change when evidence clashes with ideology. In my experience there is a lowish correlation of this with educational acheivement... and highly educated well informed people and especially those claiming to be experts are more to blame for not changing their views when their politics contradict facts. Less engaged voters inevitably risk getting duped as politics is marginal in these peoples lives and so controls on what the press and politicians can say and do in the face of evidence are vital for democracy (the system is stupid that allows the brexit bus, not the voter who buys the lie). Most of the western world still has constitutional fault lines in these respects and so are still vulnerable to popularist and extremist liars in politics and the press. Ordinary voters are too often the best protection we have and where popularist or extreme monsters get elected it's usually where politics, the press and the upper middle classes have totally failed them based on ideology or self interest.... history shows its a small step from here to the totalitarian state.

Ah, thanks John, now I see I've been looking at this all wrong these past few years. I should have been voting to smash things up, to give power to f*** knows who to do f*** knows what with (but lets be honest, it probably won't be in my interest will it) at f*** knows who's behest because the terrible unthinkable alternative is leaving power where it is, leaving things stable and working reasonably well. My mistake.

As for the Mail and Sun being subversive... I'm laughing so hard some wee came out.

You sound like a saboteur trying to convince people smashing the looms will make their lives better where in reality they'll just end up jobless and shoeless swinging on a rope. Good work though if you're in the new loom business or trying to pry open a gap in the fabric market.

jk

I think Pero thinks nuance is a town in France.

It isn't ??

Down the road from Seance isn’t it? 

Bright and insightful. Thanks for sharing. 

Yes. But you know that is not what the poster’s ill-informed comment was referring to. 

Nothing you say suggests other than the you are a defender of the EU status quo. My view is that EU is a doomed project, centralising, bureaucratic, incapable of defending itself, and growing more and more isolated from the voters day by day. Dacre admired and despised by the Establishment: he is a wrecker. Currant bun remains a grubby, working class organ, not wedded to the establishment. Recall Kelvin’s comment to John Major when U.K. expelled from ERM? Not the words of an establishment figure. You guys so binary you don’t see the 50 shades of grey ??

As it is doing now. That’s what taking back control means. Recovering what we relinquished as your list demonstrates. So, we agree Bob.

You're as mad as a box of newts

Numpty. You might usefully start with Dicey. More recently Tony Benn, an intelligent opponent of EU, if little else, is worth a look. But don’t pretend sovereignty is immaterial. It is the very reason current negotiations are so intractable. 

I have no idea which poster you're referring to.

Disagree on most of that. Despite repeated attempts over decades we have not reversed the ratchet. Indeed Cameron’s attempt to get agreement on Banking reforms and Commission rejection was proximate cause of referendum. Behaviour of EU post referendum suggests deep hostility to principle that voters are more than a rubber stamp and to be ignored when they ‘get it wring’. See other comments on Dacre. Establishment is distinctly pro EU. Banking. Finance. Trade Union barons. Universities. CBI. EEF. Political party leadership (Con, Lab and Liberal). Your support of it is touching. The idea that it can be changed from within is what the remainers would call a lie. The direction of travel is, as ever, ever closer political and economic union. 

Do you know any words. Or were you brought up on Marvel comics? Kerbang. 

No, we don't. You think that leavers voted for sovereignty. That may in itself be true of some, because they believed the baseless arguments of many in the Leave campaign. I think they were misled. Do you?

That’s funny, because you and your fellow remainers seem very sure how it will turn out? You say you have a ‘whole raft of evidence’ showing no one has a clue how it will turn out. I think you just scuttled your own raft. Hope you have a life belt. 

I do have my facts sorted. The Mail kicked the story off and made the lead with it. For internal reasons the Barclay brothers bought in most of the Mail desk to run their newsroom, changing culture of Tory graph into one where the desk really didn’t know where to stop. Many were/are my colleagues. I wrote leaders at the time pointing out how the old Telegraph would have known not to transgress the line between assault on venal pols and undermining parliamentary democracy. Dacre never knew that line existed. Hence not establishment. Powerful yes, but not establishment. 

No. The proximate cause was Cameron's preference for party management over effective strategy. He was a lousy leader. 

Behaviour of EU post referendum suggests deep hostility to principle that voters are more than a rubber stamp and to be ignored when they ‘get it wring’.

What behaviour? 

Not sure which ones you mean. That he's a wrecker. That's something we can probably agree on. 

They're not all 'the Establishment'. You've overextended the concept. 

Evidence-free. The EU has changed and is still changing. Try reading this - it's interesting: 

https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/09/eu-changing-and-uk-attitude-brexit-cou...

Not necessarily. In recent years there has been more sympathy to a more flexible approach. See that article above for ways it might develop. 

Do you mean, we’re they misled? Or was the leave campaign misleading? Two different questions. I was in France at the time. So have no experience of the campaign. But think the fact that the polls indicate little shift in probable voting behaviour despite a nautical vessel of new evidence suggests they were not misled. They knew exactly what they were voting for, and behaviour of EU will only reinforce that. Your list was a catalogue of treaties etc temporarily ceded authority to others. The majority of voters asked Parliament to reclaim those rights. You may disagree, but we do agree. 

I'm not sure why you think I'm sure how it will turn out. 

What evidence?

They knew they were voting for Leave, yes, but that's all. They didn't know what that meant. Nor did the Leave campaigners it seems. 

Not mine. Parliament's. 

How can you possibly know that? It wasn't on the ballot paper. 

No

The thing is, the term ‘Establishment’ is meaningless, as everyone has their own definition of it. Yours is clearly ‘people in positions of power who don’t support Brexit’; while figures of equal privilege and entrenched power are defined by you as ‘not Establishment’ for no reason other than you agree with their stance in relation to leaving the EU.

There are unquestionably centres of wealth and power in this county, which overlap with each other, and seek to steer the course of government to their advantage. But the idea that they are a monolithic bloc, working to an agreed agenda, just doesn’t reflect reality. There are competing factions within a population of powerful vested interests, and Brexit is very much a struggle between these factions. But the idea that the multimillionaire proprietors of National newspapers, and Eton educated hedge fund managing parliamentarians are less Establishment figures than Jeremy Corbyn, or that they have the interests of the residents of leave voting deprived areas in the north of England at heart, is manifestly absurd. 

Brexit is a coup by a faction of the Establishment, if you like. The winners will be them and the interests of their clients and benefactors. But few of Sunderland’s residents are likely to invest with Somerset Capital Management, so I think it’s unlikely they will be among them. 

In voting leave all those ceded powers are to be returned. 

Evidence? Well that’s all the stuff you guys say we have learned about the lies and distortions and costs post referendum. 

It was your list. Parliament didn’t post the selective list, you did. 

You list powers ceded. Voters vote to regain control by leaving. Powers returned. We agree. 

Fundamental weight of establishment behind Remain. Funny how you have difficulty saying you favour status quo preferred by this establishment. You use the term coup. Not me. A coup is most normally the work of an anti-establishment minority, which at least gets us to agree on something. 

You prove my point. Ex Brussels corr for The Economist, House Journal of the city establishment along with FT writes piece in New Statesman, EU supporting house Journal of Left establishment, that we would be better off in!! Shock. No evidence, much conjecture. But not the Macron I recognise. The disintegration of the EU will be bottom up. It’s WB Yeats Second Coming. 

So you don’t think it will end badly? Brexit even a hard Brexit could be a success? 

The weird thing is that you sound happy about this. Are you really wanting things to fall apart and 'mere anarchy' to be loosed upon the world? Really??

Again you are defining words to suit your meaning. coups are more normally the realm of the military. That’s about as ‘establishment’ as it gets.

and you are again presuming to know what people are thinking. A useful tactic if you have to rely on creating a straw man to argue against, but a sign that your case is fundamentally a weak one.

and; funny how you have difficulty saying that the poster boy of Brexit, Cayman Islands based hedge fund partner and Eton educated oxbridge graduate Jacob Rees Mogg, is like an exaggerated caricature of an establishment figure. Yet that is exactly what he is. In any sane definition of The Establishment, he is 100% part of it.

in the end your argument amounts to little more than ‘establishment = powerful people and institutions that support remain’. The entire  premise of the argument is a tautology. 

Sorry but I think you are confusing a person's position within the class system with their 'membership' of the establishment. I think it is correct to say that Eton is part of the establishment and also Oxbridge, but not that all those who have attended those institutions are members of the establishment. What is really funny is that remainers like to slag Farage and Mogg off for the their connections to the 'city' and 'finance' when, in reality, they are minor players --- if players at all. The big bankers and investment houses who are major players are all pro EU and real powers not only in the land but in the world. I dont mind that you favour and support the policies of this corporate capitalism world, but it makes me smile when I suspect so many of you are guardian reading liberals....but then the Guardian has only survived financially because the Scott Trust owned a very very profitable cash cow - Auto trader ( value in excess of £1 billion). Otherwise, it would have gone to the wall years ago given how few people actually share its belief system  

Thanks. I rather like newts. I am rarely as pissed as one these days, but take your comment as a compliment. Better than dull as a herd of sheep......

No just Alex Salmond sucking up to the Fred the Shred...the very people whose reckless, if not criminal actions, led to the financial crash...cheered on by the SNP leader

So some minor millionaire bankrolling an even less influential African leader in Lesotho ( how many UKC posters could locate it on map) is leading a morality corrupt clique taking us out of the EU....and you think the EU couldn't stop that. Come on. Do better.

Here is Macron - reported in the Guardian setting out his vision for what you say is a flexible EU.....you are having a gaff..

In what was hailed on Tuesday as one of the most pro-European speeches by an EU leader in years, he spoke up for common EU policies on defence, asylum and tax, called for the formation of European universities, and promised to play Ode to Joy, the EU anthem, at the Paris Olympics in 2024.

Probably all of the ones you disagree with.

So many assumptions, so little substance 

boris Johnson has held one of the three great offices of state. He may yet be prime minister. JRM is a member of the Cornerstone group of Tory MPs-

The Cornerstone Group is a socially conservative or traditional conservative political organisation within the British Conservative Party.[1]The Group espouses traditional values as exemplified by its motto: Faith, Flag, and Family. It comprises Members of Parliament with a traditionalist outlook and was founded in 2005. The Group's president is Edward Leighand its chairman John Hayes. More than fifty Conservative Party Members of Parliament belong to the Cornerstone Group, including several members of HM Government.

- which sound about as establishment as it comes. He may also end up as Prime Minister. His credentials as an advocate for tax havens are just added window dressing. These people represent settled, entrenched power, sitting at the heart of the British state. 

Keep on trucking with this ‘Brexit backers are plucky revolutionaries sticking it to the evil forces of international finance and settled power’ if you like; it has some merit, though mostly for its comedy value.

Nice cut and paste.

The voters were indeed plucky. 

The point about Banks' alleged corruption is that he may not be the well meaning paragon of probity we all took him for. Indeed he may not actually have bankrolled the leave campaign, he may have been a front for Russian money. Seems far fetched but we should follow the evidence at least.

No, I don't think the EU could stop that kind of corruption cloaked as it appears to have been in a democratic movement.

jk

There has been a much publicised relationship between Lesotho and the Diocese of Durham for many years, such that many people in the North East will have seen news items on Look North about aid development projects there.

Are you saying people should only keep to propriety and not deal in corrupt practices when there is a chance of them being caught in the UK and that they should be free to show their true nature when dealing with lesser folk overseas?

It shows the kind of traitorous individuals who subverted our democracy for their own ends leading the country into a shambles,

and the dirt behind the Information War

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44966969

I'm sure the EU going after the financial backers of the Leave campaign would have gone off without a hitch.

I think those financial backers acted out of the same altruism as the folk who profited from the sub prime mortgage balloon

Which is what Mid West Farmers did with Trump.. and he has truly shafted them. As he told them what was good for them and they lapped it up..

His trade war with China has resulted in Chinese Tariffs on US Soy Beans and they are truly shafted now. With many farms expected to go out of business and they aren't getting to price for Soy Beans to pay back loans for land and equipment.

Mogg is just thinking about the future of your children ( Great grandchildren  

I must look up what he actually said, did you have a link to a particular article if not I will dig it out . 

I have been watching the EU Parliament for a couple of hours 'welcoming' the Austrian Presidency.

Interesting than Nigel Farage is sitting there listening to speaker after speaker , after speaker talking about closing borders, adding security checks, against illegal immigration and setting up camps ( just like Trump) Nigel is smirking like the Cheshire Cat. 

As the fireworks box says ' light the blue touch paper and retire at a safe distance' 

It's not entirely clear (usual problem with the medium no doubt) how you feel about the rise of actual Nazi's in European politics nor how you feel about Farage's apparent delight in that and the bit part he had us play. I mean it worked so well last time I can't believe it's taken 70 years for us to give them another crack of the whip.

jk

Power will remain in the same old hands after Brexit, but some of those old hands, confident in the great economic future for the UK, are making sure they can still live abroad, investing off shore and suggesting companies should consider relocating to Malta.

Dave 

When you used to post without the 55 appended to your name, you said you worked for the leave campaign (writing speeches iirc) to say then that you had no experience of the campaign is not true is it?

No subterfuge. Just crap at signing in. And no the threads on other posts should explain. Being for a referendum also does not make you a leaver. Though the balance of argument I feel is that we are better off out. Unless the wish is for ever closer economic and political union. Which is all that is on offer, despite the hopes of those who say better off in and work for reform. 

I suspect you are right. Divide and rule and all that. And my, how divided we are. 

What exactly would be wrong with a mutually profitable relationship with our liberal neighbours?

It’s the EU that has lit the blue touch paper hsving created the tinder dry climate that’s starting a bush fire of far right, populism. Farage is a symptom not the cause! Hence my view that the EU will rip itself apart through failure of Euro and EU open doors. It’s a doomed model. You’d think 89 had never happened. 

That is what I want, but I want reform too. As an ideal I'd like to see a world with no borders.

World government? No government? Utopia or dystopia? You might say the World Wide Web is a world without borders. But it is not without its flaws and some would say required boundaries and borders.

on ever closer / it has to come from the ground up not top down. EU highly elitist and disdainful of the voters. Something of the Lenist vanguard and false consciousness about its approach and those of the remainers. 

How is the Capitalist EU in any way a Leninest vanguard? What is this false consciousness you speak of in reference to Remainers? Are you implying that we don't exist?

I don't mean to be facetious but your perspective seems skewed (if somewhat fascinating)..

So did you do any work for any of the leave campaign groups?

I agree with much of what you say. I am 6/10 in favour of staying in the EU mainly because of the democracy deficit but I feel it is too important a project to leave and Britain's role in it should be to democratise it. Let's not forget it's objective is not to make us richer but to allow Europe to live in peace and in that respect alone it has been successful.

Forgive me. I am showing my age. False consciousness is a term used by Marxists to explain the lack of revolutionary fervour of the working classes. It was a tongue in cheek reference to the remainer zealots’ view of current working class not appearing to know what is in their own best interests, and so an intellectual and largely middle class vanguard has to speak on their behalf. Sorry for any confusion. 

J

It is not true to suggest that the working class as a whole are in favour of Brexit.

Wealthy pensioners in the SE of England maybe...

Nothing. But you don’t need, nor it would seem do a majority want, ever closer union. And not all our neighbours are liberal. The far right are resurgent in much of Europe. What makes UK such an attractive place for migrants ( London is the sixth largest French  city) is its openness, toleration, opportunity to find skilled and unskilled work, rule of law,  and diversity ( the latter more England than the other nations of the U.K.) 

Dare I ask two simple questions?

1. Do you want this resurgence of the right?

2. If you do, how does this make the UK 'an attractive place for migrants'?

Yes to daring. No to wanting. But structure and politics of EU creating the climate where this is all but inevitable. I’m not against open door. Just that the decision and control should be role of elected government not EU. So parties could stand on unlimited migration, get elected (or not) and then be voted out if it doesn’t work. That’s what taking back control means. We can be as open and dynamic as we like, as long as we persuade the electorate of its virtues or necessity. It should not be decision for the EU. 

As so often, you've lost me. I don't see how any of what you have said is 'a/ the? decision for the EU'.

All very well if you're not interested in benefitting from the advantages of club membership. Problem is that the UK seems to want to have both. Someone once mentioned having cake and eating it, which seems apt.

The way I see it there are two constructive possibilities (neither involving Brexit, as that has already shown itself to have no constructive potential in my lifetime):

One is that the UK campaigns within the EU for greater control over who comes and who goes. In this it would certainly help if the UK were first to implement the options already available, rather than continuing to blame EU rules for what are in fact UK decisions.

The second is that the UK may choose to explain to its electorate why substantial immigration is being encouraged, in terms of overall efficiency, filling of jobs most Brits don't want to do, or whatever. It clearly has been a government strategy for many years so it would make a refreshing change for a government to try and convince the electorate that it was a wise path and one worth continuing for the good of all in the nation.

I'm not holding my breath.

Is it not a European or global conundrum? Nearly every country has an aging demographic and needs more young workers to keep the growth model rolling. But the world isn't exactly desperate for population growth, has finite resources, climate change, rising sea levels etc..

Something needs to change. It is just not possible for every country to benefit from the inward flow of young educated workers at the same time and it doesn't address the problems in their homelands if the young, best educated and most motivated leave for the honey pot of London, it might take decades longer for eastern Europe to grow towards the European average in terms of prosperity and living standards etc..  this problem is even more stark if you are luring the few educated people from 3rd world/ developing nations to the UK and Europe.

I see no solution though unless we are prepared to either lower our standard of living a little or at least stall it. 

Sorry. But the only way for UK government to take back what a previous administration had acceded to - the free movement of 400 million people across an internally borderless EU - is to leave the EU. That is all I mean. It also goes back to a point I have mentioned previously, namely that on so significant an issue as relinquishing control of borders there was no full debate on the floor of the Commons. It is this distant and elitist way of making decisions, with disregard for the impact in domestic populations, that is leading to the surge in the right. It’s a simple Bennite point that democracy is at its best when leaders are directly elected and unelected. The EU mechanisms a very different. Hence the sense of alienation. 

Agree with much of what you say. Though our views differ on the mechanisms. By making free movement a pillar the EU has made the unrestricted internal migration across very diverging economies - very rich and very poor - it has turned it into an existential issue. My view is that control of borders, for as long as there are nation states, should be for national Parliaments to legislate upon. Parties could compete for votes on very differing approaches to migration. Which meets your criterion of persuading the public of the most appropriate choice. In doing so you create a public concensus around a potentially controversial issue. This is what taking back control means. It doesn’t necessarily mean closing borders. It could mean open borders or more regulated. That is for UK voters to decide. What we have here is a brilliant example of the so-called ratchet effect....moving us always to ever closer union. But because the ratchet cannot be reversed, what we are left with us populist uprisings across the continent 

Some good points here about the hugely negative impacts on ‘people exporting’ nations. It severely limits their hope of progress. On a personal level it breaks up families and communities. There’s been some interesting work done on bringing exploited migrant communities in UK and disaffected indigenous communities affected by migration together to find common ground. 

They're really not. They're a little better with a decent implementation of PR and the scale is quite different though we still have more say in the EU than most constituency MPs have in parliament.

The problem is for a long time now we've been sending UKIP's low quality wreckers to Europe who have been utterly dysfunctional and have deliberately stoked resentment.

Freedom of movement of people is by far the most valuable of the EU's four freedoms, it is to their shame that so few of our elected representatives will speak for it.

jk

I'd say trade. Trade brings employment and revenue which facilitates everything else. 

People moved for employment before the eu migration for workers agreement, but without tariff free trade you would stifle the need for workers in the first place.

Besides four freedoms... ? Hardly freedom when to have one you have to sign up to a whole raft of other not related stuff simply because it pushes the agenda of a united states of Europe. Freedom it is not. 

Let’s just agree to disagree. But if it is so valuable and beneficial, why the backlash? And please don’t blame Paul Dacre and the stupidity of the voters. The idea that we are better represented in Brussels is risible. Or that there’s a closer connection between voters and candidates at EU level. 

You are right, free markets, free trade and open competition the key to innovation and wealth creation. The EU finds all three anathema. 

Then why give up free trade with 500 million people to find yourself isolated in a world where the big players, the US, China and the EU will all employ protectionist measures when you attempt to negotiate trade deals with them?

Eh? The Eu has recently signed Free Trade Agreements with Canada and Japan. The EU suggested an FTA with the UK last year.

The UK did not respond to that as the May wants a Customs-Union-that-isn't-called-a-customs-union, even though the her hard right MPs will spot it is a customs union and will block it. 

So plan A is to whip up the jingoism with misinformation about what is actually go on, blame the EU when it is clearly our own government who has got us into this pickle.

As I understood it we don’t want to give that up. But the EU opposes it, making it conditional on things we cannot accept while maintaining some semblance of implementing the verdict of the people.  Some will call it cherry picking. I rather like the Belgium ministers description of U.K.’s policy shifting from being in and wanting opt outs to being out and wanting opt ins. I can see why EU is playing hard ball. They are desperate for us to fail as success would only speed the collapse of a broken institution. 

The EU is 'playing hard ball' because it is representing the interests of its remaining members and negotiating their best trading position.  Its not personal.  Its what we would be wanting them to do on our behalf if, say, Italy had decided it wanted to leave and still hold on to its benefits.

Unfortunately the economic evidence is firmly against this:

https://www.cer.eu/insights/would-britain%E2%80%99s-trade-be-freer-outside-...

"Britain’s choice is this: it can choose to stay in the single market – a very deep FTA, agreed with its largest trade partners, and one with a proven track record in reducing the cost of trade. Or it can leave it, and try to sign dozens of free trade agreements with less certain benefits to make up for the opportunities forgone in Europe. The conclusion should be obvious: free traders should support Britain’s continued membership of the EU."

The EU protects itself first. And punishes those who step out of line. 

From an organisation ‘devoted’ to making the EU stronger! That is not an argument against free trade. The reality is the EU wants to protect itself against a UK free of the constraints that allow it to be more competitive. 

It's just an example, you'll find pretty much identical conclusions from virtually every reputable economic analysis, the Economist, FT, etc. 

I do not want the NHS to be freed of the constraints that prevent it being owned by American big pharma. Do you? because that is the kind of stuff our new found freedom will entail.

What specific free trade deal would you like to do that the EU has not already done or is not likely to do before the post-Brexit UK? 

I suspect when you get down to details you will almost always find there is a reason why there isn't already a deal and it will be just as hard for a post-Brexit UK to agree to the other country's terms as it was for the EU.  

Another question for the swashbuckling free marketeers, which I've yet to hear a coherent, or in fact any answer to:  If being in the EU is such an impediment to free trade, why are other EU countries so much more successful than the UK in trading internationally, including with Commonwealth countries?  

And any such deal by a country of 65 million is highly likely to be significantly poorer than one  with a trading block of hundreds of millions.  As the UK will find out if it comes to negotiating a deal with the US.

All trade agreements require a surrender of sovereignty - so you've just got to ask yourself who you want to surrender that to; corporate America or a semi-democratic group of countries you have significant influence over? 

Exactly, we’ll actually be ceding our democracy to American corporations. 

Who is "They"? The EU isn't some secret society of a dozen individuals, it's a group of 20 odd countries, the governments of which have no wish to see their economies damaged or plunge themselves into recession by 'punishing' the UK.

The UK making a sucess of Brexit is probably the least worst option, but they aren't going to pay to subsidise it.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the EU and the fluffy ideals and have no interest in free movement or 'ever closer union'. However committing economic suicide and then ranting about a shadowy institution being desperate for us to fail seems absolutely ridiculous.

Firstly, when and how has the EU done anything like this outside your imagination ?

Secondly we are, for the moment, as much of the EU as anyone else. The EU is only what it's members make it.

The EU has interests in the same way that any collective has interests that override what’s best for any individual.  They aren’t acting in secret they’re acting quite publicly, and according to UKC, it’ll do them no financial harm for us to leave (they’ll benefit as business floods from here to there).  It’s clearly not in the EU’s interests (stability) for the UK to leave, why wouldn’t they do what’s necessary to ensure it doesn’t happen?  If it is the best thing for the EU then it’s not really a ‘bad’ thing to do after all.

The best option long term is that we stay/rejoin without our exceptions.

John Yate's  post stated the EU were "desperate for us to fail'', and were in the business of "punishing" those who step out of line.

The EU won't benefit economically (at least in the short to medium term) from us leaving due to loss of contributions and trade, plus the cost of sorting out the legal mess. The UK failing spectacularly will make that impact worse. Therefore 'the EU' has no interest in that happening.

That may be the best option, but the UKs stance is leave regardless of the consequences.

Hyperbole, very common on the both sides.  Your response, that they have no interests as they're a group, just doesn't make sense.

Given the vote to leave there are only so many options available to them.  They can't have us not leave at all, that's not within their gift.  They can do their best to try and ensure that we have to rejoin, or that we "leave" in name only.  They do also have an interest in trading with us which completes with those, but that doesn't mean that they have only that interest, or that trade is necessarily their most important interest.  As said, we leavers are continually told that it won't (financially) harm them at all, it'll harm us and benefit the EU.

The best option for the EU I mean, not for the UK.  The UKs current stance is leave, more important to the EU is our long term stance.  If we leave and all goes well its far less likely we'd rejoin, far less likely we'll remain within their sphere of influence.  That's not a conspiracy theory, it doesn't need to involve any shadowy influence.

Pardon?  Did you miss all the stuff about completely free movement of goods, services and workers across 28 countries?  Do you think the US or China have such openness?  Do you think the Germans have a problem with wealth creation?  Who is currently pushing the world towards a trade war?

I'd agree that most European countries, and hence the EU, are not in favour of completely unrestrained, unregulated, race-to-the-bottom capitalism, and a good thing too but the idea that the key to limitless growth, wealth and personal happiness is for UK to go it alone against the massive trade blocs of US, China and EU is based on the invented memories of the afterglow of imperialism.

As for taking back control: 'Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard.'

If that's what you're hearing I'd suggest the problem is your side because it isn't what we're thinking or saying. Brexit is lose-lose.

The difference is the scale of the losses as a fraction of the economies parting ways and the resilience of those economies, their ability to absorb that shock and recover from it, the strength of the remaining entities as they move on to their next phase competing for business and for favourable trading agreements with the wider world. Brexit makes us poorer, weaker and less able to compete than the bloc we leave.

jk

I agree they are a group, a group of countries with their own national interests as well as an interest in preserving the EU and the benefits they gain from membership. Effectively a corporate entity.

That's an entirely different beast from Mr Yates vengeful behemoth determined to destroy the UK regardless of the cost.

Agreed.

Has anyone actually said that? There'll be considerable cost and disruption to the EU, which in time will be offset by companies relocating. It'll harm the UK far more though.

If we don't rejoin we don't rejoin. If we continue to trade with them they will still have an influence us, just as trading with the US and China will.

The idea is that there's significant gain for them, geo-politically, in ensuring that parts of the EU can't/don't want to leave (causing the EU significant disruption/instability).  It's not regardless of the cost, it's that the cost (largely to us, as they see it) is worth it because of the benefit to them).

If it'll be offset by companies relocating then overall there's no harm...

Having an influence is rather different to being within their sphere of influence.

Just to be clear, this was and is your understanding of the situation Britain faces and you voted *for* us to be put in that position? Why?

Offset does not imply complete mitigation, it also glosses over the spatial and temporal distribution of the damage brexit does here and on the continent.

If you say so!

jk

No, this is my understanding of the strong EU/remainer position in this respect.  My point was that thinking this isn't some outlandish crazy position.

Offset does mean complete mitigation.  Partially offset wouldn't.  We're talking about the overall, not every detail so of course details are glossed over.  The exact balance will of course depend on who you talk to, and as above I don't *agree* with this assessment of the situation.

You don't think so?  The EU has some influence on the USA, I can't imagine anyone would say that the USA is within the EU's sphere of influence.  Norway definitely is, Canada isn't.  Ukraine?  Maybe.

In a sense you're right, but this is the fundamental flaw of leave - they promised something from another political entity, the EU, that was beyond the UK's control or influence, and we were clearly told during the referendum campaign that they wouldn't get; a bespoke cherry picked deal.  So now we can either have something that respects the 4 freedoms of the single market, or we can f*ck-off.  None this post referendum shambles is the fault of the EU, despite vigorous attempts at blame shifting by the motley collection of chancers, bullshitters, liars and fantasists that make up the Brexit politicians. 

You have made the case perfectly that the EU is no respecter of the democratic wishes of its member states. It’s perfectly clear, either we obey what you call ‘the four freedoms’ (wonderfully Orwellian) or we can f*ck off! So don’t ever tell the leave voters that they could control the level of immigration while remaining inside the EU! 

Your use of the pejorative ‘cherry picking’ is also aimed to deceive. Is it really unreasonable, or impracticable, to find an agreement that benefits all parties? For the remainers this really is a zero sum game. Either live in the EU heaven, or go to hell. Trouble is, many of the leavers already live in hell. And many couldn’t care less, and might even want, the oh-sure-of-themselves remainers to feel first hand their pain. If you have nowt, what’s left to take away? 

The simple fact is that the four freedoms are agreed among member states as being the best way to establish a European community that is as socially responsible and economically prosperous as possible. Nobody claims its implementation is perfect and the details are continually being refined. If any individual country thinks they can achieve the same or better by a different strategy, they're welcome to follow that route, but of course they can't then cherry pick the benefits as they perceive them. It wouldn't be hell, but it certainly looks like it would be a great deal harder to make it work, and without doubt it would take many years to transition even before finding out whether it can come anywhere close to the level of quality of life and prosperity we have been enjoying these last decades. Anyone who claims to know long-term potential I would say is a charlatan or a fool.

You may well retort that many UK citizens have not been enjoying anything like the quality of life I'm alluding to, and I would wholeheartedly agree, but I would point out that the reason for this is overwhelmingly the fault of successive UK governments (but principally the austerity-obsessed ones of late) rather than anything to do with freedom of movement for UK citizens. That is simply an excuse and a smokescreen designed to mask iniquitous economic policies that have benefitted a small number of people in the UK at the expense of the majority.

When we triggered A50 we withdrew from having our elected PM being our representative on the council of Europe. The EU continues to respect the EU negotiatiing position decided by the elected national leaders on the council of europe.

If not the elected national leaders who else should decide the EU negotiationig position and other policies?

The tax receipts that fund the NHS, social care, benefit and pensions. 

Trouble is that they'll feel the pain much more than the 'smug' remainers (the young, the educated, those in work).  And after Brexit they'll find out when you thought you had nowt, there's still plenty to take away.

My narrow point is that the only option is obey the four freedoms or f*ck off,  as the remainer poster commented. My banging on in this way is simply to get you to admit this point. And none of the Arrant nonesense about the free movement being flexible. It is a non-negotiable pillar, and those nation states who want to ‘take back control’ have no option but to leave. Those who seem to think this is just another trade talk like the Uruguay round are fooling no one. U.K. leaving is an existential threat. They have to be punished or brought to heal. The voters, as in Ireland on the euro, have to be brought to their senses. The language of the remainers is almost religious in tone: it’s a faith based politics. Repent and believe or plagues of locusts will descend. 

Pensions? Social care? Where are you living? Dealing with Gordon Browns profligacy and the Labour induced financial crash put  paid to that. Remember how Brown had ended boom and bust? The weightless economy? As for austerity, we are nowhere near out of the debt crisis. There’s another crash coming. As for the NHS. That’s another topic. Night

Probably. 

But according to the governments own forecast, a no deal Brexit leads to an economy that’s £250 billion per annum smaller in 15 years than it would be otherwise.

on the news tonight, protests as Northampton council decide which services to axe. Another £100million of savings per annum to be found in the next 2 years from a total budget of £500million. This after 10 years of austerity. 

But before JRM’s swashbuckling no-deal Brexit pulls the rug from under what’s left of the tax base.

Welcome to our future. Brexit Britain,  bankrupt services. 

You really can’t believe in 15 year predictions! The pensionable age by then will be 85. At least we might all be vegans working a two day week. A slower, simpler life. Thatcher’s unemployment period was a halcyon era for climbing. We didn’t really need much to have fun and get scared. 

The UK is a small proportion of the EU populace, so if it unilaterally wants to follow it's own course it has to leave.  We had the chance to remain and influence the EU through the democratic and diplomatic channels and could have persuaded other to back changes to freedom of movement (say) - who knows with the migrant crisis and political swings in Italy, etc. we might have had some luck.  This is exactly the situation as remain voting Scotland wanting to stay in the single market and customs union, which would be unacceptable to Westminster that has a 'rule' of territorial integrity with no land border in the UK - so have a referendum and be on your merry way Scotland.  Does that make the UK undemocratic?

As for faith based politics - look at leave politicians: nothing they've said about Brexit has come true, the evidence is overwhelming that it will be economically and politically damaging, with loss of power, influence and control.  We've lost 2% of GDP an we haven't even left yet.  Any yet they're still talking about some sunny uplands and decry people who know what they're talking about, and reality, as Project Fear. 

You’re in an increasingly small minority in contesting that there will be negative economic consequences of Brexit. Even the High Priest of the hard brexit himself reckons it’ll take 50 years to fully realise any benefits. Now that’s what I call a long range forecast.

In the end, I just liked having a health service John. But it needs an additional 5bn year on year just to avoid getting worse; and even if the effect of no deal is only half as bad as the governments own leaked figures suggest, it makes finding that money all the harder. 

Invoking remembered halcyon days of Thatchers Britain and the great climbing you got done won’t pay for new cancer treatments, or care staff to look after people with dementia. That’s going to take hard cash, and unless something unexpected happens in the negotiations in the next couple of months, from March next year we’re going to have quite a lot less of it. 

The rich will be fine, as always; they’ll just get private healthcare, send their kids to private schools and take full advantage of the investment opportunities our new tax haven status will bring. But there weren’t 17 million customers of Somerset asset management voting for Brexit, and the ones that weren’t probably actually need the services they’ve voted to decimate. 

There is a presumption there that the eu will be all roses in 50 years time. 

Nothing to do with Brexit, the roads are jammed with £40k German cars, airports rammed with holiday makers, etc.. It's a lack of tax priorities.. 

See above. If you treat cancer and people aren't dying, then they'll need treating for other illnesses in old age.  Nothing to do with Brexit. 

Most of us here are hypocrites, we travel more than is essential, we own more toys than we really need etc.. n+1 for climbing shoes, fleeces, bikes etc.. most of us could pay a little more with no major noticeable impact. 

That would take the wind out of juncker's Luxembourg. All those years he spent luring in the multi nationals, now wasted. 

Every single source now accepts that Brexit will have a negative effect on the UK economy, ranging it seems from very significant to catastrophically crippling. And you're still claiming that availability of funding for services will have nothing to do with Brexit. What kind of bubble are you living in?

Reminds me a lot of the perennial electoral lie that more funding is ever needed for thing like the NHS as savings will always be possible through 'efficiency improvement'.

There's only so much effect you can have by rearranging deckchairs on the NHS or Brexit titanic.

So this is the grand plan to make Britain great again?

Are you on drugs? 

In general yes, regarding FoM, no.

FoM is extremely popular in the EU27. Recent polling found 80% of EU27 citizens are in favor and it is considered one of the most important benefits of being in the EU.

FoM represents the individual freedom and equality of EU citizens.

It is not up for discussion.  

It's the world's worst kept secret that FoM has been very popular with most UK politicians too, which makes sense as it's a great way to make sure there are good people to fill jobs at all levels and has a net economic benefit to the nation.

The disenchantment with FoM has largely come from the people, after being fed the lie that immigration has been resposible for difficulties in accessing or funding public services like NHS and schools, when in reality such funding decisions have often  been up to some of the same government ministers who have been feeding the lie.

If UK people are agaist FoM in general, it's because they've been lied to by self-serving UK politicians.

My point was some parts of society can easily afford to spend more on the nhs through taxation and less on themselves. Deck chairs are largely irrelevant. The kind of funds the nhs needs are eye watering regardless of the UK's European position. 

I know what your point was. My point is that the Brexit hole in UK finances seems likely to be huge and the funds to reverse current iniquities have to come from somewhere. Expecting all of the hit to both compensate for current inequity and to survive a Brexit economic plunge all to come fro higher rate taxpayers, corporations and the like, is off-the-scale optimism.

Remarkable to see in one post you moaning about Britain's problems being due to inadequate tax take (I agree) while ignoring the fact our government's forecasts predict all versions of brexit (which you support while living insulated from it's consequences in Sweden) will exacerbate. Then just two inches down the page you're glorying in the prospect of tax-haven London, hardly a creation imagined by fluffy social democrats to fund essential public services and one destined to decimate Britain's overseas territories while alienating us from our European neighbours. Your brexit vision seems as confused as everyone else's.

Which is it, social utopia brexit or swashbuckling privateer brexit?

jk

My point was people pay stupid sums on cars or outdoor toys, but aren't willing to pay more for better services. I wasn't glorify tax havens..  many remainers just have astonishing double standards, won't hear a bad word against juncker.. tolerate Luxembourgs tax haven stance and happily shop online with companies that openly dodge paying any UK tax... but show them a Brexiteer and they'll happily label them racist facist uneducated evil scum, blaming them for all current and future woes in the country. 

I think the vote is likely to be 27-1 or close to it.  What's undemocratic about that?

Never met any smug remainers, only bloody angry ones

Where is it you live? How many months in the UK? Immigration was top of all the focus groups and surveys we conducted in 2004 and has remained there ever since. It’s nothing to do with the media. The lie is that people have been fed lies. You really are a smug bugger. It’s like people are incapable of thinking for themselves! 

That’s not an incompatible combination. Smug in their own self righteous anger. 

If your climbing partner were to get you into a very dangerous situation, e.g. went off route, and you then had to climb a very dangerous pitch on poor rock, with little or no protection, to get back to safety, would you feel smug ? ?

Oh dear. Spending on schools caused a global financial crisis? And I'm replying to an obvious troll? Hey ho.

Labour, critics of Pfi in opposition, ramped it up under Blair. Brown, who has always felt himself to be cleverer than those stories nd him, really did believe he had ended boom and bust. What we had under Labour was a classic bubble, building schools and hospitals on tick sure in the knowledge that when the bubble burst they would not be in office to carry the can. And he even encouraged those in the casino economy to bet our futures on the lie that boom and bust was a thing of the past. We are still bust, despite a decade of QE and misallication of capital and risk. 

I suppose you thought the block vote was democratic!! 

Once I’d got to the next belay. 

What you ignore is that lower tax economies tend to create more wealth and therefore generate more tax revenues. Remember Denis Healey’s squeaking pips? The perfect storm of Brexit would now be that the voters elected an anti-business, anti-wealth creating Corbyn government. Then you would see empty shelves and dole queues and hear calls for removing the free movement of capital. 

... at having successfully got back on route (not having wanted to Leave it in the first place). I'd be quite angry at my partner for having got us into such a dangerous situation, though. But - if he was like most of the climbing partners I've ever had, and was a decent enough to admit he'd made a serious cock-up - the matter would be quickly forgotten.

Low tax and quality public services not inimical. 

It would appear that your arguments have disappeared and all that remains are attempts to discredit my opinion, unsubstantiated assertions and insults.

Immigration may well have been the no. 1 perceived issue, and I dare say it was in many areas with virtually no immigration. How do you square that with people being well informed?

The published facts don't seem to agree with you on this so do you have evidence?

"The figure below, looks at tax collected as a % of GDP versus GDP per capita.  There is no pattern to the data."

https://www.investmentfrontier.com/2015/06/15/is-tax-revenue-as-a-percentag...

Also see Fig 1 of https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jid.3345

You have disconnected from reality completely this evening, John.

What we had under Labour was a classic bubble, building schools and hospitals on tick sure in the knowledge that when the bubble burst they would not be in office to carry the can.

financial crisis hit in 2008; PM was Gordon Brown. 

Lower tax economies creating more wealth? 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-austra...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

cross referencing these two sources doesn’t seem to show any pattern; there are clearly countries similar to the U.K. with higher tax rates which have considerably higher GDP per capita. 

But it does make it clear why you are so keen on Brexit. It looks like the same reason that JRM and Boris  are. It’s implausible that they give a shiny shit about the plight of marginalised people in Sunderland or Corby. They see Brexit as a chance to shift the political centre of gravity rightwards, to a low regulation low tax model. It appears that’s your motivation too. I didn’t hear that mentioned much in the campaign though; I wonder how people are going to feel when they see the consequences for them unfold.

We are still bust, despite a decade of QE and misallication of capital and risk.

Just the ideal moment to trigger a £250billion hit to the economy, I always reckon. 

A decade on and we’re still paying the price of Gordon’s profligacy. He’s long since left the scene. With his reputation in tatters.

I trade you one Torygraph for one Grauniad. Lower Corp taxes do lead to higher revenues.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporatio...

There’s an IFS report that says raising marginal tax rates on thec rich is not redistributive, and though you will doubtless laugh at Laffer there’s evidence the approach can result in greater revenues. 

I want us to be more entrepreneurial not more regulated and taxed. That doesn’t mean abandoning the poor. But does require a shift in mind set that is probably beyond us. We’re too fond of the nanny state. 

Erm. Link one is about the value of tax collected as a percentage of GDP as an inestment tool. Little to with my point that lower taxes can lead to higher revenues by stimulating growth. On this your second link is instructive. It’s says, in proof of my point, the following:

Specifically, GDP growth increases by between 1 and 2 percentage points following a 10 per cent cut in the rate of corporate tax. Mendoza, Razin and Tesar (1994) construct ‘effective tax rates’ for capital, labour and consumption computed as the ratios of the difference between the pre? and post?tax values of capital, labour and consumption income to the values of said incomes at pre?tax prices. 9Mendoza et al. (1997) use these rates to find that the investment rate increased by 1.8 per cent (1.0 per cent) following a 10 percentage point decrease in taxes on labour (capital).

People laughed at labour when they blamed the Tories for problems after they had been in power for 2 terms. And if you are seriously suggesting that problems with economic performance currently are down to Gordon Brown, 8 years and three administrations into a period of Tory rule, then people will laugh at you too.

You are changing your position. I’m fully aware of Laffer. But you didn’t say that selected tax cuts can stimulate growth in some circumstances; you said lower tax economies tend to create more wealth and therefore generate more tax revenues. Well, you’ve been provided with plenty of evidence that this isn’t the case; countries like Germany and Sweden have higher tax than the U.K. and generate considerably more wealth per capita. The U.K. already has low personal and corporate tax rates. Laffer’s curve includes a section where cutting tax further just cuts tax take. Given where we are starting from, its more likely that we are in that section of the curve. 

Well, that would be lovely, but the history of business failing to  display  a high degree of corporate social, fiscal and environmental ethical behaviour even when they are compelled to doesn’t augur well for what would happen if we just asked them nicely to do it instead. You are probably right- it does require a shift in mind set that’s it probably beyond us. 

Theoretically, no. There aren't many real world examples though and full throttle exploitative capitalism doesn't seem to be what the people voted for nor what the planet needs right now.

Jk

Full throttle capitalism is hugely innovative and increasingly sustainable. With right regulatory and policy framework it will produce better quality of life and environment. Brompton boss in TV this morning described Brexit worries as ‘fluff’ and made it clear there is a huge market out there for smart UK firms. We are a great brand. 

Who benefits from the Amazon model? 

Not always easy here to carry out discussion. I do believe that the impact of 2008 is still with us, and that the debt crisis will explode again. Being out of the EU will help us be more agile and competitive and not tie us in to monetary and fiscal regimes that can only damage us. I’m not in favour of  unregulated capitalism as some claim. It’s the smart alignment of the two that is the trick. The open to competition we are the more innovative our companies. My fear is that we are wedded to statism, not as much as the French but sufficient to make the future challenging either inside or out the EU. 

I would agree. Catch 22. How do you get out of a debt mess in the short term, when the only option is more borrowing to fuel growth etc.  It's back to Gordon Brown's continuous growth plan again!!   

Amazon. Especially given the level of tax they pay. Or more to the point, don't. 

Well, that’s a clear and consistent position. But if you wanted to argue for small state capitalism and a bonfire of regulations, then the place should have been a general election. If it was clear that there was a settled majority in favour of this approach, and that their will to go further was being obstructed by the EUs regulatory framework, then an approach to the country to take us out of the EU could have been made on that basis. 

But that wasn’t the thrust of the leave campaign. We were told the opposite- that there would be no erosion of workers rights or environmental protection. There have been suspicions that Brexit is intended to be used as a Trojan horse to take us into an unregulated free market nirvana, and that appears to be your position; but that’s not what people were told they were voting for and is a fundamentally dishonest approach. It’s also likely to be poorly received by people that voted leave when they see what it means for them- all those people who are, in your view, ‘too fond of the nanny state’ are likely to react badly when they realise their Brexit vote was used as a way of dismantling it....

we might have been a great brand, but in some areas - eg attracting international students - the Brand has been badly damaged by the perception of hostility to foreigners fuelled by the Brexit vote...

Those two links show no clear link between wealth  (eg gdp per capita) and taxation (eg % of gdp).

It's quite possible tax cuts boost growth but it does not seem to feed through into relatively solid data such as gdp per capita. Why is that? 

PS nobody really knows the shape of the Laffer curve.

He did not imply any of those.

You snipped out the key word: exploitative. Brexit however isn't about establishing appropriate controls, ensuring the economy works for all, whether voters understand as much or not (clearly not in many cases) it is apparently about demolishing the few checks and protections we workers have accrued. You know this.

Good for him. Mark Carney this morning was slightly less glib but then I guess his perspective is a little wider than that of a labour intensive niche manufacturer with fairly simple supply lines.

jk

Do you mean 'mutually exclusive'? 

If so, not necessarily, but it wouldn't work for the UK. You need some natural resource, or a population much smaller than ours for that to work.

I agree we must be facing a new debt crisis but just to point out after 2008 we didn't borrow to fuel growth, we borrowed to avoid immediate meltdown of the banking system. The govt chose not to borrow to fuel growth but to maintain relatively low tax rates and manage the deficit through austerity. 

Another benefit is we will not have to train doctors for as long, the details are not terribly clear but I think that the pointless gap year medical students do in a hospital after graduating is to be scrapped. I think the money this saves (presumably they're not doing anything useful that they'll need to pay someone else to do) will be used to fund more places. 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/998264/Brexit-news-NHS-staff-shorta...

Brexit isn't about removing appropriate controls.

That express article is about as accurate and even handed as the £350m slogan. The only useful thing they do during that year is work as if they were a doctor, but under the supervision / mentoring of a senior doctor. Do you really think that after several years of study, they sit around doing nothing of value for a year before becoming formally qualified?

Uh huh, sure. All that 'red tape' we're supposed to be cutting, all the 'agility' we're supposed to be gaining, that 'competitiveness' brexit is supposed to deliver, the needless 'bureaucracy' we're walking away from. What do you think they're euphemisms for?

That's workers' rights, environmental, food and and safety regulations we'll be eroding plus of course the anti money-laundering legislation out March leave date sidesteps.

jk

what 'gap year' ? my niece qualified 3 years ago & she seems to have worked stupidly long hours both in her last year as a student (placements in hospitals effectively working as a doctor but under supervision) and as a newly qualified doctor. 'Fake news' in the Express ?

Christ that article is proof of why you should take what you read in newspapers with a container ship load of salt. 

Medical students absolutely do not do a ‘pointless gap year’. They are Foundation year doctors, registered medical practitioners, and without their massive input to patient care ever single day, the NHS would collapse. 

If this sort of utterly wrong crap is being replicated across other areas then we are entering brexit based on a massive delusion about how the world actually works. 

John, David said you didn’t imply your wish to reduce taxes and regulations would impact on anything relating to employment rights or environmental protection. I’m not sure what regulations you wish to dispense with then. Perhaps you could help and clarify the matter.

Am I alone in suspecting this to be the single greatest incentive for those tiny number of people who have been driving the Brexit movement while encouraging a smokescreen of anti-EU sentiment based on bogus issues such as public service provision?

Another unintended consequence of Brexit is that it's impossible to be sarcastic. Not long ago I'd have made a remarks about "useless gap year" and no one would assume I was being serious! For the avoidance of doubt I don't think house officers are in a pointless gap year.

"Brexit isn't about removing appropriate controls."

You are making it up.

Of course banks would have collapsed, atms run dry. Something had be done and quickly. 

Lower interest rates has the same effect too. Many did not pay extra off loans they simply spent the saving on the high street. Personal debt has been increasing. The days of 100% mortgages ended, but unsecured borrowing never. 

Naive. 

Ukc rule. You can only joke if you are a far left corbinsta remainer and the Tories or brexiteers must be the butt of the joke. 

A daily reference to the 350m on a bus is mandatory, but don't mention Abbot's £700 a head/yr police force. 

Indeed, but dont forget 17m+ people voted for brexit, and a large part of them get their info from publications such as the express........and worse, they believe it.

yes my sarcasm detector has melted down since the referendum! 

Dismal stuff though, the most basic of fact checking by the Express would have shown it to be nonsense- but printing news that reflects reality isn’t the Express’s business any more, sadly.

I'm asking you a question. What do you think they're euphemisms for, which restrictive EU regulations do you think we will be cutting to achieve our land of milk and honey brexit goals?

I gave you my interpretation, I'd appreciate yours.

jk

Are you seriously comparing a mistake made during an interview by one person to a lie which was used as the main plank of the leave campaign which multiple politicians stood behind and repeated, multiple times right up until they won the referendum and the promptly dumped it?

Now whose lacking a sense of humour. I didn't think that post (or any of mine) would be peer referred for accuracy, relevance or comparison. 

Edit. As I said. Abbot jokes are forbidden.  

The Express are just repeating what a govt health minister has said! Several other MPs have tweeted their support. The Express has always been a dishonest rag but it's new for so many of our politicians to be bare faced liers when faced with undeniable truths

False equivalence is all the rage. They cancel each other out - didn't you know?

It doesn’t quite mean that, but you are close.  Not at all clear what population size or natural resource has to do with efficacy of tax cuts. The demographics of the population is massively important those that, hence my not being opposed to immigration. Just that I think the principal of subsidiarity should apply. Sadly that once fashionable idea has been dropped by the centralisers in the EU. 

the FT reported the latest figures earlier this year. They said:

— there was a 7 per cent increase in first-year students from EU member states. The number of non-EU students in the UK during 2016-17 fell by just under 1 per cent.

The dramatic fall in non EU numbers due to tighter visa controls on Indian and Nigerian students.

funny how remainers fume about the 350 million a day figure saved, in truth it is a mere 280 m a day....but are happy to get sloppy when it comes to other data. 

Current total of int students in excess of 440k 

the stuff about Brexit and hostility is bollocks. 

It isn’t. But you are right, the place to make these decisions is through national elections to national parliaments and not have a remote and largely unaccountable institution make those decisions based on votes by Romania and Germany and the the other states. 

Abbot jokes are fine by me but if the punch line needs you to believe that an idiot under pressure making a mistake is the same as an entire group lying for 6 months then it doesn't really work which is why I probably didn't get it first time around.

You are right the figure should have been £280 million. There’s really no excuse for Abbott though, other than that she is beyond caricature. Love her. 

I wasn't comparing to at all. The bus was a farce, still is. But it's not any different to the financial projections of political parties in their last GE manifestos. Ranging from optimistic to pie in the sky dreaming. The Tories always over hype future growth, Labour the number of things they can fund in the first place. Politicians in the main tell people what they want to hear, not the bare facts. 

It has been interesting talking to teaching colleagues in Bradford that the sons and daughters of largely Kashmiri migrants whi are themselves teachers were among the first espouse casually racist comments about the sudden influx of Polish children to schools. Ironic in that Bradford has had a much much longer history of being a home to European and East European migrants in particular. There’s even an area at the heart of the city called Little Germany where Jewish migrants first settled and established  textile firms. 

Remove all taxes on sale of milk and honey and subsidise purchase of bees and cows and tax breaks for investment in milking parlours and hives. Job done. 

Agree. Twenty very ‘odd’ countries. 

I don't appreciate your threatening attitude. Constantly insisting I comment on things that don't relate to my posts.

My first post on this thread was only that (as usual) someone had not said, or meant, what they were accused of saying. I made no point of my own.  "He did not imply any of those."

My second post was "Brexit isn't about removing appropriate controls." Since you appeared to be suggesting it was.

Perhaps you could ask me nicely why I think that.  But not to explain the details of your own manic fantasy.

We are leaving the EU.  People are trying to solve the problems that brings. They have no desire to sneak in some attack on the working man, or whoever. Why would they ?

There are many, many differences between EU regulations and UK regulations already. Sometimes because the UK regulations have been better.  (e.g electrical safety).

You're a clever man, you know there is no Brexit dividend, you know there are costs in replacing systems that are currently shared with stand alone systems. You know we're going to take a hit on trade and you'll know that our slowdown in growth relative to other similar economies is at least partially attributable to concerns and uncertainty over Brexit. I'd never pretend to be as bright or as erudite as you but I know when someone is trying to bullshit. The sovereignty arguments may hold water if you are that way inclined but trying to pretend the general populace will be better off economically is dishonest. 

Whereas the claim they will always be better off by paying £280 million a week (or whatever) to the EU is an absolute certainty ?

Well, there are three options; we'll either be better off, worse off or there will be no change after brexit. Which do you reckon?

Lol, out by a factor of 7 in a rant about others being sloppy with facts. This is the best parody account anyone has run in years.

Jk

I think we will be worse off short term. Better off long term. To hold that opinion is not dishonest.

Always? No, obviously not. In a time frame that is reasonably predictable yes. I'm sure those areas of the uk that get £120 million back in the form of direct EU grants would agree as well.

What do you call long term? And how much will we be worse off by until the "long term" arrives?

Slightly worse off for 5 years. Slightly better off after that.  I don't believe it will make much difference at all.

I know the meaning of what you wrote, in most cases it is demonstrably untrue, so I thought you might have meant something else. In most cases low tax and quality public services leads to spiralling national debt.

Well managed revenue from natural resources can mean low tax and quality public services. Have you notice that most tax havens have low populations?

Threatening? I genuinely don't know I could have been more polite. To be very clear: I mean you no harm.

Fine except John clearly does desire and expect brexit to deliver tax cuts and regulatory relaxation, he's hardly bashful about it though he's careful to avoid considering the full range of effects that will have particularly as it relates to providing for essential services.

We disagree. What do you think euphemisms like 'cut red tape' and 'increase employment flexibility' mean? Do you seriously think that's good news for the average working man or woman?

I've told you what I take the common brexit euphemisms to mean, they're about regulatory relaxation, an attack on the rights and protections we little people enjoy, that's my understanding of euphemistic language considering the source of that language and the target audience. I could be wrong which is why I asked you, perfectly politely, for your interpretation.

Profit. I simply don't believe you're this naive.

jk

We won't even be finished unpicking and rebuilding our relationships with the EU in 5 years. 5 years is *short* term.

jk

In that case we'll be better off short term.

How?

And I'd still appreciate an answer to my earlier question, what do you take for example 'cut red tape' to mean if you disagree with my interpretation? Which regulations specifically do you expect this government to cut which will make us workers both better off and better protected?

jk

I will not comment on your fantasy. I never mentioned red tape, cutting regulations, or better protection.

We will eventually be slightly better off through not sending money to the EU.

I'm asking you what you take those phrases to mean, not for your comment on my take. 'Cutting red tape' has for years been a central tenet of the Leave argument, you cannot seriously expect me to believe you have formed no opinion whatsoever as to what brexit promoting politicians mean when they say these things?

Ok. So what about the costs of duplicating the functions of the EU on our own and more importantly, the costs associated with our putting up barriers to trade and their impact on inward investment?

jk

Argument of the remainers is that we currently live in the best possible world and that leaving would be a disaster. It’s a hopeless, defeatist attitude born partly out of liberal guilt, lies and distortions about the motives of leavers (eg a more entrepreneurial society is a more nasty society), and, perversely an acceptance of the status quo which chiefly benefits the corporates and the City (most of which are London based/ headquartered, which is why there is so much metropolitan support for stay: nowt to do with caring for the North, pure self interest for the London lifestyle.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The UK will be so disappointed when in 5 years time it is still paying similar amounts to the EU....

,because a la carte participation in EU agencies is more expensive than the membership package.

Some numbers:

economic benefit of EU integration for the UK: 2.3 % of GDP. A bit more than 1000 M per week.

UK's net EU payment: 350 M - rebate - UK CAP - UK structural investment = 100 M per week.

So the EU27 can double or triple the price for single market membership and it is still a good deal for the UK!

references:

https://voxeu.org/article/revisiting-cost-non-europe

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm

Leavers don't do facts, they have faith.

well 2016/17 students will have been applying in 2015/16......

perceptions wise I was basing my statment on a R4 report, but here is something (quite interesting) from the British council:

https://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/policy-insight-research/insight...

which suggests that initial responses to the brexit vote where quite positive in terms of UK reputation - but that the respondents felt that trade and education interaction would be less likely after brexit than before.

Is that your Bible?

Is that your lot? Facetious questions....?

I feel unable to comment as the first link is to a paper using complex mathematical models to process data, rather than simple statements of fact. To paraphrase Andy Hardy, this means it would be no more than an act of faith to accept the graphs as fact. The gravity model used is not without its critics however as a simple google reveals. The fact that both links are from staunchly pro-EU sources and they read like marketing material in places suugests a pinch of salt might not go amiss. But thanks for posting. Interesting reads both. 

Interesting point. I don't know how model validity works in economics. (I do physics, our criteria are never going to work because you can't do control experiments.) I found the graph that showed that the smaller countries benefit relatively the most interesting. This makes sense as for smaller countries cross-border trade is relatively more important than intra country trade.

The actual number for the UK seems low to me, but it was enough to show that the benefits are larger than the costs. The EU contribution is a tiny amount of money anyway. Just doing all that paperwork by yourself and keeping up diplomatic relationships with the EU27 countries without being at the common meetings will probably cost a similar amount.

This shouldn't be a key reason for leave vs remain btw. UK is rich enough to afford either. It just helps if the discussion is honest about the costs and benefits of EU membership.

'The EU contribution is a tiny amount of money'

Really!

Then the EU won't mind if we leave and don't contribute anything, like most of the EU countries.

It is not "a tiny amount of money"  As you say the "UK is rich enough to afford it."  But I think you will find that won't happen..

This is exactly what the EU is offering the UK: an advanced free trade deal which involves no UK contributions the the EU budget.

From the EU27 point of view most scenarios are equal. There is a fixed loss of the economy and in geopolitical power when the UK leaves (This is a loss for all sides). This has to be accepted because it is a choice the UK is free to make. After that it does not matter much: either the UK keeps on paying into the budget and money is being made from a higher level of economic collaboration or the UK does not pay anything and the lower level of economic collaboration results in a transfer of business from the UK to the EU27.

It's about 1% of total government spending. In absolute numbers of course it's a lot. Comparatively, not so massive.

It's also a reason why some leavers voted the way they did yet Hans dismisses it like it's nothing.

Are they also offering us no ECJ and no frredom of movement because if they are I'll take it.

Only it isn't just a trade deal, it's a whole raft of things of which a trade deal is one of. It is a take them all or nothing offer.

If it was purely a trade deal then I imagine all scales of Brexiteer would happily accept it and negotiations would have been completed months ago. 

And the uk's financial contribution can't be that small, as other net contributors are concerned their payments will now increase unless the eu decides to control it's own internal spending, which is unlikely.  

I think leaving the EU is a bad idea for Britain, but your post does illustrate some of the frustrations that have caused it. 

Belgium and Greece both receive far more EU expenditure than the UK and Hungary and Portugal both receive comparable amounts despite the fact they are all about 1/6 the size of Britain, and in the case of Belgium they are wealthier.  Netherlands and Sweden have the same problem. Britain has been a huge beneficiary of the single market, but we have been a cash cow for the EU as a whole. 

It may be a mere bump in the road compared to the UKs current problems, but the EU does have a problem with how to fill this gap in funding. 

I’m sure that given our current negotiating position this would be true. But Switzerland pay a pittance for single market access, Iceland are net beneficiaries of the EU, and even Norway’s net spend is only 2/3 of the UK. 

Doesn't Belgium get more money because that's where Brussels is, and all the infrastructure that entails?

Leavers being influenced by an argument doesn't imply that the argument is valid.

Remain should have refused to engage with this argument in the over-simplified and emotive terms it was posed.  It isn't about whether the money the EU spends in the UK is more or less than the money the UK sends to the EU because the services provided by the EU are valuable and necessary.   

If you want to know whether the UK government would reduce its costs outside the EU the question is whether it would cost the UK more to provide these functions itself as opposed to subcontracting them to the EU (and splitting the bill with 27 other countries) and whether the EU does a better job than the UK would do on its own.     

If you want to know whether the UK would make or lose money by leaving the EU you then also have to ask what are the effects on government's income of leaving the EU - if leaving the EU costs business money then the government will collect less tax and even if its costs are lower it could still lose money  overall.

So yes: this argument influenced leavers.  It is powerful because it is simplistic and emotional.  It is also wrong and the people making it are (hopefully) intelligent enough to know it is wrong and nevertheless will not stop reciting it.  Which is dishonest.

I don’t think this is the economic argument for remain. 70% of EU spending is on agriculture and development. We are massive net contributors for both and could provide UK funding for these more cheaply (though we would be less likely to). Even the other functions are compromised by the need to consider the needs of 28 different countries, so the costs are ramped up before being shared out. 

I see the economic argument as being part of a frictionless market of 500 million people, having the trade negotiating power to go toe to toe with any other bloc in the world, the fact that London is the financial capital of Europe,  and the draw that London has for the bricks and mortar European headquarters of a large number of global companies (offset somewhat by the brassplate tax paying HQ in Luxembourg)

It's actually 0.37% of our GDP.

https://bit.ly/2vAwzKS

I’m sure your net figure is correct but the gross figure is 1% of gross national income.

this is before the debate.

After brexit the EU wants to raise this to 1.15% rather than reducing spending which is creating big opposition in the ‘frugal four’ - Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Austria. 

I don’t disagree with what you just said.

My complaint with the UK contribution to the EU is that most EU countries get all the benefits that the UK does but it doesn’t cost them  a penny.

The problem is that the costs are visible while the economic benefits, though larger, are mostly invisible.

The EU's revenue is based on the GDP of the member states. As the benefits of the single market approximately scale with GDP, this is perfectly fair.

EU's expenses are approximately 33% CAP, 33% structural funds, and all the other stuff (science, aid, admin overhead, etc).

Even though I don't agree with all the details of CAP, I am convinced that there is a strategic need for Europe to be self-sufficient when it comes to food. And this costs money. So when some countries get more CAP money than others, it is because they provide us with the service of food security.

The structural funds contain the largest redistribution of money in the EU. It is necessary for the stability of the single market. Citizens from poor regions can move to jobs in rich regions, resulting in a process where the poor regions become poorer and the rich regions richer. The structural funds are there to counteract this. It can be argued that the amount of money spend is still too small.

For everybody who does not think this is money spent wisely I have the following questions:

Do you think money made in London should be invested by the UK-government in poorer regions of the UK? And why would this be different in the single market of the EU?

Especially considering the fact that people move from poor areas to rich areas in order to work and therefore pay their taxes in the rich areas.

It's not my figure, and I wasn't arguing with you. Just thought the diagram would be useful.