EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[cjp]

How will Welsh Hill farmers survive without the EU?


https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/brexit-prospects-for-uk-beef-and-sheep-meat-trade

If you are genuinely interested about divorce bill - https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/

In a nutshell

Oh I did and from there to this report and link

. A House of Lords report also argued that legally the UK isn’t required to pay a penny, though this was disputed by some legal experts, and the report itself acknowledges that there are “competing interpretations”

 

[cjp]

The lack of awareness of the use of funds in the EU is truly astonishing.

Imagine that Wales decides to leave the UK. How would the UK survive without all of the tax revenues from Wales? Quite well would be the answer, as many projects that were funded by the UK government in Wales would no longer get any money. Wales would be "richer" because of the tax income retained, but the expenses would soon rise to overtake it as it had to replace the functions that were shared with the UK - Food and Product Safety, Aviation Control, Medicine Control, etc. On top of that, Wales would be doing its own trade negotiations. Who's going to get a better deal - the rest of the UK with a huge market, or a small country with no major industry?

Sure, the UK would experience some increased costs, but smaller than the pain that will be felt by Wales. It's generally better to be part of a club and share expenses that to try to recreate the facilities yourself.

And that is the picture for the UK as it leaves the EU.

I am not sure if you are agreeing or debating/arguing with me!

 

[jellybaby]

Might have been an idea if, as part of the referendum process, there was a second one (maybe within 6 months and certainly before A50) where the public were asked what kind of Brexit they wanted - WTO, Canada, Norway+ - and that means 100% of the voters had a say in the countries direction and no-one could feel cast aside (as the 48% feel totally ignored).

Much of the 48% would still be unhappy.

Ask 100 people if they want to go to the cinema or out for dinner with 52 voting for dinner. The 48 who wanted to see Tom Cruise running aren't very interested in if dinner is a pizza or curry, it still isn't what they voted for.

 

[Modron]

Not everybody is an expert on EU finances or what the EU does, and people can only go on their experiences and beliefs.

If their experience and belief tells them that they are being held back, or that things just aren't fair whilst others profit and benefit and laud it over them, then they are not going to be happy and will say 'stuff this, I say no!'

Myself, I would have been okay with the EU saying 'okay lets get a sense of perspective, and rather than lose the UK can we help them in some way to take some off the pressure off?' When a family member is going through trouble, do you say 'let us help you, please let's talk' or do you say 'we're not interested'. Most people would try to help, wherever possible, but as with a lot of things today you are either in one camp or another - you can't be in both or neither, according to those with loud voices.

 

[Esker-pades]

Oh I did and from there to this report and link

A House of Lords report also argued that legally the UK isn’t required to pay a penny, though this was disputed by some legal experts, and the report itself acknowledges that there are “competing interpretations”

My emboldoing. Competing legal interpretations, not "EU nastiness".

The figure was negotiated and agreed by both sides.

 

[AM9]

The man is reportedly a very wealthy and therefore influential character. I believe that he had an impact on the ERM and Black Wednesday in 1992.

He believes that the EUs future is on a knife-edge, and whilst in the past it was mainly the cry of the anti-EU brigade more and more people are questioning will the EU be around in a few years.

@FelixtheCat is correct with his comment on Aaron Banks as well, there's money and influence on both sides.

There are speculators like Soros everywhere and as we all know, speculators prosper in times of turmoil and dissent. That will become very apparent if there isn't any agreement at the end of March as many of those advocating such a departure are wealthy 'investors' (which is a polite term for a speculator) notably Rees-Mogg, Arron Banks, Redwood, Farage etc.. Soros is more successful than most as he isn't a politician.

 

[Howardh]

Much of the 48% would still be unhappy.

Ask 100 people if they want to go to the cinema or out for dinner with 52 voting for dinner. The 48 who wanted to see Tom Cruise running aren't very interested in if dinner is a pizza or curry, it still isn't what they voted for.

Something like that did happen to me recently; group of mates - one wanted to stay in and watch the match, two wanted to go down the pub for a quiet chat and a pint, so the compromise was we went to the pub where the game was on and the two of us minded our own business as the other shouted and screamed at 11 blokes that look like an overpaid advertising hoarding!

 

[EM2]

Not everybody is an expert on EU finances or what the EU does, and people can only go on their experiences and beliefs.

But they can research.

 

[Modron]

But they can research.

They can, and you're right with this, but I guess that for some its an irrelevance if they are on the breadline or if they aren't that intelligent (think Jeremy Kyle) and are easily led - though I would counter that there are easily led people on both sides.

I was more interested in the academic, business and industry arguments than the petty squabble fests as I knew that they would not be helpful.

I am not too bothered with Brexit, it's happening (in one form or another, at least for now) but why are we trusting inept and corrupt leaders in the UK when the whole point was to leave 'an inept and corrupt EU' - according to those on the Leave side.

 

[Esker-pades]

Not everybody is an expert on EU finances or what the EU does, and people can only go on their experiences and beliefs.

If their experience and belief tells them that they are being held back, or that things just aren't fair whilst others profit and benefit and laud it over them, then they are not going to be happy and will say 'stuff this, I say no!'

The problem now is that when people try to point out that actually leaving the EU may not make people's lives better, the response is to say "but we voted to leave" etc. without properly engaging.

Myself, I would have been okay with the EU saying 'okay lets get a sense of perspective, and rather than lose the UK can we help them in some way to take some off the pressure off?' When a family member is going through trouble, do you say 'let us help you, please let's talk' or do you say 'we're not interested'. Most people would try to help, wherever possible, but as with a lot of things today you are either in one camp or another - you can't be in both or neither, according to those with loud voices.

Help in the bounds of what is possible, but a lot of the perceived wrongs about the EU was simple that the UK couldn't be bothered to do it. (Sending people back if they can't find a job within 3 months as an example.)

 

[Modron]

The problem now is that when people try to point out that actually leaving the EU may not make people's lives better, the response is to say "but we voted to leave" etc. without properly engaging.


Help in the bounds of what is possible, but a lot of the perceived wrongs about the EU was simple that the UK couldn't be bothered to do it. (Sending people back if they can't find a job within 3 months as an example.)

Very sensible comments, and related to what I said previously about leaving one seemingly (according to some) 'inept and corrupt lot' only to be managed by...err... inept and corrupt leaders at home.

Frying Pan and Fire?

 

[Esker-pades]

Very sensible comments, and related to what I said previously about leaving one seemingly (according to some) 'inept and corrupt lot' only to be managed by...err... inept and corrupt leaders at home.

Frying Pan and Fire?

=Melted handle and burnt hand.

 

[mmh]

But they can research.

Unfortunately "research" more often than not means "find an article which puts the viewpoint I've already decided I want to have", though.

(Applies equally to remain and leave)

 

[Senex]

The problem now is that when people try to point out that actually leaving the EU may not make people's lives better, the response is to say "but we voted to leave" etc. without properly engaging.

It's a particular problem that we have 650 politicians in charge, the overwhelming majority of whom seem to want to argue that because "we voted to leave" two-and-a-half years ago any information that has come up, any lessons that have been learnt, any risks that have been identified since that vote must simply be ignored in order to "respect the people's decision". In what other walk of life away from Westminster politics would people choose not to use the best and most recent information for making a major decision (always get the further and fuller particulars if you possible can)?

 

[fowler9]

Might have been an idea if, as part of the referendum process, there was a second one (maybe within 6 months and certainly before A50) where the public were asked what kind of Brexit they wanted - WTO, Canada, Norway+ - and that means 100% of the voters had a say in the countries direction and no-one could feel cast aside (as the 48% feel totally ignored).
That may well have ended up being something like Norway/EFTA/EEA but at least the majority would have been behind it and the government truly knew the "will of the people" and it would have focused their minds rather than the empty void we have had for the last two years.

Anyhow, as it is now we will end up with something hardly anyone in the country wants (leave or remain) so it begs the question is the result the will of the people? Answer - probably not.

I disagree. It should never have been put to the public. If leaving the EU is that big a deal for someone then vote for a party like UKIP. Let's face it it was never that much of an issue until Cameron turned us in to a single issue country. If it was that important before the referendum UKIP would be in power. Instead we are a Mickey Mouse country with a Mickey Mouse government who will never agree because only just over half of the country that bothered voting agreed they wanted to leave and even then didn't know how.

 

[Esker-pades]

I disagree. It should never have been put to the public. If leaving the EU is that big a deal for someone then vote for a party like UKIP.

They did a poll around the time of the referendum and found that 73% of UKIP voters wanted to leave the EU. What's more interesting is the remaining 27%.

 

[fowler9]

They did a poll around the time of the referendum and found that 73% of UKIP voters wanted to leave the EU. What's more interesting is the remaining 27%.

Insane. Utterly insane.

 

[Modron]

Though UKIP's main modus operandi was to leave the EU, they also wanted other things so weren't strictly speaking all about Brexit.

A look at their 2015 manifesto (Source: BBC Website) and these were also things they wished to do should they have gained power:

a) Banning foreign criminals entering or remaining in Britain
b) No tax on the minimum wage up to £13,000
c) Raising the threshold for paying 40% tax to £55,000 and introduce a new 30% intermediate rate on earnings between £45,300 and £55,000
d) Scrapping HS2 rail scheme
e) Scrapping inheritance tax
f) Building a 500-bed military hospital
g) Bringing in power to sack your MP
h) Ending the transport of live animals for slaughter and CCTV on slaughterhouses

 

[mmh]

I disagree. It should never have been put to the public. If leaving the EU is that big a deal for someone then vote for a party like UKIP.

That was a factor, people did - see the 2014 MEP election results, that's why a referendum couldn't be left out of the 2015 Tory manifesto. It worried people.

Let's face it it was never that much of an issue until Cameron turned us in to a single issue country.

Eh? It's been a constant issue for over 30 years.

If it was that important before the referendum UKIP would be in power. Instead we are a Mickey Mouse country with a Mickey Mouse government who will never agree because only just over half of the country that bothered voting agreed they wanted to leave and even then didn't know how.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I am not sure if you are agreeing or debating/arguing with me!

I was weeping at your apparent lack of knowledge of EU spending and the thought that our contribution is used purely to provide a cushion for French farmers, whilst ignoring everything else the budget contribution provides.

 

[HH]

It's a particular problem that we have 650 politicians in charge, the overwhelming majority of whom seem to want to argue that because "we voted to leave" two-and-a-half years ago any information that has come up, any lessons that have been learnt, any risks that have been identified since that vote must simply be ignored in order to "respect the people's decision".

I think you'll find that most politicians are swayed by the desire to remain elected, therefore they say what is likely to appease their electorate.

 

[dgl]

I was weeping at your apparent lack of knowledge of EU spending and the thought that our contribution is used purely to provide a cushion for French farmers, whilst ignoring everything else the budget contribution provides.

And as an addendum to that it has been said that EU farm subsides are a bad thing as it gives us an unfair advantage over developing countries when they want to sell us their produce, actually it ensures that we still have a farming industry, you think what would happen if we removed the subsidies? What we would end up with is a load of countries where labor/materials/transport is cheaper (what some people would class are 3rd world or developing countries) suddenly being able to undercut our farmers significantly and given that money talks, you could easily see all non-artisan/specialist farming in Britain dying out.
But no that is just the nasty EU being protectionist.

And as for changing peoples mind on Brexit, given all the dodgy dealings that have come out on the leave side I believe it would be un-democratic to go for Brexit without another fair referendum (maybe about the time Russia temporarily disconnects from the net?), ban any campaigning that is has not got legitimate facts (inc. online) to back it up and make the vote open to anyone 16+, as it is not fair to let the "nearly dead" vote and potentially screw over the country that the young will have to put up with.

 

[Modron]

And as an addendum to that it has been said that EU farm subsides are a bad thing as it gives us an unfair advantage over developing countries when they want to sell us their produce, actually it ensures that we still have a farming industry, you think what would happen if we removed the subsidies? What we would end up with is a load of countries where labor/materials/transport is cheaper (what some people would class are 3rd world or developing countries) suddenly being able to undercut our farmers significantly and given that money talks, you could easily see all non-artisan/specialist farming in Britain dying out.
But no that is just the nasty EU being protectionist.

And as for changing peoples mind on Brexit, given all the dodgy dealings that have come out on the leave side I believe it would be un-democratic to go for Brexit without another fair referendum (maybe about the time Russia temporarily disconnects from the net?), ban any campaigning that is has not got legitimate facts (inc. online) to back it up and make the vote open to anyone 16+, as it is not fair to let the "nearly dead" vote and potentially screw over the country that the young will have to put up with.

With regards to the 'nearly dead', I think that is a bit of a rude comment as these people helped to put the UK back on it's feet post World War 2. I assume that you mean those born mid 1940s to early 1950s?

A moot point, but old age is not always an indicator of that person is going to die soon - a 16 year old is just as likely to die today as an 80 year old, it depends upon circumstances. What about those 'coffin dodgers' who voted for Remain? Guess they don't matter, chip off those votes!

Don't forget that not all young people are EU-lovers either (my nephew is twelve, getting into online blogging, and he thinks that the EU is bad because of Article 13) and that there is no guarantee that Remain would win next time around.

I would also look further afield and see if we aren't already in a paradigm shift politically and socially - empires come and go with the passing of time, therefore I'm not totally surprised. The EU itself might collapse in a few years, we just don't know.

 

[Esker-pades]

Who would have thought? Another vote, another defeat. May's "updated" plan is defeated by 303 votes to 258.

 

[Modron]

Who would have thought? Another vote, another defeat. May's "updated" plan is defeated by 303 votes to 258.

Always in the offing, Cooper amendment is up soon?

 

[Esker-pades]

Always in the offing, Cooper amendment is up soon?

Not until the 27th of February.

 

[Modron]

Not until the 27th of February.

Thanks for that, for some reason I thought it was today!

 

[dgl]

O

I would also look further afield and see if we aren't already in a paradigm shift politically and socially - empires come and go with the passing of time, therefore I'm not totally surprised. The EU itself might collapse in a few years, we just don't know.

Highly doubt the EU is going to collapse any time soon, most countries in it are liberal enough to see the advantage of being in the union, yes there are some nationalist parties coming to the fore but they are still very much a minority when compare to more central/left parties/ideologies.
Also remember that for some communities going to neighbouring countries to do simple things like the weekly shop is common, similar to the Irish border problem bit with a lot more communities and countries affected. Imagine people who live on the Welsh/Scottish whose nearest supermarket is across the border being told they will need their passport and to pay duty if they want to shop there.

 

[Modron]

O


Highly doubt the EU is going to collapse any time soon, most countries in it are liberal enough to see the advantage of being in the union, yes there are some nationalist parties coming to the fore but they are still very much a minority when compare to more central/left parties/ideologies.
Also remember that for some communities going to neighbouring countries to do simple things like the weekly shop is common, similar to the Irish border problem bit with a lot more communities and countries affected. Imagine people who live on the Welsh/Scottish whose nearest supermarket is across the border being told they will need their passport and to pay duty if they want to shop there.

For now, anyway.

A lot can happen in only a few years - in 2012, hardly anybody thought that there would be a referendum on whether or not we leave the EU... four years later, after UKIP came to prominence and partly as to stop them exering any more influence, the answer was Leave.

In 2014, who of us would have thought that Donald Trump would be the 45th POTUS? Very very few people, but yet it happened.

Should these nationalist parties increase their power, then it will be interesting to see what happens to the EU in the long term.

 

[Puffing Devil]

old age is not always an indicator of that person is going to die soon - a 16 year old is just as likely to die today as an 80 year old, it depends upon circumstances.

Really. Just really?