EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[bramling]

Most people saw the Big Red Bus slogan and took it that way.

And I think most people would rather the money was spent on vital public services such as the NHS and police, than giving it away in tax cuts.

Thatcher gave away North Sea oil money in tax cuts instead of investing in vital infrastructure. We should not make the same mistake again

Looking at the picture, the message seems pretty clear to me. In no way does it promise £350 million a week to the NHS. It merely suggests that some level of funding could be diverted in that direction. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem with the EU’s U.K. spending was it came with strings attached. Rather perverse to send money abroad and them decide how much is returned and what it gets spent on.

Rather like a somewhat less severe version of the way Westminster treats funding for local authorities? If governments (of all colours) had been treating the regions better there might have been no need for EU funding.

 

[edwin_m]

Looking at the picture, the message seems pretty clear to me. In no way does it promise £350 million a week to the NHS. It merely suggests that some level of funding could be diverted in that direction. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Indeed it didn't promise £350m per week for the NHS but it was clearly intended to imply that, so hardly surprising that so many people mis-remember it as such. And as I've suggested above the £350m was never available in the first place.

 

[anme]

£350m or otherwise, there's a substantial figure. The publicity over the divorce bill (how many billions again?) has served to emphasise this, lest anyone had forgotten.

I can't believe this nonsense is still being peddled. EU members save a huge amount of money because they share a lot of administration and other governmental functions, rather than duplicating them 28 times. This is critical to Europe's competitiveness - most other major economic blocks are much bigger than any European country (US, China, etc). This is the point of the EU!

The UK will now have to set up and pay for a whole set of stuff by itself that it currently gets from the EU. This is pure wasted money and brings no additional value. In fact, it's even worse than that. Because these new agencies will no doubt do things a bit differently to the EU, companies and individuals will have to waste extra resources to comply.

Brexit will not save money. It will cost a lot of money that will be spent on red tape and administration.

Some examples of functions the UK will now have to set up and pay *by itself* can be found here: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/decentralised-agencies_en
There are some larger ones which are not listed on page, such as Euratom.

It is absolute and obvious nonsense to claim that brexit will save the UK money.

 

[dosxuk]

Looking at the picture, the message seems pretty clear to me. In no way does it promise £350 million a week to the NHS. It merely suggests that some level of funding could be diverted in that direction. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What about the claim in this photo?

Picture of Boris Johnson stood in front of a banner stating "Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week"

Is this also only a suggestion that "some level of funding could be diverted in that direction"?

(I can't believe we're having to go over this again. Even the head of the leave campaign has admitted the claim was misleading and impossible to implement, but was key to their winning so they couldn't give it up)

 

[Howardh]

If the NHS money was "just a suggestion" and can be dismissed as such, then in reality the referendum was just a suggestion. Indeed the first word was "should" and could equally be dismissed.
Should we all go down the pub tonight? Yes. Brilliant suggestion, everyone agrees.
In reality, it's teeming down and the pub's closed on a Monday night and my wage is late, so in reality, no.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Looking at the picture, the message seems pretty clear to me. In no way does it promise £350 million a week to the NHS. It merely suggests that some level of funding could be diverted in that direction. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Have you considered a career in politics? This is typical of the back-pedalling, context shifting and downright misrepresentation that has underpinned the whole leave campaign.

It's completely disingenuous to suggest that the intent behind that bus, poster and promises is that the EU budget spend would not be diverted to the NHS.

[Edited for the missing not]

 

[HH]

I can't believe this nonsense is still being peddled. EU members save a huge amount of money because they share a lot of administration and other governmental functions, rather than duplicating them 28 times. This is critical to Europe's competitiveness - most other major economic blocks are much bigger than any European country (US, China, etc). This is the point of the EU!

Precisely. It's a bit like being a member of Costco and deciding to save money by not paying the membership fee.

 

[eotw]

The problem with the EU’s U.K. spending was it came with strings attached.

Evidence for this assertion?

 

[anme]

Have you considered a career in politics? This is typical of the back-pedalling, context shifting and downright misrepresentation that has underpinned the whole leave campaign.

It's completely disingenuous to suggest that the intent behind that bus, poster and promises is that the EU budget spend would be diverted to the NHS.

What was the intent behind the bus (please consider especially post #15874 before answering)?

 

[Geezertronic]

If the NHS money was "just a suggestion" and can be dismissed as such, then in reality the referendum was just a suggestion. Indeed the first word was "should" and could equally be dismissed.

Advisory Referendum or not, the majority of MPs voted to trigger Article 50 which forced it through and took it from advisory to law - that was their choice at the time. So they we as blind as some would say the UK Electorate were I would suggest

 

[Howardh]

Advisory Referendum or not, the majority of MPs voted to trigger Article 50 which forced it through and took it from advisory to law - that was their choice at the time.

Therefore they can also vote to withdraw/scrap Article 50. That would be perfectly within the EU and UK's terms and conditions, and if there's an extension to A50 as looks likely, they could hold a referendum (or general election) and vote to withdraw A50 the day after if the result dictates.

 

[Puffing Devil]

What was the intent behind the bus (please consider especially post #15874 before answering)?

Missed a "not" in my rant there. Corrected in edit.

 

[mmh]

Three weeks left and people are still wound up about a bus? Amazing.

 

[Geezertronic]

Therefore they can also vote to withdraw/scrap Article 50. That would be perfectly within the EU and UK's terms and conditions, and if there's an extension to A50 as looks likely, they could hold a referendum (or general election) and vote to withdraw A50 the day after if the result dictates.

There has already been a General Election since the referendum where both main parties had manifesto commitments to continue with Brexit but Conservatives are still in power by the skin of their teeth with I believe no major swings to parties with a cancellation of Brexit in their manifesto.

A second peoples vote could be held, but MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of triggering Article 50 in 2017 on the back of the result of the first peoples vote so I am not sure what a second or third or fourth peoples vote would achieve other than dividing the countries of the UK even further

 

[anme]

There has already been a General Election since the referendum where both main parties had manifesto commitments to continue with Brexit but Conservatives are still in power by the skin of their teeth with I believe no major swings to parties with a cancellation of Brexit in their manifesto.

A second peoples vote could be held, but MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of triggering Article 50 in 2017 on the back of the result of the first peoples vote so I am not sure what a second or third or fourth peoples vote would achieve other than dividing the countries of the UK even further

It might decide not to leave the EU. Whether you like it or not, that would be an achievement!

 

[Ken H]

Have you considered a career in politics? This is typical of the back-pedalling, context shifting and downright misrepresentation that has underpinned the whole leave campaign.

It's completely disingenuous to suggest that the intent behind that bus, poster and promises is that the EU budget spend would not be diverted to the NHS.

[Edited for the missing not]

The leave and remain campaigns were in no position to make any promises, because they were not seeking to form a government. The only promises that we should take notice of are those made before a general election.
Even those are worthless becuase Gordon brown wona court case that said that the manifesto wasnt a contract and wasnt enforceable.
So we elect the MPs and they do just what they want.

 

[Ken H]

Therefore they can also vote to withdraw/scrap Article 50. That would be perfectly within the EU and UK's terms and conditions, and if there's an extension to A50 as looks likely, they could hold a referendum (or general election) and vote to withdraw A50 the day after if the result dictates.

They have to get the EU's permission to do that, and I am not sure that will be forthcoming. The EU certainly dont want the UK taking part in the EU parliament election in May, and I suspect the government doesnt either. And they have to get primary legislation through parliament to modify the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018 which says we leave in 22 days time.
That means through both the commons and the lords.

 

[EM2]

Three weeks left and people are still wound up about a bus? Amazing.

People are wound up about lies and cheating.

 

[anme]

Three weeks left and people are still wound up about a bus? Amazing.

I am also sick of the bus. For some reason leavers are not angry about being lied to. I don't know why that is but you can't make people take an interest in politics.

 

[jon0844]

This made me chuckle today.

If anything, I think this poster was worse than the £350m a week NHS bus, as it was one of the many things that brought out the racism and xenophobia, and emboldened people to be so nasty in public with no fear.

https://www.indy100.com/article/bre...-point-poster-led-by-donkeys-redesign-8811991

Photo shows Nigel Farage's original 'breaking point' showing mostly non-European immigrants entering the UK, with the people replaced by the 'elites' who stand to make a great deal of money from Brexit.

 

[Esker-pades]

This made me chuckle today.

If anything, I think this poster was worse than the £350m a week NHS bus, as it was one of the many things that brought out the racism and xenophobia, and emboldened people to be so nasty in public with no fear.

https://www.indy100.com/article/bre...-point-poster-led-by-donkeys-redesign-8811991

Photo shows Nigel Farage's original 'breaking point' showing mostly non-European immigrants entering the UK, with the people replaced by the 'elites' who stand to make a great deal of money from Brexit.

That's fantastic! Who made the poster?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A word that remainers don't like, "control"

We already have control over non-EU immigration, but don't seem capable of using it.
It is higher than EU immigration and still climbing.

 

[Ken H]

We already have control over non-EU immigration, but don't seem capable of using it.
It is higher than EU immigration and still climbing.

the political class want immigration and have no intention of controlling it. labour are at least up front about it, the tories make the right noises and do nowt.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can't believe this nonsense is still being peddled. EU members save a huge amount of money because they share a lot of administration and other governmental functions, rather than duplicating them 28 times. This is critical to Europe's competitiveness - most other major economic blocks are much bigger than any European country (US, China, etc). This is the point of the EU!
The UK will now have to set up and pay for a whole set of stuff by itself that it currently gets from the EU. This is pure wasted money and brings no additional value. In fact, it's even worse than that. Because these new agencies will no doubt do things a bit differently to the EU, companies and individuals will have to waste extra resources to comply.
Brexit will not save money. It will cost a lot of money that will be spent on red tape and administration.
Some examples of functions the UK will now have to set up and pay *by itself* can be found here: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/decentralised-agencies_en
There are some larger ones which are not listed on page, such as Euratom.
It is absolute and obvious nonsense to claim that brexit will save the UK money.

I absolutely agree.
On top of which we will have estranged the UK from 27 nearby friendly countries who will have no incentive to be well disposed towards us.
It's not just trade and budgets, it's about influence in the world and protecting long-term British interests.
The world is not as it was in, say, 1890, when we were a global "rule giver".
Europe is not even as it was in 1973 when we joined the EU.
The European Medicines Agency left for Amsterdam this week.
Another slice of influential GDP and high-grade jobs lost.

 

[edwin_m]

They have to get the EU's permission to do that, and I am not sure that will be forthcoming.

The courts ruled that the UK can unilaterally withdraw Article 50 up until the end of the 2-year period provided it is a good faith change of mind. The thing they need the EU's permission for is to extend the 2-year period. Indications are the EU would agree to an extension either for a short time to get everything in place once an agreement is agreed, or for a longer time if there was a fundamental change in approach such as a referendum or a new government. So for example we could ask for six months to hold a referendum to either leave on May's deal or remain, and if remain won would withdraw Article 50.

But it's highly likely that an extension just to persue the current pointless "negotiation" for a bit longer would be refused.

 

[Howardh]

There has already been a General Election since the referendum where both main parties had manifesto commitments to continue with Brexit but Conservatives are still in power by the skin of their teeth with I believe no major swings to parties with a cancellation of Brexit in their manifesto.

A second peoples vote could be held, but MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of triggering Article 50 in 2017 on the back of the result of the first peoples vote so I am not sure what a second or third or fourth peoples vote would achieve other than dividing the countries of the UK even further

A further referendum, if a binary choice, could only split the nation two ways. The chances are that it could produce a more resounding result (either way) and it can hardly split the country more than it is now. Let's face it, parliament is split at least three ways, probably more, and if we have gridlock next week where do they turn? A new parliament wouldn't help!!

 

[Groningen]

I can imagine that you rather give the 350 million to the NHS than the EU. But that does not mean that every million will go to the NHS. And in return: the UK searched never any money back from the EU for agriculture things?

 

[bussnapperwm]

Some examples of functions the UK will now have to set up and pay *by itself* can be found here: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/decentralised-agencies_en
There are some larger ones which are not listed on page, such as Euratom.

Bloody hell, and I thought we had a problem with QUANGOs! Some of them just take the mick!

I absolutely agree.
On top of which we will have estranged the UK from 27 nearby friendly countries who will have no incentive to be well disposed towards us.

Friendly countries? Half of them we had wars with and the other half were German and Soviet cannon fodder!

It's not just trade and budgets, it's about influence in the world and protecting long-term British interests.

Or as the foreign office would call it, winding different countries up about their nearby neighbours.

 

[anme]

Bloody hell, and I thought we had a problem with QUANGOs! Some of them just take the mick

Which ones?
For your information the UK had 766 "quangos" in 2009.

Friendly countries? Half of them we had wars with and the other half were German and Soviet cannon fodder.

This post is satire. Arguing with someone like this is like arguing with Basil Fawlty or Alan Partridge.