Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Vacamion]

 

The front page of the Daily Mail today (as seen on Twitter, I don't buy it) makes me embarrassed to be British.

 

It's a great example of empty headed jingoism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlueSi13]

16 minutes ago, Barky said:

Like I said brexit voters were in the main poorly educated and low income people (I know that hurts some people to hear but it's the truth so deal with it). They're exactly the type of people who will be hurt most by a downturn. A lot of them voted leave because they seriously thought that their lives would suddenly become much better. If they get much worse instead they'll soon change their minds. May will get away with switching plan if she has public support because she'd be doing what the people want. 

 

Very unlikely to happen but it's a possibility.

It's exactly ignorant and insulting statements like this that caused Brexit.  Don't try to understand why people voted for Brexit, simply blame it on 'poor education', whatever that means.

 

If you think having something like a University degree instantly makes one 'better educated' you're simply misinformed (check Oxford professor Joshua Silver's massacre on Daily Politics for a perfect example).  BTW this is coming from someone with two degrees and works for a large multinational.

 

I recommend stepping out of your bubble and speak to those that voted the way they did.  I think you'll find it quite enlightening how many of them understand how the world works with far greater clarity then many of those from 'educated' backgrounds. 

 

 

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Barky said:

Like I said brexit voters were in the main poorly educated and low income people (I know that hurts some people to hear but it's the truth so deal with it). They're exactly the type of people who will be hurt most by a downturn. A lot of them voted leave because they seriously thought that their lives would suddenly become much better. If they get much worse instead they'll soon change their minds. May will get away with switching plan if she has public support because she'd be doing what the people want. 

 

Very unlikely to happen but it's a possibility.

That's all well and good until you realise that the poor are used to being poor. 

 

And if they are "uneducated" then they aren't likely to admit they are wrong either. 

 

Still, we're a literal lightyear from any of this. We are in a better position than the most pro-brexiter could have predicted. 

 

A couple of early trade deals with the smaller nations like new Zealand and Australia will help. Obviously we can't sign them until we are "out" but we can definitely have the papers ready. 

 

Then will those in the works hopefully we can get a fair agreement with some of the bigger boys, these will help keep investment into the UK flowing while the pound is low and attractive, all the while putting a little bit more pressure on the EU to get things settled. 

 

You guys should try a little optimism instead of the faint hope this will be reversed. It won't be easy, but there are definite avenues available where this all works out. 

[Voll Blau]

21 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

The front page of the Daily Mail today (as seen on Twitter, I don't buy it) makes me embarrassed to be British.

 

It's a great example of empty headed jingoism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think 'Die Welt' was closer to the mark...

[Barky]

1 minute ago, BlueSi13 said:

It's exactly ignorant and insulting statements like this that caused Brexit.  Don't try to understand why people voted for Brexit, simply blame it on 'poor education', whatever that means.

 

If you think having something like a University degree instantly makes one 'better educated' you're simply misinformed (check Oxford professor Joshua Silver's massacre on Daily Politics for a perfect example).  BTW this is coming from someone with two degrees and works for a large multinational.

 

I recommend stepping out of your bubble and speak to those that voted the way they did.  I think you'll find it quite enlightening how many of them understand how the world works with far greater clarity then many of those from 'educated' backgrounds. 

 

 

I'm not judging anyone for being poorly educated or low paid. I'm saying people in that situation are generally vulnerable to downturns. The stats show that people without higher education and on lower incomes voted in higher proportiona for brexit. Nothing I've said there is up for debate.

 

And that kind of statement didn't cause brexit. That's just nonsense trotted out in an attempt to intellectualise the vote when in fact people's reasons for leaving were very simple. 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This threat to turn the UK into a low-tax haven for global corporations is quite something, isn't it?

 

As a developed nation, if you have low corporate taxation, then you inevitably have some combination of higher personal taxation or low public spending to counter-balance that. The USA has only a partial health service. Ireland has low corporation tax, but high personal tax, no NHS and crap public services apart from education. Unless the UK wanted to compete as a low-skills economy (unlikely as developing nations could still undercut us), we'd probably have to do something similar to Ireland: increase spending on education/training, slash spending on health and other public services and increase income tax/national insurance.

 

It could all be bluff for negotiating purposes, but May is basically saying to the EU: if you don't give us what we want, we'll thoroughly shaft you by taking loads of money from our own people and using it to bribe rich global corporations.

 

What lovely politics! Did they know that's what they were voting for in Sunderland and Nuneaton, when they chose to get rid of EU interference and lots of the foreigners?  

Come on mate, this comment is way below your level of intellect and usual standards of debate, no one on the leave side ever said anything about "getting rid of foreigners" - if people voted for that they simply didn't listen to the arguments, if you want to have a go at people voting for that then the Tory manifesto of 2015 ready to boot out Filipino nurses who don't earn 35,000 a year is a far better place to start than Vote Leave, youll get a lot more political support from across the board doing so as well.

 

It's clearly a threat, but it's one we should use, the EU made it clear as soon as they appointed their negotiators this was going to be a serious fight rather than an amicable seperation (proving all along they were always going to be dreadful to anyone who dared leave despite the wording of article 50 ensuring a smooth departure for both sides, not worth the paper it was written on!), we have to be prepared for the same, you don't take a spoon to a knife fight.

 

That said, like Trident, if push ever came to shove, we shouldn't be against doing anything that would hurt people who were prepared to hurt us, politics is a brutal game and I'm delighted we have a strong leader now who seems to realise that.

 

30 minutes ago, Barky said:

Like I said brexit voters were in the main poorly educated and low income people (I know that hurts some people to hear but it's the truth so deal with it). They're exactly the type of people who will be hurt most by a downturn. A lot of them voted leave because they seriously thought that their lives would suddenly become much better. If they get much worse instead they'll soon change their minds. May will get away with switching plan if she has public support because she'd be doing what the people want. 

 

Very unlikely to happen but it's a possibility.

Any evidence for this or is it just a prediction a bit like you assuming the pound would drop 3% against the dollar yesterday?

 

If what you are saying is true it hasn't reflected in the voting map from what we consider usual political persuasion, aside from the home counties, most of the what was considered the richer rural areas (a handful of places like Rushcliffe aside) all voted to leave in their droves, whereas most of the City areas aside from a few in the north voted to remain.

 

In addition to that Yougov states that around 65-70% of Conservatives voted leave, yet only about 30-35% of Labour voters.

 

If what you claim is true then it's now mainly Labour voters in cities who are the wealthy and educated, whereas all the Tories in the shires are the poor uneducated ones, which if true, would represent a seismic shift in British politics, huge news that no one has really noticed.

 

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

Think 'Die Welt' was closer to the mark...

Let's be quite honest, they are both as bad as each other, although I do like the fact the Germans seem to have a bit of worry about them now, maybe they'll finally start to realise they need a Europe that works for everyone rather than one that keeps everyone else poor just so they can continue to rule it with their own manufacturing economy.

[lgfualol]

33 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

The front page of the Daily Mail today (as seen on Twitter, I don't buy it) makes me embarrassed to be British.

 

It's a great example of empty headed jingoism.

 

Classic Daily Mail though. Bet there are loads that are loving her who will change their tune once she ****s them all over eventually. 

[BlueSi13]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

I'm not judging anyone for being poorly educated or low paid. I'm saying people in that situation are generally vulnerable to downturns. The stats show that people without higher education and on lower incomes voted in higher proportiona for brexit. Nothing I've said there is up for debate.

 

And that kind of statement didn't cause brexit. That's just nonsense trotted out in an attempt to intellectualise the vote when in fact people's reasons for leaving were very simple. 

May I ask what you define as 'poorly educated'?

 

It's true that large numbers of people from the working classes voted for Brexit, but what is up for debate is why.  Trying to bury the issue by labelling them as simply lacking intelligence (or racist, usually the two go-to insults for any Brexit voter) is a strategy that that backfired horrifically last June, and will only harden peoples attitudes to the issue moving forward.

 

BTW wonderful speech from Theresa May yesterday.  Reminding global markets that the UK remains a beacon for free trade and a partner for a global future, whilst at the same time reminding the EU that any attempts to punish it's ally will not be without significant cost.  All eyes are on them now, either we move on as prosperous partners, or the dynamic of Europe changes.

[Guest MattP]

Only a Sky poll but early indications leaving the single market and the PM has excellent public support.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-poll-britons-back-exit-from-the-eu-single-market-10732707

 

Huge differences again between London and the rest of the country, not to mention young and old.

 

Quote

 

Having been informed of the Prime Minister's stance, 51% of those surveyed said they support leaving the single market, while 39% oppose such a move.

Some 44% think she has a clear plan, up 10 percentage points since the question was last asked in October. Meanwhile 42% think she has not got a clear Brexit strategy, down seven points.

Just over half (51%) now trust Mrs May to get the best possible deal in negotiations with the EU, up five points since October, while the proportion who do not trust her is down three points to 36%.

Londoners oppose exiting the EU single market (52% to 33%), are unconvinced that Mrs May has a clear plan (58% to 30%) and do not trust her to get the best possible Brexit deal (48% to 31%) - all in stark contrast to the rest of the UK.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

Only a Sky poll but early indications leaving the single market and the PM has excellent public support.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-poll-britons-back-exit-from-the-eu-single-market-10732707

 

Huge differences again between London and the rest of the country, not to mention young and old.

 

 

Are we trusting polls again now?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Are we trusting polls again now?

If you look at the last 12 polls on the EU vote here over the last month, it's virtually level, so 52-48% leave shouldn't really have been a surprise to anyone, even more so with a larger turnout in England and Wales than expected combined with a lower one in Scotland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

 

The only poll that excluded "don't knows" was 55-45 Leave.

 

In America they gave Hillary a 3% lead nationwide, at the end of the popular vote, Hillary had a 3% lead nationwide.

The problem is they can't get the demographics of the turnout right which is impossible, we are giivng pollsters a hard time here despite them being well within the margin or error and actually not being far off the truth.

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Come on mate, this comment is way below your level of intellect and usual standards of debate, no one on the leave side ever said anything about "getting rid of foreigners" - if people voted for that they simply didn't listen to the arguments

Was there ever a point where you actually had a conversation with a real person during the build up to the vote?  I'm not saying it was the opinion of everybody who voted leave but I can vouch that there were enough people around here, including a few of my friends, happily telling me they wanted to kick Eastern Europeans out of the local area.  A handful of them even used arguments like benefit tourism (obviously without providing any stats).  So yes it was an issue for some.  If you wanted to press me for an estimate I'd say I was being fairly conservative in guessing that some version of the anti immigrant vote was an important factor for at least a quarter of the leave voters.

 

I can't back this up with official figures, it's just one of those things that's pretty obvious if you engage in the world around you.

[Barky]

Anti-immigration only a quarter? More like 60-70%. Various polls and studies showed it was by far the most important issue.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

What lovely politics! Did they know that's what they were voting for in Sunderland and Nuneaton, when they chose to get rid of EU interference and lots of the foreigners?  

If you don't like where May and the tories are taking this then we get a few manifestos to decide on at the next general election. We would have never got another say on the EU. 

So whether those in Sunderland and Nuneaton would change from leave to remain, is what you are asking? And even if they would, why should we care? You can't say they weren't fed enough of a gloomy picture of what would happen.

[Alf Bentley]

45 minutes ago, MattP said:

Come on mate, this comment is way below your level of intellect and usual standards of debate, no one on the leave side ever said anything about "getting rid of foreigners" - if people voted for that they simply didn't listen to the arguments, if you want to have a go at people voting for that then the Tory manifesto of 2015 ready to boot out Filipino nurses who don't earn 35,000 a year is a far better place to start than Vote Leave, youll get a lot more political support from across the board doing so as well.

 

It's clearly a threat, but it's one we should use, the EU made it clear as soon as they appointed their negotiators this was going to be a serious fight rather than an amicable seperation (proving all along they were always going to be dreadful to anyone who dared leave despite the wording of article 50 ensuring a smooth departure for both sides, not worth the paper it was written on!), we have to be prepared for the same, you don't take a spoon to a knife fight.

 

That said, like Trident, if push ever came to shove, we shouldn't be against doing anything that would hurt people who were prepared to hurt us, politics is a brutal game and I'm delighted we have a strong leader now who seems to realise that.

 

I've no problem with you challenging what I said, obviously. But you should challenge what I actually said, not a distorted version of it.

 

I said: "get rid of [...] lots of foreigners", not "get rid of foreigners".

 

There's a big difference. I assume that most Brexit voters do not want to get rid of foreigners in general, but want there to be significantly fewer foreigners in the UK. I assume they are happy with a reasonable number of well-integrated foreigners being here, particularly if they bring skills that are in short supply or fill jobs that natives don't want to do. But if you reckon most Brexit voters would be happy for us to have control of immigration but for the number of foreigners to stay the same, I think you're in a dream world. Many people believe (correctly to some extent) that immigrants reduce pay, job security and employment opportunities for Brits, particularly tradespeople and the unskilled - so they want there to be fewer foreigners here doing that. That's not controversial, is it?

 

OK, my phrasing was provocatively loose. But, phrasing apart, there is little difference between wanting there to be "fewer immigrants in the UK" (a widespread desire) and wanting "to get rid of lots of foreigners". Of course, very few Brexit supporters would want to see law-abiding, legitimately-employed foreigners dragged off to the airport for deportation. They'd be happy for some to stay, others to complete contracts or serve out their notice and then leave. They'd also be happy for some new foreigners to arrive, if their work/skills were in demand, provided that there were fewer of them. Don't you agree?

 

As for May's threat, I agree that we have to be tough and clever when bargaining, so as to bring the UK the best possible deal. We also have to expect the EU and the other 27 nations to do likewise - and both sides will need to be ready to accept certain compromises in the mutual interest. Because no deal is a bad deal for the UK and for the EU. It would damage both sides. I doubt that it's helpful to our chances, though, for her to play to the domestic media by making overt threats. Would it be helpful for the EU to threaten the UK with punitive tariffs if we don't fold and accept some of their demands? It just inflames the public mood and probably irritates politicians on the other side. There's a place for tough (but reasonable) bargaining. It's at the negotiating table, not in the media. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

Like I said brexit voters were in the main poorly educated and low income people (I know that hurts some people to hear but it's the truth so deal with it). They're exactly the type of people who will be hurt most by a downturn. A lot of them voted leave because they seriously thought that their lives would suddenly become much better. If they get much worse instead they'll soon change their minds. May will get away with switching plan if she has public support because she'd be doing what the people want. 

 

Very unlikely to happen but it's a possibility.

Well it speaks volumes, that after so long with the EEC and EU that the undereducated and poor can form a majority in the 21st century. If being part of this union was so great, that really shouldn't be possible.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Barky said:

Anti-immigration only a quarter? More like 60-70%. Various polls and studies showed it was by far the most important issue.

Like I say I'm being deliberately conservative in my estimate...  Having been debating politics on FT for some time now I know that given the anecdotal nature of my point, were I to come in with a higher figure I'd have certain posters who really buy into the left/right dogma and struggle to mentally separate themselves from every other person with right-wing sympathies jumping down my throat to accuse me of brandishing them a racist.

 

Btw your polls and studies are probably the ones that can't be trusted.

[Jon the Hat]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

Only a Sky poll but early indications leaving the single market and the PM has excellent public support.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-poll-britons-back-exit-from-the-eu-single-market-10732707

 

Huge differences again between London and the rest of the country, not to mention young and old.

 

 

I find it fascinating that London can be so multicultural but so against being a free trading global facing economy.  Weird.  I am increasingly convinced day by day that BREXIT is going to be the best decision ever made by Britain.  The EU is going to collapse under it own bullshit, and we will be very well placed in NATO and with our global trading partners to have increasing influence in Europe and the World.

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Was there ever a point where you actually had a conversation with a real person during the build up to the vote?  I'm not saying it was the opinion of everybody who voted leave but I can vouch that there were enough people around here, including a few of my friends, happily telling me they wanted to kick Eastern Europeans out of the local area.  A handful of them even used arguments like benefit tourism (obviously without providing any stats).  So yes it was an issue for some.  If you wanted to press me for an estimate I'd say I was being fairly conservative in guessing that some version of the anti immigrant vote was an important factor for at least a quarter of the leave voters.

 

I can't back this up with official figures, it's just one of those things that's pretty obvious if you engage in the world around you.

Given I was canvassing for some of it yes I did have a few conversations with real people

 

I met lots of people who wanted to control their own borders, I didn't meet a single person, not one, who told me they were voting to leave because they wanted to deport foreigners

 

I spoke to a lot of idiots as well doing this, more than I would want to speak to again in a lifetime and the voting intention of those was mixed, people who thought the big bus was Labour's because just it was red, people who didn't want to vote for Jeremy Crobin, people who thought leaving the EU meant they couldn't go on holiday to Spain if we left and people who thought Donald Trump would bomb us if we voted to remain, but no one who was so openly racist they stated they wanted to forcibly remove people from the country for not being British.

 

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've no problem with you challenging what I said, obviously. But you should challenge what I actually said, not a distorted version of it.

 

I said: "get rid of [...] lots of foreigners", not "get rid of foreigners".

 

There's a big difference. I assume that most Brexit voters do not want to get rid of foreigners in general, but want there to be fewer foreigners in the UK. I assume they are happy with a reasonable number of well-integrated foreigners being here, particularly if they bring skills that are in short supply or fill jobs that natives don't want to do. But if you reckon most Brexit voters would be happy for us to have control of immigration but for the number of foreigners to stay the same, I think you're in a dream world. Many people believe (correctly to some extent) that immigrants reduce pay, job security and employment opportunities for Brits - so they want there to be fewer foreigners here doing that. That's not controversial, is it?

 

OK, my phrasing was provocatively loose. But, phrasing apart, there is little difference between wanting there to be "fewer immigrants in the UK" (a widespread desire) and wanting "to get rid of lots of foreigners". Of course, very few Brexit supporters would want to see law-abiding, legitimately-employed foreigners dragged off to the airport for deportation. They'd be happy for some to stay, others to complete contracts or serve out their notice and then leave. They'd also be happy for some new foreigners to arrive, if their work/skills were in demand, provided that there were fewer of them. Don't you agree?

 

As for May's threat, I agree that we have to be tough and clever when bargaining, so as to bring the UK the best possible deal. We also have to expect the EU and the other 27 nations to do likewise - and both sides will need to be ready to accept certain compromises in the mutual interest. Because no deal is a bad deal for the UK and for the EU. It would damage both sides. I doubt that it's helpful to our chances, though, for her to play to the domestic media by making overt threats. Would it be helpful for the EU to threaten the UK with punitive tariffs if we don't fold and accept some of their demands? It just inflames the public mood and probably irritates politicians on the other side. There's a place for tough (but reasonable) bargaining. It's at the negotiating table, not in the media. 

Slightly controversial I think, no one in Leave said "we'd be getting lot of foreigners" either, they said we would be controlling our borders. That's a big difference. As you say wanting fewer here isn't wanting rid of those here. I'd happily get behind a Spaniard who would want less English there ruining and often colonising the beautiful South Coast with bars watching Eastenders etc, but I wouldn't get behind them forcibly removing them.

 

I don't think she is playing to the media, I think she genuinely means it, her decision of a hard Brexit was effectively forced upon her by Europe and now she has to go hard or go home, she was put on the ropes and she has to fight back.

 

P.S Have you got any further with researching article 50? I can't find anything at all that confirms or denies outright that once we enact it that means we are definitely leaving, it's something that needs to be cleared up very quickly and I'm surprised no one yet in parliament has asked the question.

 

 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Like I say I'm being deliberately conservative in my estimate...  Having been debating politics on FT for some time now I know that given the anecdotal nature of my point, were I to come in with a higher figure I'd have certain posters who really buy into the left/right dogma and struggle to mentally separate themselves from every other person with right-wing sympathies jumping down my throat to accuse me of brandishing them a racist.

 

Btw your polls and studies are probably the ones that can't be trusted.

Anti-immigration is a catch all thought isnt it?  I do believe a majority are anti completely open unrestricted immigration, and that only racist twats oppose sensibly managed immigration of people who bring their skills and talents to our nation where they are needed, and who dont have criminal backgrounds.  We have had nigh on 20 years of anyone at all coming in from Europe at the expense of lots of talent from the rest of the World.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If you don't like where May and the tories are taking this then we get a few manifestos to decide on at the next general election. We would have never got another say on the EU. 

So whether those in Sunderland and Nuneaton would change from leave to remain, is what you are asking? And even if they would, why should we care? You can't say they weren't fed enough of a gloomy picture of what would happen.

 

No, I was asking (rhetorically) if those Leave voters really wanted their government to raise their income tax and/or further slash their public services in order to give money to global corporations as a means of competing with our European neighbours in a race to the bottom.

[Finnaldo]

1 hour ago, Vacamion said:

 

The front page of the Daily Mail today (as seen on Twitter, I don't buy it) makes me embarrassed to be British.

 

It's a great example of empty headed jingoism.

 

The Mail has this special ability to put any point across, even if it's something I agree with, in such a snarky and overly-patriotic way that it instantly nullifies any credit I could give them. 

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

No, I was asking (rhetorically) if those Leave voters really wanted their government to raise their income tax and/or further slash their public services in order to give money to global corporations as a means of competing with our European neighbours in a race to the bottom.

We often don't get exactly what we want when we vote, did labour voters want Blair to take the country into two wars? Did everyone who vote in Tory and Lib Dem get what they want? 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We often don't get exactly what we want when we vote, did labour voters want Blair to take the country into two wars? Did everyone who vote in Tory and Lib Dem get what they want? 

True, but unintended consequences are still consequences, and while you can't expect voters to be Mystic Meg there should perhaps be at least a little foresight, or annoyance when it comes to pass. See across the pond now for a key example.

[Guest MattP]

Corbyn stated that lower Corporation Tax would be a race to the bottom and cost the treasury over 120 billion pounds. 

 

A quick glance showed Corporation Tax revenues are just a bit over 40 billion, he can't even get the most basic of facts right. - https://web.archive.org/web/20160304221555/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456459/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2015.pdf#8