Brexit discussion thread III

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Also - the Bank of England is independent from the Government. It's been independent since 1997.

Fair cop gov'

Government can still restrict the banks by laws, but it's the Tories so they won't.

It's still a climbdown.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think people are heavily implying that Britain is not going to be successful after Brexit. The vast majority of posts on this thread are in that light. That's the impression you get from scrolling through post after post after post of speculative prophecies about Britain many of which haven't come to light or never will come to light. That's why I broadly think this thread is an echo chamber, or at least it would be if there weren't a handful of dissenting voices on the thread.

I've given plenty of reasons as to why I don't believe that is true, and reasons as to why I think membership of the European Union doesn't suit the UK given its political philosophy. I've been through both at length on the other thread.

So when we see articles that show how the UK is being influenced by the decision to leave the EU (mostly negatively), how inflation has gone up, how the IMF has once again cut the forecast for growth for 2017, we should see this as an opportunity for the UK? You have been provided links to show how its going to hurt the UK. You chose to ignore them, but you take offense when we talk about those forecasts?

You sound more and more like a parody, maybe you are just playing the other side of the argument for a little fun. Do you think food banks as uplifitng as well? Are you Jacob Rees Mogg?

solodeogloria wrote: »

And yes, I don't think people should take Brexit personally. It is a decision made by the UK about its own future. Although I think there is going to be a short term cost to Brexit, I think this cost is going to be worth it long term for the additional control that will be regained and new opportunities that will open up. I've been specific about a number of these on the previous thread. Ultimately - I'm convinced that Brexit will be good for Britain.

Now, if Ireland and other EU member states are worried about the impact of Brexit, the right response isn't to cajole Britain into somehow staying against its will. The right response is to put pressure on the EU to ensure that a good deal is reached that is beneficial to all parties.

I don't view Brexit in very emotional terms. It is a logical process that follows from the referendum. It needs to be implemented, step by step until it is completed.

There is nothing wrong, or indeed stupid about a country wanting to regain the same level of control over its own affairs that most countries (outside of the EU) have the great privilege of having.

The point about brown people is silly and it says more about you than it does about anyone else. Most countries on the face of the earth control immigration. Most Western countries outside of the EU manage to do this fairly. Unless you're saying that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and America only have border controls because they are racist. Heck, if immigration controls are racist why doesn't the EU simply just let anyone in? Isn't it racist that they have controls on those coming outside of the EU?

Surely, you know that this is a poor argument.

Ah, yes the great solution to Brexit is to hope that other countries come to their aid and give them the deal the UK wants, but then the UK will not have to give in to their own red lines. This will be beneficial to both the UK and EU but the UK will not do this, its up to the EU to do this. You know what? I will gladly take 10 more years of struggling as long as that type of entitlement isn't rewarded. Its like the UK is an addict and the only way you can help them at the moment is for them to hit rock bottom. Bailing the UK out now will not solve their local policy issues that is the real cause of EU skepticism, it will only push it out to the future.

I was commenting on why I believe people voted to leave the EU. The main reason would be they want their country back. That is back from non-EU and EU immigration. You may not agree with it but I think there is ample evidence out there that immigration was a big reason for leaving the EU.

The talk of controlling immigration policy is a nice sidetrack, or at least an attempt at a sidetrack. I wasn't talking about immigration policies. I was talking about why people voted to leave. I know the UK has the ability to control EU immigration. I know they have total control on non-EU immigration. The fact that this is till high make you think that they need immigration from all countries and it is beneficial. But people think they need less, so less it will be.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've cut the silly nonsense from the end of this post.

If you had read the rest of my post - you would have seen that I've mentioned many times on this thread and its predecessor about the EU27 need to access specific financial markets in London. Both clients and governments.

I've also mentioned that this infrastructure isn't easily movable. And even if it was movable, there is little desire amongst regulators in member states to take on clearing.

Also - the Bank of England is independent from the Government. It's been independent since 1997.

Do you think London needs the EU? Or is it a case where the UK is doing the EU a favour by having London do their financial work for no benefit to the UK?

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think people are heavily implying that Britain is not going to be successful after Brexit.

People are saying directly, no beating about the bush, that the UK will be less successful after Brexit than it would be if they called it off and stayed in the EU.

It might be as simple as a recession and a lost decade of growth. Hardly an apocalypse, many countries have weathered worse.

But unnecessary, self-inflicted and damaging all around.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

So when we see articles that show how the UK is being influenced by the decision to leave the EU (mostly negatively), how inflation has gone up, how the IMF has once again cut the forecast for growth for 2017, we should see this as an opportunity for the UK? You have been provided links to show how its going to hurt the UK. You chose to ignore them, but you take offense when we talk about those forecasts?

You sound more and more like a parody, maybe you are just playing the other side of the argument for a little fun. Do you think food banks as uplifitng as well? Are you Jacob Rees Mogg?




Ah, yes the great solution to Brexit is to hope that other countries come to their aid and give them the deal the UK wants, but then the UK will not have to give in to their own red lines. This will be beneficial to both the UK and EU but the UK will not do this, its up to the EU to do this. You know what? I will gladly take 10 more years of struggling as long as that type of entitlement isn't rewarded. Its like the UK is an addict and the only way you can help them at the moment is for them to hit rock bottom. Bailing the UK out now will not solve their local policy issues that is the real cause of EU skepticism, it will only push it out to the future.

I was commenting on why I believe people voted to leave the EU. The main reason would be they want their country back. That is back from non-EU and EU immigration. You may not agree with it but I think there is ample evidence out there that immigration was a big reason for leaving the EU.

The talk of controlling immigration policy is a nice sidetrack, or at least an attempt at a sidetrack. I wasn't talking about immigration policies. I was talking about why people voted to leave. I know the UK has the ability to control EU immigration. I know they have total control on non-EU immigration. The fact that this is till high make you think that they need immigration from all countries and it is beneficial. But people think they need less, so less it will be.





Do you think London needs the EU? Or is it a case where the UK is doing the EU a favour by having London do their financial work for no benefit to the UK?

Lest we forget:

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think people are heavily implying that Britain is not going to be successful after Brexit. The vast majority of posts on this thread are in that light. That's the impression you get from scrolling through post after post after post of speculative prophecies about Britain many of which haven't come to light or never will come to light. That's why I broadly think this thread is an echo chamber, or at least it would be if there weren't a handful of dissenting voices on the thread.

You keep bringing up baseless nonsense using rhetoric like "Apocalypse" and "Doom-mongering" that only you have used to dismiss the facts you don't agree with. This poster was asking why you keep bringing up infantile nonsense like this.

All we have to go on are the facts about what is occurring and those paint a depressing picture. If this bothers you, why not provide a logic and facts-based counter-argument?

Professor Moriarty

Barnier/EC insisting that the transition phase should end in December 2020. If true, this will really spook services and industry.

In addition, regarding the transition phase, they said:
All existing union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will apply, including the competence of the court of justice of the European Union.

They have also reiterated that the agreements made in the first phase must be translated into legal terms.

Schorpio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All we have to go on are the facts about what is occurring and those paint a depressing picture. If this bothers you, why not provide a logic and facts-based counter-argument?

There is no logic or fact-based counter argument, and we all know it. If there was, we'd all be hear it constantly from the Leave-supporting press. Soundbytes are what's rolled out in the absence of fact.

Reading Tony Connolly's book at the moment, it's incredible how prepared the EU have been for this. Competent, experienced staff assigned to relevant roles. Meeting stakeholers constantly since the vote. Using the time that the UK either weren't triggering Article 50, or were having their general election, to prepare for these negotiations.

All of that preparation contributes to why there are so many fact-based assessments of the impact of Brexit produced by predominantly pro-Remain organisations. Given that the UK (supposedly) hasn't produced any impact assessment, there is a complete lack of anything meaningful from the Leavers. Yet, rather frustratingly, adamant Leavers won't believe anything that doesn't come from their people. They ignore any EU or Remain-supporting arguments, and don't see the vacuum from their own campaign as a massive red flag.

Enzokk

Here is a link to the transition period timeframe.

At the Select Committee for Exiting the EU those giving evidence to MP's just basically said that if there is no customs union there will be a border. Also that if you are in the customs union you are basically in the single market. So if there is no border between Ireland and NI, and the UK will not be in any different in regulation to NI, then in effect the UK will be in the CU and SM.

Does this not basically mean that NI will decide what Brexit there will be? Seeing as the UK will be following NI, if NI decides no border then the same follows for the UK.

Chips Lovell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

This thread has been very polite and rule abiding over the last few days after a bad couple of weeks so kudos to all involved.

In the spirit of keeping the standards high, please refrain from comments like this. If other posters have an opinion different to yours and express it on the thread, that isnt bias it is just discussion.

So it would be helpful to stick to the points rather than making generalised comments like this. I appreciate that you take what is undoubtedly a minority view on Brexit, and it hasnt been a good few weeks for the UK Govt/ pro brexit position, but it would be helpful to stick to specific responses to specific issues.

Taps signs. The warning is there for a reason folks

flaneur

Basically what this comes down to is : are the British electorate willing to tolerate a decade of stagnated economics, instability, less travel opportunities and falling living standards to achieve a “Brexit” ?

It won’t be a horrific wallop but you’re probably looking at something at least as bad as the credit crunch, with more profound effects, as it’s forcing the restructuring of a significant % of the economy.

Real living standards are already falling as wage inflation is being outpaced by general inflation - spending power has deceeased. Add in general inflation of prices and that gets worse.

LeinsterDub

Q: Will the UK still benefit from EU free trade agreements during the transition? And will you have to update those agreements accordingly?

Barnier says that is a very serious question, and a complicated one. Legally speaking, the day after the UK leaves the EU, it will not be covered by these agreements. It will be leaving around 750 EU agreements. It will not be covered by agreements like Ceta, the Canada free trade agreement.

The UK needs to start work now to make sure they replicate those agreements, he says.

It seems that a transition period will result is some irregularities as the EU can't extend agreements it has with 3rd countries unilaterally. This has the potential to be a bomb shell.

flaneur

It's likely any transition deal could be illegal under WTO rules for both parties.

Why would non EU UK products get in while say Australian products / services wouldn't ?

Or, why would EU products get into the UK when say Russian or American ones wouldn't ?

It's going to be seen as a dodgy as hoc bilateral outside the WTO framework.

There's a major risk of a 3rd party that's nothing to do with the EU torpedoing it.

There's a totally myopic view of this being taken by those discussing it in the UK in particular

Call me Al

flaneur wrote: »

Basically what this comes down to is : are the British electorate willing to tolerate a decade of stagnated economics, instability, less travel opportunities and falling living standards to achieve a “Brexit” ?

It won’t be a horrific wallop but you’re probably looking at something at least as bad as the credit crunch, with more profound effects, as it’s forcing the restructuring of a significant % of the economy.

Real living standards are already falling as wage inflation is being outpaced by general inflation - spending power has deceeased. Add in general inflation of prices and that gets worse.

They have been surveyed. Many pro-brexit voters felt the loss of a job within their family was an ok price to pay for Brexit.
With this kind of thinking it's not ridiculous to think that yes those things you've listed are all things many people are willing to see happen.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/01/leave-voters-thinking-brexit-is-worth-damaging-the-economy-poll.html

It seems the less their money can buy the happier they'll be.

Leroy42

Call me Al wrote: »

They have been surveyed. Many pro-brexit voters felt the loss of a job within their family was an ok price to pay for Brexit.
With this kind of thinking it's not ridiculous to think that yes those things you've listed are all things many people are willing to see happen.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/01/leave-voters-thinking-brexit-is-worth-damaging-the-economy-poll.html

It seems the less their money can buy the happier they'll be.

Which is why I struggle to see what all the wailing and gnashing of teeth against the EU, Ireland etc is about.

Just pay for your commitments, and take a hard brexit.

flaneur

Electorates can be extremely fickle and illogical about such things. It's easy enough to say that in times of full employment and relatively high standards of public services and so on.

A mixture of an economic downturn and Tory austerity ideology for a few years could provide a very different result to the same question.

Fundamentally, I think they're fighting a nasty boogeyman caricature of the EU that never existed in the first place.

Ask them about one EU directive they'd scrap and you typically get some regurgitated tabloid story about bendy bananas or outrage about ecologically friendly vacuum cleaners...(which incidentally, work just fine .. and Dyson had been 100% in line with the directive years ago anyway.)

RobertKK

The people behind Brexit have this grandiose view of the UK that doesn’t actually exist. It is the British empire mentality which they believe was something great, when people outside who were oppressed by it see it as a stain that existed on the planet due to the amount of death and suffering it brought the world.
We saw how some politicians supporting Brexit knew very very little about politics in Ireland.
They live in their own bubble of this make belief world that doesn’t actually exist.

The EU is a place of rules and regulations, it will not do any special deals for a member who belittled it, undermines the Union and then chose to leave the Union.
The EU will be more concerned about respecting countries like Norway and Switzerland and others who have actual deals with the EU, and the last thing the EU will want is to cause itself trouble by undermining existing deals.

The UK has signed up to a deal in phase 1 caused by the 1921 treaty that gave Ireland independence, that means the UK is going to be bound by some EU rules when it leaves.
I can’t see how we can have no borders on this island and then no borders in the Irish Sea, unless the UK copies EU rules where convergence is needed for borderless movements.

I think the UK will end up doing more flip flops to get a deal and the EU will be the irresistible force that the UK will have to bend to for a deal.
I don’t think the Uk really has a lot of options, and they never planned to leave the EU, it was suppose to get rid of UKIP and eurosceptics.
Probably why the British cabinet only sat down this week to discuss what kind of Brexit they wanted...it was never intended to reach this point in my opinion.

steddyeddy

The IMF downgrades the British economy. It's a forecast but it will have an effect on the British economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42424700

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

The people behind Brexit have this grandiose view of the UK that doesn’t actually exist. It is the British empire mentality which they believe was something great, when people outside who were oppressed by it see it as a stain that existed on the planet due to the amount of death and suffering it brought the world

you should read up on who voted leave and why.

But then, maybe Mahmood has a grandiose view of the empire :rolleyes:

If you want to get a full understanding of why Brexit is happening, this thread is the last place you should look.

Fascinating article that....

'Mahmood admits he does not know many exact facts and figures about the EU, but nonetheless he is unfaltering in his position.'

Perception vs Reality

And;

'He also claims eastern Europeans exploit the UK markets and send “benefit monies” back home to their large families'

Perception vs Reality

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So it would be helpful to stick to the points rather than making generalised comments like this. I appreciate that you take what is undoubtedly a minority view on Brexit, and it hasnt been a good few weeks for the UK Govt/ pro brexit position, but it would be helpful to stick to specific responses to specific issues.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I do wish this thread would put the fear mongering aside and support arriving at a reasonable free trade deal. It seems like some are more interested in schadenfreude than actually negotiating a good exit.

Aegir wrote: »

If you want to get a full understanding of why Brexit is happening, this thread is the last place you should look.

Mod note:

These meta comments are unhelpful and can derail the conversation.

flaneur

If you want to figure out why Brexit it's happening, there's a vast archive of tabloids available! It's a good place to start.

The narrative has been decades in making at this stage.

solodeogloria

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

These meta comments are unhelpful and can derail the conversation.

Good afternoon!

As PM'ed. I'd rather just be banned if I'm not allowed to highlight obvious bias where it exists.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

johnnyskeleton

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

As PM'ed. I'd rather just be banned if I'm not allowed to highlight obvious bias where it exists.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Mod note:

Oki doke.

For what it's worth, it's a pity that you take that position, but if you are not going to argue the merits and are just going to criticise other posters as you have done of late, then there is no other choice.

I'd ask other posters not to respond to any of Solo's posts from now on.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

you should read up on who voted leave and why.

But then, maybe Mahmood has a grandiose view of the empire :rolleyes:

If you want to get a full understanding of why Brexit is happening, this thread is the last place you should look.

There's an interesting synopsis on this LSE blog of a meta study into why people voted Leave. Their conclusion was that:

"Crucially, a plurality accepted that Brexit would harm the economy, and probably their own finances as well. But most voters also felt that remaining in the EU would increase the risk of terrorism, harm Britain’s cultural life and erode sovereignty, while leaving the EU would mean less immigration. Identity concerns were already trumping economic self-interest."

These reasons underpin most posters' opinions about Leave voters' motivations, i.e. immigration, identity/culture and 'control'.


Interestingly, they point to the 'likeability' of Johnson and Farage as crucial factors in cuing the Leave vote:

Propagated by an unlikely pair of messengers, Leave’s ‘Take Back Control’ message harnessed the emotive power of immigration, amplifying public concerns over identity and a feeling of being left behind that had been baked in long before the vote was called. These immigration fears, hitherto confined to the politically incorrect margins, not abstract concerns about a ‘democratic deficit’ or rescuing UK sovereignty from Brussels bureaucrats, do much to explain why Britain voted for Brexit.

Again, they reiterate the importance of immigration and identity in the Leave vote.

So we can see that most posters' opinions about British/English identity and immigration are based on fact.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Fascinating article that....

'Mahmood admits he does not know many exact facts and figures about the EU, but nonetheless he is unfaltering in his position.'

Perception vs Reality

And;

'He also claims eastern Europeans exploit the UK markets and send “benefit monies” back home to their large families'

Perception vs Reality

Feelings, how can you convince someone if it doesn't feel right to them? If you present a fact the most likely answer will be, "I don't care, I feel like a stranger in my own country."

A phrase that you hear a lot is how people say if you go to London it doesn't look like London any longer. You have woman walking around with headscarves or abayas and then people feel threatened or lost. I think it is quite clear that most people who voted leave immigration was their main concern, IMO. This may have been from EU immigration or non-EU immigration, but it was people feeling that they somehow lost their identity.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There's an interesting synopsis on this LSE blog of a meta study into why people voted Leave. Their conclusion was that:

"Crucially, a plurality accepted that Brexit would harm the economy, and probably their own finances as well. But most voters also felt that remaining in the EU would increase the risk of terrorism, harm Britain’s cultural life and erode sovereignty, while leaving the EU would mean less immigration. Identity concerns were already trumping economic self-interest."

In fairness, I find very little to argue with in that position since it is not one arrived at through reason and already acknowledges the obvious costs. There really is very little point in addressing it via logical arguments or facts and figures.

steddyeddy

Aegir wrote: »

you should read up on who voted leave and why.

But then, maybe Mahmood has a grandiose view of the empire :rolleyes:

If you want to get a full understanding of why Brexit is happening, this thread is the last place you should look.

Read of it what you will but anyone who thinks the British economy will do better out of the EU has a very inflated sense of Britain.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

Feelings, how can you convince someone if it doesn't feel right to them? If you present a fact the most likely answer will be, "I don't care, I feel like a stranger in my own country."

Unfortunately, we're not entirely logical creatures and it certainly doesn't help than many proponents of immigration are also quite wealthy and live in areas far beyond the fiscal reach of many foreigners. Basically, the messanger matters as well as his/her message.

Enzokk wrote: »

A phrase that you hear a lot is how people say if you go to London it doesn't look like London any longer. You have woman walking around with headscarves or abayas and then people feel threatened or lost. I think it is quite clear that most people who voted leave immigration was their main concern, IMO. This may have been from EU immigration or non-EU immigration, but it was people feeling that they somehow lost their identity.

Part and parcel of globalisation I'm afraid. Countries, cultures and economies are becoming ever more intertwined. The EU has evolved into an attempt to manage this by investing in the economies of poorer members so that they can try to develop instead of just haemhorraging talent.

It's been proven that immigration is beneficial. However, you can't just dump a load of people into a town or city and expect your tax take to increase. You need more housing, services and infrastructure to make the most of it and unfortunately, the British electorate has been opting for small state, "Leave it to the market" governments since Thatcher's day.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fairness, I find very little to argue with in that position since it is not one arrived at through reason and already acknowledges the obvious costs. There really is very little point in addressing it via logical arguments or facts and figures.

Well, if you don't address erroneous beliefs and assumptions with logic and fact then you are complicit in the maintenance of irrational and untrue beliefs and assumptions. If no politicians or journalists were to challenge the likes of Johnson, Gove and Farage, then their lies would remain 'truths'. As Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

Professor Moriarty

Yet more bizarre irrationality from May in the Commons: In the context of full alignment in Ireland, May denies that it is “the default position”. Instead she states that “It’s the default default position”. Alice In Wonderland stuff.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, if you don't address erroneous beliefs and assumptions with logic and fact then you are complicit in the maintenance of irrational and untrue beliefs and assumptions.

But what can you say? They know it will cost them money, they just want no more johnny foreigners. It is a xenophobic view immune to reason, especially when the reasoning comes from the likes of me or Barnier or Christine Lagarde, each more foreign than the last.

swampgas

Enzokk wrote: »

Feelings, how can you convince someone if it doesn't feel right to them? If you present a fact the most likely answer will be, "I don't care, I feel like a stranger in my own country."

A phrase that you hear a lot is how people say if you go to London it doesn't look like London any longer. You have woman walking around with headscarves or abayas and then people feel threatened or lost. I think it is quite clear that most people who voted leave immigration was their main concern, IMO. This may have been from EU immigration or non-EU immigration, but it was people feeling that they somehow lost their identity.

It's a very interesting subject. Brexit has exposed, among many other things, a crisis of British identity. And while some people genuinely feel like strangers in their own country, and voted to leave, there is a flip side: I know a few English people, all Remainers, who feel like strangers in post-referendum Britain.

A lot of politics is about identity, and identity can trump economics. The EU project has created a sense of European identity which overlays national identity. One of the reasons I feel a hard Brexit is likely is that English nationalism, stirred up by the tabloids, UKIP and the Tory right, has created a political dynamic and sense of national identity that is incompatible with EU membership.

For a country to be a member of the EU its people need to be willing to consider themselves EU citizens, and to support the concept of the EU. The simple fact is that British support for the EU project has never been more than lukewarm. Right through the referendum campaign hardly anyone was saying positive things about the EU. For many British people the EU has always been something other, something foreign, and something innately un-British. So I'm not suprised that so many in the UK are still in favour or Brexit even if it costs them and their families jobs and prosperity.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But what can you say? They know it will cost them money, they just want no more johnny foreigners. It is a xenophobic view immune to reason, especially when the reasoning comes from the likes of me or Barnier or Christine Lagarde, each more foreign than the last.

Oh I agree, there are many people who simply won't listen to reason. Their attitudes have been baked in over many years by various Tory newspapers. But there are many who are open to having their beliefs challenged. For instance, a poll last week showed that 51% now want to remain in the EU while 41% still want to leave. So attitudes can be changed. Hopefully.

For Forks Sake

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yet more bizarre irrationality from May in the Commons: In the context of full alignment in Ireland, May denies that it is “the default position”. Instead she states that “It’s the default default position”. Alice In Wonderland stuff.

I wonder will the NHS cover the treatment I'm going to need form the damage incurred from constantly rolling my eyes every time they come out with this sort of nonsense?

Professor Moriarty

swampgas wrote: »

It's a very interesting subject. Brexit has exposed, among many other things, a crisis of British identity. And while some people genuinely feel like strangers in their own country, and voted to leave, there is a flip side: I know a few English people, all Remainers, who feel like strangers in post-referendum Britain.

A lot of politics is about identity, and identity can trump economics. The EU project has created a sense of European identity which overlays national identity. One of the reasons I feel a hard Brexit is likely is that English nationalism, stirred up by the tabloids, UKIP and the Tory right, has created a political dynamic and sense of national identity that is incompatible with EU membership.

For a country to be a member of the EU its people need to be willing to consider themselves EU citizens, and to support the concept of the EU. The simple fact is that British support for the EU project has never been more than lukewarm. Right through the referendum campaign hardly anyone was saying positive things about the EU. For many British people the EU has always been something other, something foreign, and something innately un-British. So I'm not suprised that so many in the UK are still in favour or Brexit even if it costs them and their families jobs and prosperity.

Very good point. In the LSE article on the meta analysis I mentioned earlier, they said that Remain's biggest mistake was to focus on the economic downsides of Brexit because people were willing to take a financial hit to vote Leave. Instead, they said that Remain should have focussed on the positive aspects of EU membership.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unfortunately, we're not entirely logical creatures and it certainly doesn't help than many proponents of immigration are also quite wealthy and live in areas far beyond the fiscal reach of many foreigners. Basically, the messanger matters as well as his/her message.


Part and parcel of globalisation I'm afraid. Countries, cultures and economies are becoming ever more intertwined. The EU has evolved into an attempt to manage this by investing in the economies of poorer members so that they can try to develop instead of just haemhorraging talent.

It's been proven that immigration is beneficial. However, you can't just dump a load of people into a town or city and expect your tax take to increase. You need more housing, services and infrastructure to make the most of it and unfortunately, the British electorate has been opting for small state, "Leave it to the market" governments since Thatcher's day.

I have no problem if people are ignorant, just don't get upset when you are called out on it. It seems obvious that decisions made on emotions have a bigger chance to cause the most damage. Its this ignorance of the possible effects of that decisions that I find interesting and infuriating.

My own personal feeling is that a country is always more interesting if you see different people walking around. If you walk down the street and you see people that look different and speak different languages, it just feels (see, there it is again) like it is better. I am also acutely aware that if things go wrong, those different voices and faces will be the first to be blamed.

An Ciarraioch

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yet more bizarre irrationality from May in the Commons: In the context of full alignment in Ireland, May denies that it is “the default position”. Instead she states that “It’s the default default position”. Alice In Wonderland stuff.

TM: We have put forward solutions to no physical infrastructure in Ireland.
Yvette Cooper: Are cameras ruled out?
TM: Not going to say how.
YC:?

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/943511563327148033

That'll be a hard border, then.

steddyeddy

One of my failings in the Brexit vote is not differentiating between speeches aimed at the home audience and those aimed at the EU. It also illustrates the tightrope May's government have to walk when assuaging the fears of various groups.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

I have no problem if people are ignorant, just don't get upset when you are called out on it. It seems obvious that decisions made on emotions have a bigger chance to cause the most damage. Its this ignorance of the possible effects of that decisions that I find interesting and infuriating.

My own personal feeling is that a country is always more interesting if you see different people walking around. If you walk down the street and you see people that look different and speak different languages, it just feels (see, there it is again) like it is better. I am also acutely aware that if things go wrong, those different voices and faces will be the first to be blamed.

I'm as liberal as they come despite being near skint. However, simply calling them ignorant while not inaccurate a lot of the time doesn't solve the problem nor does it prevent the same happening again.

LeinsterDub

steddyeddy wrote: »

One of my failings in the Brexit vote is not differentiating between speeches aimed at the home audience and those aimed at the EU. It also illustrates the tightrope May's government have to walk when assuaging the fears of various groups.

If May's government think they are walking this tightrope they are very much mistaken and have been called out on it several times already by the EU about it.

Thargor

lawred2 wrote: »

Did I miss Brexit? As far as I'm aware the UK is still in the EU.

Either way... London will ultimately be grand. It's a global financial center.

Why does this have to keep being explained? Over and over and over...

Kermit.de.frog

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yet more bizarre irrationality from May in the Commons: In the context of full alignment in Ireland, May denies that it is “the default position”. Instead she states that “It’s the default default position”. Alice In Wonderland stuff.

Yep - none of this is possible anymore.



The phase 1 agreement (soon to be converted to a legally binding text thanks to David "the clown" Davis) with it's section on the Irish border makes any of these solutions highly unlikely to say the least.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Very good point. In the LSE article on the meta analysis I mentioned earlier, they said that Remain's biggest mistake was to focus on the economic downsides of Brexit because people were willing to take a financial hit to vote Leave. Instead, they said that Remain should have focussed on the positive aspects of EU membership.

someone who is feeling the full effects of austerity, being told which way to vote in a referendum by the very people who caused that austerity isn't exactly a great message.

If you're being paid minimum wage in Boston because there are so many Poles in the town, employers can pay as little as they like, you aren't really going to take much notice of an investment banker in Hampstead telling you to vote remain because the UK will lose its passporting rights.

Gerry T

Aegir wrote:

If you're being paid minimum wage in Boston because there are so many Poles in the town, employers can pay as little as they like, you aren't really going to take much notice of an investment banker in Hampstead telling you to vote remain because the UK will lose its passporting rights.

Plus before Brexit at least the person was getting min wage. Post brexit min wage can go south and working hrs north. Effectively worse off.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm as liberal as they come despite being near skint. However, simply calling them ignorant while not inaccurate a lot of the time doesn't solve the problem nor does it prevent the same happening again.

I realise its not as black and white as simply saying the voters that voted to leave the EU is ignorant, but there is so much misinformation out there and sprinkled with a good dose of racism it was just a perfect storm for Brexit. I agree just calling people ignorant will not solve the problem, then again ignoring it doesn't solve anything either. It's a mess, whichever way you look at it.

lawred2

Gerry T wrote: »

Plus before Brexit at least the person was getting min wage. Post brexit min wage can go south and working hrs north. Effectively worse off.

The EU has no minimum wage directive..

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

I realise its not as black and white as simply saying the voters that voted to leave the EU is ignorant, but there is so much misinformation out there and sprinkled with a good dose of racism it was just a perfect storm for Brexit. I agree just calling people ignorant will not solve the problem, then again ignoring it doesn't solve anything either. It's a mess, whichever way you look at it.

You've ignored the economic component. Nobody chooses to rock a ship that is sailing smoothly. Ultimately, it comes back to the old adage of "It's the economy, stupid."

If the vote were held in the mid-noughties amidst the boom years, it would not have been an issue. Regarding ignorance, yeah that's there but the only remedy I can see is hard Brexit followed by some form of financial hardship that not even the red tops can spin to blame Brussels.

joeysoap

May refused to say what goods would be covered by the “full alignment with EU rules” proposal for the Irish border in the UK-EU deal agreed earlier this month. The “full alignment” clause is in paragraph 49 of the document (pdf). Benn asked whether agricultural products, or other goods, would be covered by this provision. May refused to give a direct answer, saying this was just a fallback option and that the government expected to avoiding having to have a hard border in Ireland using one of the two alternative measures in paragraph 49. At one point she even said the “full alignment” proposal was a “default default” position.


What’s a default default position when it’s at home ?

An Ciarraioch

Damien Green has resigned:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/943582354462904320

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/943583084162830336

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unfortunately, we're not entirely logical creatures and it certainly doesn't help than many proponents of immigration are also quite wealthy and live in areas far beyond the fiscal reach of many foreigners. Basically, the messanger matters as well as his/her message.

I don't think its a logical issue though, in that there is clearly right and wrong answers. There has been huge demographic change and upheaval in the UK over the past 50-60 years. Some will approve of that change, the vast majority as demonstrated by Brexit do not.

Part and parcel of globalisation I'm afraid. Countries, cultures and economies are becoming ever more intertwined. The EU has evolved into an attempt to manage this by investing in the economies of poorer members so that they can try to develop instead of just haemhorraging talent.

China is fully immersed in the globalisation process, but its not undergone anything like the demographic change the UK has over the same time period (94% Han in 1953, 92% Han in 2010). Same for Japan. Most of Africa (if not all of it), South America and so on.

Massive demographic change and open borders is not necessarily part of globalisation. Its a choice by UK and European policy makers, but it lacks democratic support. So you get reactions like Brexit, and increasingly anti-migration parties and governments gaining power across the EU: Austria for example, Hungary, Poland and so on.

It's been proven that immigration is beneficial. However, you can't just dump a load of people into a town or city and expect your tax take to increase. You need more housing, services and infrastructure to make the most of it and unfortunately, the British electorate has been opting for small state, "Leave it to the market" governments since Thatcher's day.

Some forms of immigration is beneficial: young, highly skilled workers with jobs to go to are clearly going to be an economic benefit. Since 1995, over a hundred thousand French entrepreneurs have moved to London to start and run their businesses in the UK. Clearly a benefit.

But elderly relatives and dependants, poorly skilled workers, people who don't have any language skills: these are not beneficial. These absorb resources from the rest of the economy, they don't generate them. Its misleading to pretend all migration is equal, and all migration is equally beneficial. Its not. A UCL study in 2013 (P27 and Table 5) determined that EEA migrants from 2001-2011 contributed roughly £22 billion to the UK economy. That was the only group of migrants that made a positive contribution: non-EEA migrants had taken out anywhere between £95-£114 billion from the UK economy. The media reaction was obviously to hype the EEA migrant contribution and ignore the non-EEA cost, which overwhelmed it.

The UK voters who don't see mass migration as the all singing all dancing success story are not necessarily illogical in their rejection of that mythologised success story. Obviously, rejection of EEA migration (which is a positive to the UK) is ironic, but UK political parties never offered the UK people a referendum on non-EEA migration. The entirety of Brexit was more a rejection of Westminster than it was Brussels. But the EU is likely to continue to be caught in the crossfire between angry electorates and governments which refuse to acknowledge those electorates.