EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Railops]

Apart from all that money they spent on deprived areas of the UK you mean?

Considering that money was originally paid into the EU by the UK that argument falls very flat.

 

[ainsworth74]

Considering that money was originally paid into the EU by the UK that argument falls very flat.

Oh are we about to go around that merry-go-round again? How's that £350m shaping up? When's it going to be available to the NHS?

 

[AlterEgo]

Apart from all that money they spent on deprived areas of the UK you mean?

They don't care. Nobody is listening.

We live in an age where data and facts are trumped by individual experiences and listening to "a person like me".

Nobody cares.

It's like shouting into a bin.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, people voted to leave because they were sick of not being listened to. Little thought was given to the consequences in the minds of many.

I can sympathise with people who feel that way, though I'm sad we are leaving.

To slightly correct that, I would suggest many people voted leave because they were sick of thinking that politicians weren't listening to them. That's a crucial difference. Believing you're not being listened to isn't the same as actually not being listened to.

Even aside from the biased news presented by much of the press, the last few years has seen a tremendous growth in people getting their news from places like Facebook and Twitter instead of from reputable news outlets. And while 'fake news' has only become 'news' in the last few months the problem of massively distorted so-called news stories, as well as algorithms that feed people only stories they are likely to agree with, has been a problem online for years now - along with the problem of stories being written not so much to convey information but to make people feel angry (so they're more likely to click on them). I think it is seriously worth asking how much the perception of Government not listening to people is actually caused by people getting very inaccurate information from social media.

After all, it's very noticeable how confidence in Governments around the World has declined at the same time as social media usage has gone up - yet there's no obvious reason to expect Government around the World on average to be more out of touch/incompetent/etc. than they were - say - 30 years ago.

 

[Railops]

Oh are we about to go around that merry-go-round again? How's that £350m shaping up? When's it going to be available to the NHS?

Bad mistake that was by some Leavers, as nobody can say where all the money saved by exiting the EU may go at this stage.
Still stands though that the EU does not give out money that it hasn't already taken from members.

 

[SteveP29]

Leave the country.

Whoa whoa whoa, leave the country for financial and social betterment, isn't that what we voted out because of?, immigrants coming here and making a better life for themselves and their families.
Why should we be allowed to get those benefits and be able to do what we want, when those that want to do the same coming into this country can't because of what the leavers want?

 

[AlterEgo]

To slightly correct that, I would suggest many people voted leave because they were sick of thinking that politicians weren't listening to them. That's a crucial difference. Believing you're not being listened to isn't the same as actually not being listened to.

Even aside from the biased news presented by much of the press, the last few years has seen a tremendous growth in people getting their news from places like Facebook and Twitter instead of from reputable news outlets. And while 'fake news' has only become 'news' in the last few months the problem of massively distorted so-called news stories, as well as algorithms that feed people only stories they are likely to agree with, has been a problem online for years now - along with the problem of stories being written not so much to convey information but to make people feel angry (so they're more likely to click on them). I think it is seriously worth asking how much the perception of Government not listening to people is actually caused by people getting very inaccurate information from social media.

After all, it's very noticeable how confidence in Governments around the World has declined at the same time as social media usage has gone up - yet there's no obvious reason to expect Government around the World on average to be more out of touch/incompetent/etc. than they were - say - 30 years ago.

Very good points.

 

[furnessvale]

Apart from all that money they spent on deprived areas of the UK you mean?

Every penny of which came from the UK in the first place before being stripped of two thirds of the cash for other EU countries, the remaining one third being returned with strings attached.

 

[SteveP29]

Personally, having a wide range of friends and colleagues, both in Edinburgh and Newcastle, I know of nobody who voted leave because they ' weren't being listened to'
The reasons they voted leave were on immigration and the 'unelected dictatorship' of the EU
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Personally, having a wide range of friends and colleagues, both in Edinburgh and Newcastle, I know of nobody who voted leave because they ' weren't being listened to'
The reasons they voted leave were on immigration and the 'unelected dictatorship' of the EU

 

[AlterEgo]

Personally, having a wide range of friends and colleagues, both in Edinburgh and Newcastle, I know of nobody who voted leave because they ' weren't being listened to'
The reasons they voted leave were on immigration and the 'unelected dictatorship' of the EU

Do you think they felt listened to by the "unelected dictatorship" of the EU, or by Westminster about their concerns on immigration?

 

[furnessvale]

Oh are we about to go around that merry-go-round again? How's that £350m shaping up? When's it going to be available to the NHS?

It's a merry-go-round you put us on in the first place by suggesting it was EU money.

The £350m will be available from April 2019 when we leave the EU. Sadly only about £200m of it will be available to the NHS as the remainder will go directly to the "good causes" within the UK currently supported by the EU (with our money).

This means we will only be able to build a new hospital every two weeks instead of one a week!

 

[NSEFAN]

Bad mistake that was by some Leavers, as nobody can say where all the money saved by exiting the EU may go at this stage.
Still stands though that the EU does not give out money that it hasn't already taken from members.

It's a merry-go-round you put us on in the first place by suggesting it was EU money.

The £350m will be available from April 2019 when we leave the EU. Sadly only about £200m of it will be available to the NHS as the remainder will go directly to the "good causes" within the UK currently supported by the EU (with our money).

This means we will only be able to build a new hospital every two weeks instead of one a week!

That's all well and good, but has anyone considered the likelihood of a well-established Conservative government taking any interest in spending more money on rural or deprived areas, especially those which aren't voting Conservative? Or spend it on the NHS for that matter?

 

[ainsworth74]

The £350m will be available from April 2019 when we leave the EU. Sadly only about £200m of it will be available to the NHS as the remainder will go directly to the "good causes" within the UK currently supported by the EU (with our money).

I'm touched by your faith but personally I'll believe when I see it.

 

[Railops]

That's all well and good, but has anyone considered the likelihood of a well-established Conservative government taking any interest in spending more money on rural or deprived areas, especially those which aren't voting Conservative? Or spend it on the NHS for that matter?

Whatever happens to the money surely it's better spent here than improving the sewage system of Bulgaria.

The electorate can vote out any Govt. that doesn't please them and get another one in.

 

[furnessvale]

That's all well and good, but has anyone considered the likelihood of a well-established Conservative government taking any interest in spending more money on rural or deprived areas, especially those which aren't voting Conservative? Or spend it on the NHS for that matter?

In which case we, in the UK, have the choice of voting for a different government, a choice not available to us with respect to the policy makers within the EU.

It is a point I have made before but it is worth repeating. At present, the more left leaning amongst us are happy with the EU because its left leaning tendency overrules our more right wing government.

There is no guarantee this will continue. In 10 years time with (hypothetically) far right governments all around the EU, changing policies to the right, a left leaning Corbyn led UK could be less happy with the EU, but powerless to do anything about it as they were constantly overruled.

 

[Senex]

Even aside from the biased news presented by much of the press, the last few years has seen a tremendous growth in people getting their news from places like Facebook and Twitter instead of from reputable news outlets.

But what are the reputable news outlets? All newspapers have their political bias, and many of us no longer see the broadcasters as wholly politically independent either. But you're so right about the places like Facebook and Twitter, with all of us tending to follow and listen to people like us. What's the answer? Is there any?

After all, it's very noticeable how confidence in Governments around the World has declined at the same time as social media usage has gone up - yet there's no obvious reason to expect Government around the World on average to be more out of touch/incompetent/etc. than they were - say - 30 years ago.

Unless the coming of the professional politician -- the people who have never done anything except play politics and think it's their destiny to rule over us -- in place of the experienced trade-unionists, teachers, lawyers, businessmen of former times in the main parties has actually made politicans of all sorts much more remote from the general population (and removed a degree of competence as well).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whoa whoa whoa, leave the country for financial and social betterment, isn't that what we voted out because of?, immigrants coming here and making a better life for themselves and their families.
Why should we be allowed to get those benefits and be able to do what we want, when those that want to do the same coming into this country can't because of what the leavers want?

Perhaps because other countries in Europe will still want to welcome people with the skills that they need and will value what people with a European cultural background and those skills can bring to them?

 

[NSEFAN]

Whatever happens to the money surely it's better spent here than improving the sewage system of Bulgaria.

The electorate can vote out any Govt. that doesn't please them and get another one in.

In which case we, in the UK, have the choice of voting for a different government, a choice not available to us with respect to the policy makers within the EU.

It is a point I have made before but it is worth repeating. At present, the more left leaning amongst us are happy with the EU because its left leaning tendency overrules our more right wing government.

There is no guarantee this will continue. In 10 years time with (hypothetically) far right governments all around the EU, changing policies to the right, a left leaning Corbyn led UK could be less happy with the EU, but powerless to do anything about it as they were constantly overruled.

We don't have a choice as to the policy makers in the UK either. We vote for a local MP who then forms part of a government which can create or modify legislation, a process which requires many unelected people such as civil servants and lawyers.

Choosing a different government isn't like choosing a different brand in a supermarket, and the will of the people does not directly translate into government policy. Firstly you have the electoral issues of safe seats and boundaries which warp how votes translate to winning MPs. Secondly there is the issue of the public opinion being heavily guided by the press, which can distract us from the real underlying issues (either accidentally or for cynical reasons). The will of the people can be therefore both misrepresented by those elected and can be moulded by those who inform the public. If the public are repeated told that issue X is a problem, then they will see it as a problem, regardless of the facts. Meanwhile, the government can quietly work on other projects and keep them out of the public eye for fear of losing votes over it.

Regarding the political views of the EU nations, we are likely to be following a similar route to our neighbours, since we are affected in similar ways by the same ongoing global trends, and so are likely to respond in the same way. If the EU states become more inward looking then I expect us to be doing the same, not fighting against it (If anything we are currently leading this trend!) If people were really concerned about becoming more right wing then we wouldn't have voted to leave the EU, which seems much keener about enforcing our rights than the current government (see for example the Investigatory Powers law being illegal under EU law).

 

[miami]

Bad mistake that was by some Leavers, as nobody can say where all the money saved by exiting the EU may go at this stage.
Still stands though that the EU does not give out money that it hasn't already taken from members.

For the first 10 years it will be paying for the costs of exit. After that it will have been lost by a reducing tax take.

However in any case we have never spent £350m a week to the EU. The membership fee is about £250m a week, or £4 per person. Of that £86m a week came back and was directed at the poorest areas, areas neglected by the unelected westminster government (seriously not a single person in government was elected -- ministers were appointed by May, and she herself was appointed defacto by the tory party after her challenger pulled out)

So the question is will cost of future trade with the EU? Our imports are about £2,300m a month higher than our exports, so that £164m membership fee would be lost if the pound dropped by 7%.

It's dropped by 13% since the disaster, so the country since June 24th is already £300m a week worse off -- twice our EU membership fee, and we haven't even left yet!

 

[EM2]

In which case we, in the UK, have the choice of voting for a different government, a choice not available to us with respect to the policy makers within the EU.

How is EU policy made, then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Still stands though that the EU does not give out money that it hasn't already taken from members.

Of course it doesn't. The Government doesn't give out money that it hasn't already taken from taxpayers either.

 

[miami]

But what are the reputable news outlets? All newspapers have their political bias, and many of us no longer see the broadcasters as wholly politically independent either. But you're so right about the places like Facebook and Twitter, with all of us tending to follow and listen to people like us. What's the answer? Is there any?

Yes. Reputable news agencies have their bias. They exagerate, they highlight insignificancies. Some (Guardian, Express, Washington Post) are more biased than others (Telegraph, BBC, NYT).

However today's

Unless the coming of the professional politician -- the people who have never done anything except play politics and think it's their destiny to rule over us

The professional politician has been here for decades. To take a random PM, Edward Heath. President of the Oxford Conservative union, post university went on a debating tour, was drafted for ww2, then joined the civil service for a few years, then spent 20 years as an MP before finally becoming PM at 58.

 

[northwichcat]

The £350m will be available from April 2019 when we leave the EU. Sadly only about £200m of it will be available to the NHS as the remainder will go directly to the "good causes" within the UK currently supported by the EU (with our money).

Only £120m will be available based on 2015 figures:

In 2015, Britain actually sent £250 million a week to the EU. After accounting for the money the Brussels sent back to Britain and EU spending we include in our foreign aid target, the net cost was £120 million a week or £17 million a day.

https://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/

The potential extra money for the NHS works out as 26p per person per day. If we presume a doctor is paid £35/hour and the average number of GP appointments per person per year is 2 then that £120m a week could allow GP appointments to be extended by a few minutes but that would require all the potentially freed up money, so nothing would be left for the hospitals or ambulance services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In which case we, in the UK, have the choice of voting for a different government, a choice not available to us with respect to the policy makers within the EU.

We have elected MEPs for the EU parliament, the same way we have elected MPs for the UK parliament. The difference being the UK elects all the MPs for the UK parliament but only some of the MEPs for the EU parliament. However, at the last EU election the UK elected mainly UKIP MEPs who generally stay away from Brussels, meaning they are only slightly more useful than the Sinn Fein MPs elected to represent Northern Irish constituencies who stay away from Westminster in protest against NI being part of the UK.

 

[miami]

However, at the last EU election the UK elected mainly UKIP MEPs who generally stay away from Brussels, meaning they are only slightly more useful than the Sinn Fein MPs elected to represent Northern Irish constituencies who stay away from Westminster in protest against NI being part of the UK.

It's a shame UK MEPs never sat on the fisheries committee. As a maritime nation with a large fishing fleet it's unbelievable that the UK had no representation on this!

 

[northwichcat]

It's a shame UK MEPs never sat on the fisheries committee. As a maritime nation with a large fishing fleet it's unbelievable that the UK had no representation on this!

Of course Farage was on the committee but his attendance rate was 1 meeting present, 19 meetings absent!

 

[LateThanNever]

How is EU policy made, then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course it doesn't. The Government doesn't give out money that it hasn't already taken from taxpayers either.

Yes it does! Quantitative Easing showed us that the government created almost half a trillion quid out of thin air with no tax rises at all. The government spends first and legitimises the spending by levying taxes payable only in sterling.


The banks and the government con us to think it's tax and spend. In fact it's spend and tax.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You have to respect democracy. Look at, for example, the Nissan employees in Sunderland who voted to leave the EU. In the end, you can say that they were misled, you can complain about the level of education in the UK, you can say there must be lead in the water. But these people have to accept responsibility for their actions. Five minutes of reading Wikipedia would have given them all the information they needed to vote remain. Now they must live with their decision. They must explain it to their children.

We must not let them off lightly.

Would you care to expand on this?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's a merry-go-round you put us on in the first place by suggesting it was EU money.

Your logic is flawed. The money is EU money, in exactly the same way that if I go and buy my shopping from Tesco's, the money I've given to Tesco's is now Tesco's money and not my money, or the money you pay in tax becomes the Government's money and not your money.

The money the UK Government pays to the EU is - in effect - a membership fee that pays for various services, including getting the economic benefits from free market access, paying for all the admin to maintain that free market (while keeping enough regulation to avoid the problem of the free market becoming a rush-to-the-bottom on safety etc.), keeping a common regulation on aspects of the environment, consumer protection, etc. - which means the UK doesn't have to go to the trouble of creating its own similar regulations, investing in Europe as a whole for the benefit of Europe as a whole, paying for a Parliament and associated admin services that allow the UK to have a say in stuff across Europe that might effect the UK, and so on. So that money has been paid for good services, many of which benefit the UK even when the EU isn't directly investing in the UK. By any reasonable standard it is therefore the EU's money, and it seems to me somewhat dishonest to pretend otherwise.

The £350m will be available from April 2019 when we leave the EU.

No it won't. Even if you ignore what the EU spends in the UK, and just look at what the Government pays the EU in the first place, the amount is still not £350M. £350M is what the Government would have paid the EU if it wasn't for the UK's agreed rebate. It's use by the Leave campaign as a figure we actually pay was a direct lie, and I find it rather sad, that even after all the information that's available about this, you still choose to use (and presumably, believe) this direct lie in your posts

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unless the coming of the professional politician -- the people who have never done anything except play politics and think it's their destiny to rule over us -- in place of the experienced trade-unionists, teachers, lawyers, businessmen of former times in the main parties has actually made politicans of all sorts much more remote from the general population (and removed a degree of competence as well).

I note that it was the trade unionists took preference amongst the four types of people mention in your posting and businessmen were the last named, with lawyers in second place and teachers in third place.

 

[miami]

Yes it does! Quantitative Easing showed us that the government created almost half a trillion quid out of thin air with no tax rises at all. The government spends first and legitimises the spending by levying taxes payable only in sterling.


The banks and the government con us to think it's tax and spend. In fact it's spend and tax.

£500,000m? That's 27 years of Bus-Based EU contributions, or 80 years of actual EU contributions.

 

[Domh245]

What has everyone else made of Mrs May's 12 stage plan for Brexit, having taken 6 months to come up with?

Some seem largely sensible. Some must have been difficult to announce with a straight face

1. Provide certainty about the process of leaving the EU
2. Control of our own laws
3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom
4. Maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland
5. Control of immigration coming from the EU
6. Rights for the EU nationals and British nationals in the EU
7. Protect workers' right
8. Free trade with European markets through a free trade agreement
9. New trade agreements with other countries
10. The best place for science and innovation
11. Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism
12. A smooth, orderly Brexit

 

[miami]

I note that it was the trade unionists took preference amongst the four types of people mention in your posting and businessmen were the last named, with lawyers in second place and teachers in third place.

I'd personally put Teachers first, then Businessmen. The former are far more important. Lawyers of course have to be at the bottom of the pile (although I wouldn't go as far as joinging Jack Cade's rebellion, nor calling lawyers "enemies of the state" as some would).

Trade Unionists are full-time politicians. Nothing wrong with that, people say they don't like career politicians and spin doctors, but you're unlikely to become an MP without going through those loops.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What has everyone else made of Mrs May's 12 stage plan for Brexit, having taken 6 months to come up with?

Some seem largely sensible. Some must have been difficult to announce with a straight face

1) Certainty. Well the process is written in article 50.
2) Control of our own laws. Not likely if we're going to have trade deals. We've also got things like the ECHR which we aren't leaving.
3) Strengthen the union.
4) Maintain the CTA. Not sure how that's going to play with the immigration plan. All those muslamic terrorists will simply fly to Dublin, then drive up to Belfast. I wonder if Ireland will be able to maintain it's Schengen opt-out.
5) We have no control over non-eu immigration, at least we can't meet May's own figures, so a meaningless statement
6) What rights?
7) Trust a right-wing tory government to protect workers rights? Oh how I miss Dave and Major.
8) How exactly are we going to get a free trade agreement? What will we give up?
9) We already had trade agreements with almost the entire world. Those we didn't (the US being a case in point) were because we decided that TTIP was a bad thing.
10) What a great plan. How will that be achieved.
11) Like we already do?
12) As if.