EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Senex]

France?

France was certainly at one time even more centralised than Britain, but over the last fifty years Britain has become more centralised whilst France has moved in the opposite direction and no has significant devolution of powers to the regions.

 

[najaB]

...but over the last fifty years Britain has become more centralised...

You could argue that England has become more centralised, but fifty years ago there was no Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly or Stormont Assembly.

 

[Senex]

You could argue that England has become more centralised, but fifty years ago there was no Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly or Stormont Assembly.

Fair comment. I think all Britain was becoming much more centralised right through to Blair's devolution to Scotland and Wales which made a big difference for those countries (though it does seem that there isn't very much regional devolution within them) but left England behind to become more and more London-centric with governments of both parties wanting to grab ever more power to themselves. We still have to see whether the city-region form of "devolution" brings any significant changes or whether not enough powers have been devolved, so as to ensure that the final word always remains with the UK (not English) parliament in Westminster.

 

[AlterEgo]

You could argue that England has become more centralised, but fifty years ago there was no Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly or Stormont Assembly.

[pedant]50 years ago there was a Northern Ireland Parliament in Stormont which had existed since 1921 - it just wasn't all that good, being a de facto one-party state, and died in 1972.[/pedant]

However, your point remains valid. England certainly is very centralised indeed.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Fair comment. I think all Britain was becoming much more centralised right through to Blair's devolution to Scotland and Wales which made a big difference for those countries (though it does seem that there isn't very much regional devolution within them) but left England behind to become more and more London-centric with governments of both parties wanting to grab ever more power to themselves. We still have to see whether the city-region form of "devolution" brings any significant changes or whether not enough powers have been devolved, so as to ensure that the final word always remains with the UK (not English) parliament in Westminster.

There was actually a plan for devolution to the English regions very similar to what happened with Wales and Scotland. Hell, in 2004 the North East had a referendum about it. But as the result was a massive no vote (over 75% no), the whole idea was dropped. Shame really as it could have worked quite well.

 

[Senex]

There was actually a plan for devolution to the English regions very similar to what happened with Wales and Scotland. Hell, in 2004 the North East had a referendum about it. But as the result was a massive no vote (over 75% no), the whole idea was dropped. Shame really as it could have worked quite well.

The powers offered to the North East and on which the referendum was held were nothing like those offered to Wales and Scotland—effectively just another layer of government but very much lacking in powers, particularly the all-important financial powers. The people were quite right to vote down such a charade.

 

[muddythefish]

Noone has actually explained to me why these 'suffering' and 'underdeveloped' areas in the North of England and such are actually worth saving from the fate of fading into obscurity like St David's in Wales.
Why is London's dominance actually a bad thing?

Why should Bradford continue to be a major city and economic centre?
Cities have risen and fallen throughout the history of human civilisation.

Silly comparison. When was St David's a major industrial conurbation with poverty and social deprivation ?

I think you're right. Let's shut down the north of England and shift its resources and the entire population to the south east.

Erect a perimeter wall round the M25 to keep the heathen hordes out.

That'll fix it.

 

[muddythefish]

France?




Evidence (for both assertions)?

?

All available on the internet if you care to look

 

[DynamicSpirit]

All available on the internet if you care to look

I believe it's customary to be willing to provide some evidence yourself of the points you are asserting, rather than expecting a person who's either sceptical or arguing on the other side to look up and find the evidence for you.

After all, since you seem fairly confident of your statement, "No other major economy is as unequal as the UK's. England as a whole is one of the poorest countries in Europe. ", you presumably know where to find the appropriate information, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to share it?

 

[muddythefish]

This is like teaching a child to suck its thumb. Now go and research yourself - there's plenty out there


http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

 

[radamfi]

Have any of you been in contact with your/any MP about preserving our right to live/work/retire in the EU?

 

[AM9]

This is like teaching a child to suck its thumb. Now go and research yourself - there's plenty out there


http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

The linked document is clearly a flawed and slanted analysis because it refers to "inner London", an area comprising the 12 inner London borougs.:
The population of those boroughs in 2011 was currently at just 64% of its level in 1911. It has probably fallen more since then.
The analysis chooses the richest 39% of the GLA's population and then compares it to the whole of Brussels, Hamburg, Stockholm and Vienna.
Furthermore, it then includes Ile de France, i.e the Paris Region pop. 12million - the equivalent of the London Metropolitan area, pop. between 12 and 14 million.
Genuine EU data being manipulated and misused to present a biased analysis.

I can understand your reluctance to reveal the evidence that supports your assertion.

Now perhaps you could find some real evidence to support your assertion.

 

[HSTEd]

If you are allowed to break up Greater London into arbitrary components - surely you break Paris out to include a seperate area for the XIXe arrondissement or similar?

Or we could make an area in Manchester consisting solely of Moss Side?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is like teaching a child to suck its thumb. Now go and research yourself - there's plenty out there

Next time I want to make a point and someone asks me for evidence, I'll just tell them to go and find the evidence themselves, shall I?

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

I'm afraid those statistics are a perfect example of something that might look convincing at first glance, but are actually all but meaningless. AM9 and HSTEd have already pointed out a few things, but to add a couple of points:

The regions listed have vastly different populations (Ile de France: 12 million. Cornwall: Half a million). That's important because the smaller the population you include in an area, the more likely you are to get an extreme result.

The whole analysis rests on the contrast between inner London being in the top 10, while other UK regions are in the bottom 10. The trouble with this is that Inner London is a bit of an anomaly - it has a vastly bigger GDP per head than anywhere else in the UK. And this arguably has a perfectly innocent explanation: An exceptionally high number of people commute to work in central London but don't live there. That means they will produce GDP in that 'region' without adding to the population count - leading to an abnormally high GDP per head. (Although I'm sure it would've been fairly high anyway).

And of course without inner London, the entire reasoning in that document falls apart since the UK has no other regions in the top 10.

Incidentally I dug up the complete 2013 data. On roughly eyeballing those figures, it looked to me like - ignoring the anomaly of inner London and considering the non-outlier results - the 'regions' in the UK had GDPs that differed by around a factor of 2 between lowest and highest. That certainly seems like a cause for some concern, but also wasn't vastly different from quite a few other EU countries - including Germany! While that's not definitive, the figures look to me like inequality between regions in the UK is probably not unusual in comparison with other European countries

So what was that about teaching a child to such his thumb, again?

 

[muddythefish]

Now perhaps you could find some real evidence to support your assertion.

Why should I do the work for you ? Type poorest areas in Europe in a search engine and it brings up myriad reports and studies.

 

[najaB]

Why should I do the work for you ? Type poorest areas in Europe in a search engine and it brings up myriad reports and studies.

What a sad state we've got to when people think 'type it into Google' counts as research.

 

[AM9]

What a sad state we've got to when people think 'type it into Google' counts as research.

It's not everybody that make hyperbolic claims to support their rant and then when pushed has to quickly find some report corrupt enough with data misuse to support their own irrational views.

 

[SteveP29]

There was actually a plan for devolution to the English regions very similar to what happened with Wales and Scotland. Hell, in 2004 the North East had a referendum about it. But as the result was a massive no vote (over 75% no), the whole idea was dropped. Shame really as it could have worked quite well.

The referendum was a loaded question (in County Durham anyway).
We were asked if we wanted a northern assembly, yes or no
If we voted yes, we got an assembly.
If we voted no, we had our district and town councils amalgamated into one unitary authority (one that has become VERY Durham-centric and as a result, the other towns have suffered)

 

[AM9]

The referendum was a loaded question (in County Durham anyway).
We were asked if we wanted a northern assembly, yes or no
If we voted yes, we got an assembly.
If we voted no, we had our district and town councils amalgamated into one unitary authority (one that has become VERY Durham-centric and as a result, the other towns have suffered)

That's what referfendums usually are. It's up to the interested voter to research what the protagonists are saying for each of the two options. Unfortunately not enough voters did on the EU referendum last year, especially on the leave side of the debate.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The powers offered to the North East and on which the referendum was held were nothing like those offered to Wales and Scotland—effectively just another layer of government but very much lacking in powers, particularly the all-important financial powers. The people were quite right to vote down such a charade.

Look back at what powers the Welsh government had when it was first created compared to now. I don't know if it was as limited as what you are saying the regional assemblies would have been, but it certainly has got more power over the years. The way I see it, if you want regional power, then you will have to take small steps towards it. The no vote was likely seen as a rejection of the idea full stop. Similar parallels to the AV referendum there actually.

 

[Darandio]

That figure has reared it's head....

Brexit: Boris Johnson repeats Leave's £350m for NHS figure

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has repeated the controversial claim that leaving the EU would save £350m a week, which could be spent on the NHS.

The figure, used by Leave campaigners before the referendum, was "misleading", the UK statistics watchdog later said.

Mr Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph that it would be fine, "if a lot of that money went on the NHS".

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said his words "dredge up the fantasy".

In the run up to the referendum, the Leave campaign claimed the UK sent £20bn a year, or £350m a week, to Brussels in 2014.

Vote Leave emblazoned the figure on its campaign bus and said the money could be used to fund extra spending on public services such as the NHS.

But a letter from the head of the UK statistics watchdog Sir Andrew Dilnot during the referendum campaign described the figure as "potentially misleading".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41289080

 

[najaB]

That figure has reared it's head....

And he's making the £350M a week claim again too.

 

[northwichcat]

EU to introduce an ETA style scheme whereby you have to fill out an online form and pay a fee prior to travel. So I guess as we're leaving we'll be charged the 5 Euros for entering the EU and won't be charging the foreign tourists who come here 5 Euros.

 

[PHILIPE]

I stand to be corrected on this issue, so please fire anything back at me if you wish.
The UK this week voted to take back all EU laws affecting the UK but opponents were saying this was a power grab allowing the Government to add, remove,change whatever without Parliamentary scrutiny. Who actually said this ? My impression is that was necessary to transfer into UK law if we are leaving and that any proposed amendments to them could be dealt with through the normal parliamentary process.
Also, the devolved administrations are saying that the taking back of powers from Brussels to Westminster is a power grab. The devolved parties don't deal with Brussels, only the UK Government. This would surely mean that only the UK can take them back and send the requisite policies back to the devolved administrations once the dust has settled. Are these just scare and delay tactics by the remoaners ?

 

[Domh245]

I stand to be corrected on this issue, so please fire anything back at me if you wish.
The UK this week voted to take back all EU laws affecting the UK but opponents were saying this was a power grab allowing the Government to add, remove,change whatever without Parliamentary scrutiny. Who actually said this ? My impression is that was necessary to transfer into UK law if we are leaving and that any proposed amendments to them could be dealt with through the normal parliamentary process.

Labour recognise the need for such a vote, however, they object to the manner in which this particular Bill has been drafted (as indeed do many Tory MPs). Certain laws could quite easily be transitioned by copying the text over, and then adjusting certain references to point towards UK institutions. However, they are concerned that the Bill lacks the necessary safeguards to prevent ministers from going overboard with their powers. We will have to see what amendments (of which many have been tabled, by both Labour and Tory MPs) are proposed in order to see what suggestions they have to improve this aspect of it.

I suppose that if you are looking for a more specific example of this failing, clauses 7.(1)(b) of the bill is the one to go to

7.(1)(b): A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate— (b) any other deficiency in retained EU law,

I expect that most amendments will focus on 7.(2) which defines "deficiencies in retained EU laws" and ensuring that there is no wriggle room for ministers to introduce whatever changes they wanted to.

 

[najaB]

o I guess as we're leaving we'll be charged the 5 Euros for entering the EU and won't be charging the foreign tourists who come here 5 Euros.

ESTA-style systems seem to be the way that things are going. We could always do the same, but I don't know if this is the time to do anything that makes us less attractive as a place to visit.

 

[AM9]

Labour recognise the need for such a vote, however, they object to the manner in which this particular Bill has been drafted (as indeed do many Tory MPs). Certain laws could quite easily be transitioned by copying the text over, and then adjusting certain references to point towards UK institutions. However, they are concerned that the Bill lacks the necessary safeguards to prevent ministers from going overboard with their powers. We will have to see what amendments (of which many have been tabled, by both Labour and Tory MPs) are proposed in order to see what suggestions they have to improve this aspect of it.

I suppose that if you are looking for a more specific example of this failing, clauses 7.(1)(b) of the bill is the one to go to

7.(1)(b): A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate— (b) any other deficiency in retained EU law,

I expect that most amendments will focus on 7.(2) which defines "deficiencies in retained EU laws" and ensuring that there is no wriggle room for ministers to introduce whatever changes they wanted to.

Another issue is that the day after the vote for the bill to enter the committee stage, Andrea Leadsom announced that the Government had changed the established practice that the committees that perform secondary legislation tasks and create statutory instruments will not now comprise a mix of party members in proportion to the number of seats held after the General Election. That means that not only will the Government be able to alter primary legislation at will, but also they won't have any difficulty with their unrepresentative majority at the working level.
This fix overrides the will of the electorate that didn't give the Conservatives a working majority in this year's general election. It's pure gerrymandering of the democratic process.
Given the Conservatives proclivities on such things as workers rights, welfare and necessary regulation (particularly where it gets in the way of their donaters' commercial profit), we should see a major bun fight at what is a first step into the activities of a dictatorship.

 

[Hornet]

No views on Junckers speech last week? Strange that.

 

[Mvann]

No views on Junckers speech last week? Strange that.

Because remainers are in denial about a federal Europe, which puts them in Egypt, and leavers have more important things to argue about than saying told you so

 

[EM2]

Because remainers are in denial about a federal Europe, which puts them in Egypt, and leavers have more important things to argue about than saying told you so

More that a) it's completely irrelevant to us now that we are leaving and b) if we were still members we could have used our veto to block anything along those lines that was proposed.