Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Guest MattP]

13 hours ago, foxinexile said:

The only "plan" I ever heard about for Brexit was £350 million a week to the NHS ... and it took a matter of hours after the referendum result for some of the main figureheads to begin retracting that promise ... 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

 

The reality is not that we are not showing our hand as such to risk weakening negotiations: the reality is we have no plan; we never had one from the start. I find the government's position incredibly arrogant. The majority of voters voted to leave ... and yet we have a Prime Minster saying this will not be actioned until next year at the earliest. Even as someone who voted remain, I would prefer they would just get on with it. But then again, if you have no plan, how can you action something? The voices that are speaking continuously give conflicting opinions ... "hard" Brexit; remaining a full member of the single market; remaining a part member; separate trade deals with individual EU members ... it goes on. And these are not just commentators from the sideline, these are members of the government. If there can be such varying opinions on such an incredibly important issue such as this, how on earth can we expect an agreed deal on the thousands of other areas that will require negotiation?

 

Nothing would make me happier for Britain to come out of this stronger than before and for my own concerns to be dismissed. But I can't help feel we are sleepwalking towards a flawed resolution in one of this country's most important moments. The impression I get is that no one really has a clue about a plan of action post-EU (I have yet to hear anyone set out a concise, valid course for us) but I guess if it does go wrong (and it is still an 'if' at present) then no doubt Farridge, Johnson, Goooove et al will rear up and lay the blame squarely at the EU's door. Farridge has already laid the groundwork for this by complaining that the EU's main Brexit negotiator is anti-Britain.

 

Our actions so far do not give me faith.

 

As I've said before, anyone who believed Nigel Farage, a man who isn't even in parliament, let alone in the treasury of the ruling government, on spending promises is an idiot, he had no authority to claim this at all about 350 million and why the Remain camp never questioned that I still don't know. Although Jacob Rees-Mogg was quite clear last week on Question Time that he still wants and fully expects that money saved from leaving the EU to go towards it.

 

I don't think even the most ardent fan of Guy Werhofstadt would argue he isn't going to be extremely recalcitrant towards us, he's the biggest nationalist of the lot, he's just an EU nationalist rather than one of a individual nation. Although we all know it won't really be him pulling the strings behind the negotiation anyway, he's just put there as the Europeans commission's declaration of war, we should have thrown in a right bastard as well like Gove.

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

As I've said before, anyone who believed Nigel Farage, a man who isn't even in parliament, let alone in the treasury of the ruling government, on spending promises is an idiot, he had no authority to claim this at all about 350 million and why the Remain camp never questioned that I still don't know. Although Jacob Rees-Mogg was quite clear last week on Question Time that he still wants and fully expects that money saved from leaving the EU to go towards it.

 

I don't think even the most ardent fan of Guy Werhofstadt would argue he isn't going to be extremely recalcitrant towards us, he's the biggest nationalist of the lot, he's just an EU nationalist rather than one of a individual nation. Although we all know it won't really be him pulling the strings behind the negotiation anyway, he's just put there as the Europeans commission's declaration of war, we should have thrown in a right bastard as well like Gove.

The ridiculous spending promise bus was questioned. A lot. Unfortunately idiots and arseholes alike put a lot of effort into defending those figures, swaying the many more clueless idiots that comprise the British electorate.

 

Also, when did Verhofstadt change the v to a w? I've seen that a couple of times on here now.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The ridiculous spending promise bus was questioned. A lot. Unfortunately idiots and arseholes alike put a lot of effort into defending those figures, swaying the many more clueless idiots that comprise the British electorate.

 

Also, when did Verhofstadt change the v to a w? I've seen that a couple of times on here now.

I watched the news every day and every single EU debate, never once did I see a member of Vote Leave asked how they could promise such spending when they weren't either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor.

 

Keep insulting the electorate though and keep wondering why they keep telling you to fcuk off, people like you are the biggest gift people like me have.

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

I watched the news every day and every single EU debate, never once did I see a member of Vote Leave asked how they could promise such spending when they weren't either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor.

 

Keep insulting the electorate though and keep wondering why they keep telling you to fcuk off, people like you are the biggest gift people like me have.

Well like you say it's pretty incredible that anyone wouldn't question those figures (which were regularly pulled up to question by vote leave even if you didn't personally see it), so what else is a person who chooses to believe it, by your own logic, other than a few pickles short of a jar?

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Well like you say it's pretty incredible that anyone wouldn't question those figures (which were regularly pulled up to question by vote leave even if you didn't personally see it), so what else is a person who chooses to believe it, by your own logic, other than a few pickles short of a jar?

Nobody who voted leave, did so purely on the promise of £350 million extra a week for the NHS. The only people seemingly fooled by this are the remainders that expect it before we've left. Most of them show their ignorance and stupidity by claiming it was farage who backtracked, well it was a vote leave example and Farage was leave.eu and didn't have anything to do with it.

There were/are stupid people on both sides.

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nobody who voted leave, did so purely on the promise of £350 million extra a week for the NHS. The only people seemingly fooled by this are the remainders that expect it before we've left. Most of them show their ignorance and stupidity by claiming it was farage who backtracked, well it was a vote leave example and Farage was leave.eu and didn't have anything to do with it.

There were/are stupid people on both sides.

 

And Carl didn't say they did (although I wouldn't say nobody). There were quite a few though who thought the fictional £350m would be going to the NHS and that did influence their opinion: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/09/post-brexit-sunderland-if-this-money-doesnt-go-to-the-nhs-i-will-go-mad

 

Three themes come up repeatedly among leave voters. The promise to save the NHS, migration and trust in Boris Johnson. I meet a former social worker, Shirley Bain, who says that her family’s personal reliance on the NHS meant she was very influenced by the promises to divert EU funding. “It hit home with me because I’m using the NHS quite a lot at the minute. My son is really, really poorly in hospital and has been in and out since May.

 

“He’s had a liver transplant and it went wrong, stuff like that – and where would I have been if I’d had to pay upfront for that? I know I’ve paid with my taxes because I’ve worked all my life. I just think that some of the money we are putting into the EU for other things could be put back into our own NHS.”

[snip]

Shirley seems genuinely worried that the £350m number might not be true. She resolves to charter a bus with Peta from the north-east to meet the new foreign secretary. “I would go mad if this money doesn’t go into the NHS, I will go mad. I want to be assured that this money – because that’s why I voted to come out,” says Shirley.

 

For what it's worth, Carl is right - people are idiots. Labour members suffering under the tories vote to effectively prolong their power until at least 2025, those most reliant on the EU vote to leave it, across the pond Republicans are being pushed by the grassroots to become a joke party when whoever wins November can stitch everything up with the supreme court appointment...

 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

And Carl didn't say they did (although I wouldn't say nobody). There were quite a few though who thought the fictional £350m would be going to the NHS and that did influence their opinion: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/09/post-brexit-sunderland-if-this-money-doesnt-go-to-the-nhs-i-will-go-mad

 

 

 

 

For what it's worth, Carl is right - people are idiots. Labour members suffering under the tories vote to effectively prolong their power until at least 2025, those most reliant on the EU vote to leave it, across the pond Republicans are being pushed by the grassroots to become a joke party when whoever wins November can stitch everything up with the supreme court appointment...

 

Stooge.

[foxinexile]

8 hours ago, The Doctor said:

 

For what it's worth, Carl is right - people are idiots. Labour members suffering under the tories vote to effectively prolong their power until at least 2025, those most reliant on the EU vote to leave it, across the pond Republicans are being pushed by the grassroots to become a joke party when whoever wins November can stitch everything up with the supreme court appointment...

 

This is an interesting point and something that really does fascinate me. If you take the North East region as an example, 58 per cent of those who voted voted Leave. And yet the North East is one of the main beneficiaries of EU funding. I'm not trying to make a pro-EU case here, but just highlighting the input this region has received - around £190 per head from combined funding of the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund over the period 2007 - 2013.  I didn't hear from the Leave campaign how this income would be protected or whether it would be guaranteed post-EU (apologies if this was addressed and I missed it). The North East also has one of the UK's lowest populations of EU citizens residing there (around 60,000) and has around 100,000 jobs linked directly to exports to the mainland EU.

 

I would love to hear the collective reasons given from people living in this region for voting leave, because on paper you'd have expected this would have been a fairly secure remain area: reasonable funding from the EU; (relatively) low EU migration; quite significant job links to the EU ... so if it wasn't immigration, if it wasn't job security, if it wasn't funding, what was it? Maybe it was these things, maybe it was just a general impression that people believe we will have greater control over our borders, laws etc which enforced a greater importance over the benefits of remaining, maybe it was entirely different reasons. It's interesting.

 

And Labour keeping Corbyn ... someone who I personally consider more responsible for the failure of Remain than anyone (who called for Article 50 to be invoked before most in the Leave campaign had even raised it after confirmation of the referendum result), well, it's just too early on a Saturday morning to launch into that particular rant! 

[Nalis]

35 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

This is an interesting point and something that really does fascinate me. If you take the North East region as an example, 58 per cent of those who voted voted Leave. And yet the North East is one of the main beneficiaries of EU funding. I'm not trying to make a pro-EU case here, but just highlighting the input this region has received - around £190 per head from combined funding of the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund over the period 2007 - 2013.  I didn't hear from the Leave campaign how this income would be protected or whether it would be guaranteed post-EU (apologies if this was addressed and I missed it). The North East also has one of the UK's lowest populations of EU citizens residing there (around 60,000) and has around 100,000 jobs linked directly to exports to the mainland EU.

 

I would love to hear the collective reasons given from people living in this region for voting leave, because on paper you'd have expected this would have been a fairly secure remain area: reasonable funding from the EU; (relatively) low EU migration; quite significant job links to the EU ... so if it wasn't immigration, if it wasn't job security, if it wasn't funding, what was it? Maybe it was these things, maybe it was just a general impression that people believe we will have greater control over our borders, laws etc which enforced a greater importance over the benefits of remaining, maybe it was entirely different reasons. It's interesting.

 

And Labour keeping Corbyn ... someone who I personally consider more responsible for the failure of Remain than anyone (who called for Article 50 to be invoked before most in the Leave campaign had even raised it after confirmation of the referendum result), well, it's just too early on a Saturday morning to launch into that particular rant! 

To address your point on the North East, I believe that some people (not saying all people) would have voted Leave as more of an anti establishment / anti government (at that time) vote rather than anything else. 

 

Governmental policies have been far too London centric in recent years. Great for me in London but totally unfair for the rest of the country. In the last election you had the choice of three white, middle class, privately educated guys whose policies were either just a watered down version of the others. So the EU vote was a huge opportunity to give a two finger salute to Westminster to shake things up a bit.

 

I voted Remain but I can see why people let down by recent governments voted Leave.

[GazzinderFox]

2 hours ago, foxinexile said:

This is an interesting point and something that really does fascinate me. If you take the North East region as an example, 58 per cent of those who voted voted Leave. And yet the North East is one of the main beneficiaries of EU funding. I'm not trying to make a pro-EU case here, but just highlighting the input this region has received - around £190 per head from combined funding of the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund over the period 2007 - 2013.  I didn't hear from the Leave campaign how this income would be protected or whether it would be guaranteed post-EU (apologies if this was addressed and I missed it). The North East also has one of the UK's lowest populations of EU citizens residing there (around 60,000) and has around 100,000 jobs linked directly to exports to the mainland EU.

 

I would love to hear the collective reasons given from people living in this region for voting leave, because on paper you'd have expected this would have been a fairly secure remain area: reasonable funding from the EU; (relatively) low EU migration; quite significant job links to the EU ... so if it wasn't immigration, if it wasn't job security, if it wasn't funding, what was it? Maybe it was these things, maybe it was just a general impression that people believe we will have greater control over our borders, laws etc which enforced a greater importance over the benefits of remaining, maybe it was entirely different reasons. It's interesting.

 

And Labour keeping Corbyn ... someone who I personally consider more responsible for the failure of Remain than anyone (who called for Article 50 to be invoked before most in the Leave campaign had even raised it after confirmation of the referendum result), well, it's just too early on a Saturday morning to launch into that particular rant! 

I guess the short and the sweet of it is that a lot of people are still willing to vote according to their conscience and their principles - on both sides of the debate.

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, foxinexile said:

This is an interesting point and something that really does fascinate me. If you take the North East region as an example, 58 per cent of those who voted voted Leave. And yet the North East is one of the main beneficiaries of EU funding. I'm not trying to make a pro-EU case here, but just highlighting the input this region has received - around £190 per head from combined funding of the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund over the period 2007 - 2013.  I didn't hear from the Leave campaign how this income would be protected or whether it would be guaranteed post-EU (apologies if this was addressed and I missed it). The North East also has one of the UK's lowest populations of EU citizens residing there (around 60,000) and has around 100,000 jobs linked directly to exports to the mainland EU.

 

I would love to hear the collective reasons given from people living in this region for voting leave, because on paper you'd have expected this would have been a fairly secure remain area: reasonable funding from the EU; (relatively) low EU migration; quite significant job links to the EU ... so if it wasn't immigration, if it wasn't job security, if it wasn't funding, what was it? Maybe it was these things, maybe it was just a general impression that people believe we will have greater control over our borders, laws etc which enforced a greater importance over the benefits of remaining, maybe it was entirely different reasons. It's interesting.

 

And Labour keeping Corbyn ... someone who I personally consider more responsible for the failure of Remain than anyone (who called for Article 50 to be invoked before most in the Leave campaign had even raised it after confirmation of the referendum result), well, it's just too early on a Saturday morning to launch into that particular rant! 

You mention that the EU spends heavily on the North East but £30 per head, per year is not a great deal. Especially when you consider we pay over £500 per head, per year In to the EU. The jobs that are linked to exports into the EU aren't in any immediate threat, we can still trade and will always continue too. You ask for collective reasons, well you won't get any as people don't vote collectively.

 A majority of people do not feel the balance of pros (which there are some) and cons, are worth it to them. No amount of patronising or spitefulness will ever change that.

[Sharpe's Fox]

If people weren't informed about the benefits of the EU that's the EU's fault. The first test of any democracy is to engage people with it and if people don't know what their government does for them it isn't a very good one. The EU governs by a mixture of stealth of the legislatures, ignorance of their populace and the façade of democracy in their attempt to create their  totalitarian, free-market superstate. This isn't a view of the left of or right of politics as two titans of the political divide in Margaret Thatcher and Tony Benn both recognised this. In my view it's the great failure of the centre ground of European politics that they are letting the EU fail their citizens both economically and culturally.

[bovril]

6 hours ago, Nalis said:

I voted Remain but I can see why people let down by recent governments voted Leave.

 

I can't really. I can definitely see why people voted Leave for other reasons. But the idea of voting out because you're angry at the British government is a bit baffling.

[foxinexile]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

You mention that the EU spends heavily on the North East but £30 per head, per year is not a great deal. You ask for collective reasons, well you won't get any as people don't vote collectively 

As I said, I wasn't trying to make a case of the benefits of the EU with regards to the money it has funded into the North East. I was highlighting that as a region it receives a higher proportion per person than most other areas of the UK. Whether the perception of that the amount of funding is reasonable or not is down to personal opinion I suppose, but I'll leave my own thoughts out as I'm sure it's something that leave/remain voters would be unlikely to reach an agreed consensus on.

The collective reasons, I just meant I'd be interested to see a collection of the different reasons why people voted leave in that region and what those reasons included. I imagine it'd be quite a broad range. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

[ousefox]

It'll be interesting how this Great Repeal Act goes down. 2 mps on Peston saying they would be hesitant to vote for it in the Commons...

[Buce]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37538459

 

The pound is worth shit but, hey - at least we have our sovereignty back.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37538459

 

The pound is worth shit but, hey - at least we have our sovereignty back.

The FTSE is up 1.2%

[Buce]

43 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The FTSE is up 1.2%

That benefits no one but rich investors.

 

The ordinary man in the street is affected far more by a weak pound.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37538459

 

While the pound fell, share prices rose. At one point, the FTSE 100 share index was trading at 6,996.43, its highest level for 16 months, before falling back slightly to close 1.2% higher at 6983.52.

"As a result of Prime Minister May's announcement ... the pound has weakened significantly, which is actually seen as a good thing by the FTSE 100 as it's quite an export-heavy index," said Henry Croft, research analyst at Accendo Markets.

The FTSE fell sharply in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, but has subsequently recovered and is up nearly 10%, because listed international-facing firms have benefited from the fall in sterling.

After the pound fell sharply at first on Monday, it then recovered some ground after a closely watched survey of the manufacturing sector indicated it grew at the fastest pace for two years in September.

But in afternoon trading, it fell against the dollar again after a US survey showed that manufacturing there had also grown strongly.

[Webbo]

35 minutes ago, Buce said:

That benefits no one but rich investors.

 

The ordinary man in the street is affected far more by a weak pound.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37538459

 

While the pound fell, share prices rose. At one point, the FTSE 100 share index was trading at 6,996.43, its highest level for 16 months, before falling back slightly to close 1.2% higher at 6983.52.

"As a result of Prime Minister May's announcement ... the pound has weakened significantly, which is actually seen as a good thing by the FTSE 100 as it's quite an export-heavy index," said Henry Croft, research analyst at Accendo Markets.

The FTSE fell sharply in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, but has subsequently recovered and is up nearly 10%, because listed international-facing firms have benefited from the fall in sterling.

After the pound fell sharply at first on Monday, it then recovered some ground after a closely watched survey of the manufacturing sector indicated it grew at the fastest pace for two years in September.

But in afternoon trading, it fell against the dollar again after a US survey showed that manufacturing there had also grown strongly.

I'd say it reflects confidence in British companies. If investors thought we were heading for trouble they'd be selling shares, not buying them.

[Great Boos Up]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'd say it reflects confidence in British companies. If investors thought we were heading for trouble they'd be selling shares, not buying them.

It's just cheaper to export hence more orders. More expensive to import. Ftse 100 companies aren't going under but a most (I think) are not british owned.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Great Boos Up said:

It's just cheaper to export hence more orders. More expensive to import. Ftse 100 companies aren't going under but a most (I think) are not british owned.

So good news then.

[Great Boos Up]

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So good news then.

For the people who have share in british exporters very good news. My company imports from Europe though so not very good news.

But in the long run The euro will go down too and it'll even out - with Europe anyway but as the pound has always been stronger the euro could be undermined. Remember it's just people with money gambling to make more money.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

So good news then.

 

I'm glad you think so, Webbo.

 

Personally speaking, a weak pound costs me money.

[Guest MattP]

14 hours ago, Buce said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37538459

 

The pound is worth shit but, hey - at least we have our sovereignty back.

As others have mentioned, this is not down to the Brexit date but more to do with the decision that we are going to start heavily borrowing again instead of paying off our debts, something you seem to actually want according to the other thread.

I think it's sad the way you have phrashed this though, almost like sovereignty isn't important, less than a century ago young men had to storm beaches into certain death to get their sovereignty, all we had to do was tick a box to get liberty and freedom back and if a few months of a devalued currency is what we have to go through I'd say we've got a good deal.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

As others have mentioned, this is not down to the Brexit date but more to do with the decision that we are going to start heavily borrowing again instead of paying off our debts, something you seem to actually want according to the other thread.

I think it's sad the way you have phrashed this though, almost like sovereignty isn't important, less than a century ago young men had to storm beaches into certain death to get their sovereignty, all we had to do was tick a box to get liberty and freedom back and if a few months of a devalued currency is what we have to go through I'd say we've got a good deal.

 

I'm not sure what made you infer that, Matt. I have never agreed with the concept of paying off our debts at the expense of the poor and the sick.

 

As for sovereignty, a) I don't agree with the premise that we lost it in the first place, and, b) Neither do I agree with the premise that it will be 'a few months of devalued currency', so, no, I don't agree it was a 'good deal' at all.

 

All speculation, of course. Time will tell.