[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

As you say it was their opinion, given on the basis of presenting Brexit in a bad light.

Yes the opinion of as far as we knew at the time .... of the people central to negotiating our new relationship if we voted for Brexit.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Well at the time, I think many of you called it project fear, and the negative outcome the PM and Chancellor were describing, was not what would happen. If you want the full "hard Brexit" though, as it has come to be known, we get the project fear economy.

But both sides main players were saying it. I thought a major reason why many voted remain was to guarantee the economic status quo re membership of the Single market.

 

[Baldseagull]

That's not what the BBC's political editor thought just before the vote:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36500747

Brexit - and stay in the single market? Here's how

Kamal AhmedEconomics editor

10 June 2016

*

Business

[https://cdn]

Free movement of people is a fundamental principle of the European Union single market.

It is the right of any EU citizen to seek work in any other country in the EU.

And it is non-negotiable.

If you want to be in the single market - and, as most economic authorities' judge, therefore gain economically - then you have to allow EU citizens to work in the UK.

If Britain votes to leave the EU on June 23, many believe that would not only end free movement of people (a central tenet of the Leave campaign's offer to voters) but also end the UK's membership of the single market.

Today, Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, appeared to say as much - a vote for Brexit is also a vote for leaving the single market, and all its advantages.

"If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market," Mr Schaeuble told Der Spiegel.

"In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people."

For some business leaders sympathetic to Brexit - and close to the Prime Minister - this is a problem.

They agree that leaving the single market could result in significant economic headwinds.

But, they tell me, there is a solution - the UK remaining in the single market but without the need for full free movement as presently constituted.

And they are in discussions with German businesses to make the case for a different structure if the vote goes their way.

It would work like this:

Britain votes to leave the EU.

Negotiations begin on Britain's new relationship with the EU.

The UK offers to maintain at least part of its contribution to the EU budget - at present about £8.5bn a year including rebates and EU support for British agriculture and research.

In return, Britain withdraws from the free movement of people requirements but allows for a lesser "free movement of labour" which allows for workers from the EU to come to the UK with a firm job offer.

One senior City figure I spoke to who is pro-Brexit said that German businesses were "petrified" of the UK leaving the single market.

He argued that "Mittelstand" firms - the medium sized companies that are the engine room of the German economy - would demand that political leaders do a deal to allow goods unfettered access to the UK.

And vice versa.

Other EU countries are also concerned about the economic effect on their domestic economy if the UK leaves, and, those sympathetic to Brexit believe, politicians would be under similar business pressure to "do a free trade deal".

A little noticed study in the Netherlands by the country's*Bureau for Economic Analysis*said this: "By 2030, the costs for the Netherlands [of Brexit] could run up to 1.2% of GDP, or 10 billion euros.

"And, if we also assume innovation is trade‐induced as recent examples in the literature have shown, then the Brexit‐related costs of 10 billion euros could increase by another 65%."

The report suggests that if the UK does vote to leave there would need to be some form of free trade agreement, although not with all the advantages of the present single market.

"It would not be able to completely restore the current full access to the internal market," the report says.

"[But] should the EU and the UK reach a free trade agreement, the economic consequences of a Brexit for the Netherlands would be reduced by 20% [in the] absence of trade tariffs for goods traded between the EU and the UK."

The Remain campaign is dismissive of the chances of Britain leaving the EU but staying, at least partially, in the single market.

But business leaders that back Brexit are not so sure.

The economic needs of businesses in the rest of the EU may force the hand of political leaders.

Sounds to me like not quite full access to the single market, in return for not quite full free movement of people.

 

[Baldseagull]

But both sides main players were saying it. I thought a major reason why many voted remain was to guarantee the economic status quo re membership of the Single market.

It was, I am not suggesting that leaving the single market was never a possibility, just that as soon as the consequences were mentioned, others popped up with leaving the EU does not necessarily mean leaving the single market. I think this is why the leave campaign went light on immigration at the start, because to get control back meant leaving the single market. Until the polls showed them behind, immigration was barely mentioned, then the gloves came off.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I would not surprise me in the least to find that a great many of those unable to read or write, are of equal or greater intellect than yourself.

I think you get the point, you just don't want to admit it. Unless you are one of the thick ones.

I shall assume you are having a rough day and leave you to it.

 

[Baldseagull]

I shall assume you are having a rough day and leave you to it.

Nice duck.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

It was never any more of the outcome people were voting for than the NHS being £350 million a week better off.

You may not like that, but that is the case.

Sounds to me like not quite full access to the single market, in return for not quite full free movement of people.

It was in answer to the post above yours saying leaving the full market was not something that was ever considered, on the table or understood by those voting leave. Even in that one article, there are quotes which contradict that point and I'm certain if I could be bothered I could find hundreds more from media on both sides of the debate. Leaving the single market (which incidentally I am not in favour of unconditionally) was always a strong possibility and was presented as such mainly by the remain campaign as part of their project fear.

For instance 3 quotes from the article:

The Remain campaign is dismissive of the chances of Britain leaving the EU but staying, at least partially, in the single market.

Today, Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, appeared to say as much - a vote for Brexit is also a vote for leaving the single market, and all its advantages.

"If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market," Mr Schaeuble told Der Spiegel.

If Britain votes to leave the EU on June 23, many believe that would not only end free movement of people (a central tenet of the Leave campaign's offer to voters) but also end the UK's membership of the single market.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Very interesting article from the guardian regarding the state of Europe's banks, in particular the parlous state of the Italian banks.

The Guardian: The Big Short: is the next financial crisis on its way? http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwqqLrwjA

 

[portslade seagull]

And still they gripe. It's happening move on unless your to THICK to understand you lost. If you label Brexiters as that it only makes you worse as many remainers seem to dense to see 52-48 is a clear mandate as requested by the government

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

And still they gripe. It's happening move on unless your to THICK to understand you lost. If you label Brexiters as that it only makes you worse as many remainers seem to dense to see 52-48 is a clear mandate as requested by the government

Don't even recall the result was even close enough for a re count...

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Don't even recall the result was even close enough for a re count...

Makes me laugh that some can't accept the defeat citing how 'close' it was. Considering that many people are up in arms that Clinton wasn't elected on the popular vote count and leave had a MUCH higher winning margin, it is quite ridiculous.

 

[Notters]

And still they gripe. It's happening move on unless your to THICK to understand you lost. If you label Brexiters as that it only makes you worse as many remainers seem to dense to see 52-48 is a clear mandate as requested by the government

You're too.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Makes me laugh that some can't accept the defeat citing how 'close' it was. Considering that many people are up in arms that Clinton wasn't elected on the popular vote count and leave had a MUCH higher winning margin, it is quite ridiculous.

I think it is, in part, a consequence of the existence of social media. For people of a certain mindset this enables constant repetition of the same points and instinctive rejection of new information if it conflicts with their view. My own journey on this issue was from being against EU membership to being in favour and then in recent years a return to my original view. I think there are positive arguments on both sides of this debate. For some though there is a compulsion to be 'right' and they feel threatened if the debate allows for equal respect for both sides. They feel a loss of their self perceived moral and intellectual superiority. One consequence is the intolerant and insulting comments regarding stupidity in the last few pages of this thread. The people making these comments should do some research and show some empathy. If the intention of these comments is to be so offensive that people are less inclined to contribute then it seems to be working given the declining number of different posters still
involved.

 

[studio150]

And still they gripe. It's happening move on unless your to THICK to understand you lost. If you label Brexiters as that it only makes you worse as many remainers seem to dense to see 52-48 is a clear mandate as requested by the government

Leaving aside the grammatical errors, which I see have been commented on, you seem to be confusing different things into one. Clearly you can label an individual leave voter as thick where they display an inability to understand basic concepts as logic, facts and the difference between right and wrong, However this does not translate into not understanding the outcome of the referendum and that at the present time the Government is working towards an exit, in whatever shape or form that takes.

There will be differing views on what the outcome should look like and what the economic cost is to achieve this. Their are differing views and discussions on these are welcomed. However where someone has clearly got a fact wrong, or failed to understate the issue as opposed to having a differing view, then obviously they will be called out.

The problem comes when that individual either does not wish to acknowledge their error, or does not hold the required ability to understand the point being made/

Stand by for a deluge of differing views in Wednesday when the Autumn Statement is made in the House. Its looking like a fun day.

 

[Baldseagull]

It was in answer to the post above yours saying leaving the full market was not something that was ever considered, on the table or understood by those voting leave. Even in that one article, there are quotes which contradict that point and I'm certain if I could be bothered I could find hundreds more from media on both sides of the debate. Leaving the single market (which incidentally I am not in favour of unconditionally) was always a strong possibility and was presented as such mainly by the remain campaign as part of their project fear.

For instance 3 quotes from the article:

The Remain campaign is dismissive of the chances of Britain leaving the EU but staying, at least partially, in the single market.

Today, Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, appeared to say as much - a vote for Brexit is also a vote for leaving the single market, and all its advantages.

"If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market," Mr Schaeuble told Der Spiegel.

If Britain votes to leave the EU on June 23, many believe that would not only end free movement of people (a central tenet of the Leave campaign's offer to voters) but also end the UK's membership of the single market.

I understand and understood at the time what was at stake, however it is clear that Farage, who I think we can agree, was responsible for succesfully pressuring the Tories into including the promise of a referendum in their manifesto, was talking about Norway and Switzerland as examples of countries doing quite well out of the EU for most of the many years he has been campaigning. I think where he ended up, by making immigration the focus, at least at the end of the leave campaign, was unfortunately a leave position that was likely to include not having access to the single market.
Would there have been the pressure to have a referendum in the first place, if Farage had had to overcome the economic argument in the early days?
I think not. What was argued for up until the Referendum was given, was that Norway and Switzerland do all right. Once the referendum was going ahead, the polls showed them way behind, so they mobilised the thick, racist and gullible, with false suggestions of increased NHS spending, no Syrian refugees, and the economic argument that had been ducked by never mentioning getting out of the single market before, was brushed aside as fear mongering.

 

[studio150]

I think it is, in part, a consequence of the existence of social media. For people of a certain mindset this enables constant repetition of the same points and instinctive rejection of new information if it conflicts with their view. My own journey on this issue was from being against EU membership to being in favour and then in recent years a return to my original view. I think there are positive arguments on both sides of this debate. For some though there is a compulsion to be 'right' and they feel threatened if the debate allows for equal respect for both sides. They feel a loss of their self perceived moral and intellectual superiority. One consequence is the intolerant and insulting comments regarding stupidity in the last few pages of this thread. The people making these comments should do some research and show some empathy. If the intention of these comments is to be so offensive that people are less inclined to contribute then it seems to be working given the declining number of different posters still
involved.

The comments are only made where one individual is unable to accept that they have basically lied (which they have done on more than one occasion) and refuse to accept their error. It is nothing to do with differing views, however some people seem to hide behind 'its my view' to escape having to accept what they have stated is wrong.

At a basic level if someone says 3+3 is 15, then clearly a post will follow which will point out this is wrong. Not a problem or it shouldn't be but what you get is either the 'its my view, therefore I'm right' or putting up something else and refusing to accept that they even posted the error post.

Still I'm sure you will enjoy the debat on Wednesday

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

One consequence is the intolerant and insulting comments regarding stupidity in the last few pages of this thread. The people making these comments should do some research and show some empathy. If the intention of these comments is to be so offensive that people are less inclined to contribute then it seems to be working given the declining number of different posters still
involved.

Yes, it's a sad day when good posters from either side of the argument are chased away as we are all diminished as a result. I have strong opinions and sometimes I am carried away by my convictions, however, like you, I can see great reasons for remaining in the EU. It is an enormous pity that those of us, on here and elsewhere on the internet in particular, can't season our views with expressions of sympathy for the other. After all, we are all on the same side and want what is best for the UK and certainly from my own perspective, for Europe.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I understand and understood at the time what was at stake, however it is clear that Farage, who I think we can agree, was responsible for succesfully pressuring the Tories into including the promise of a referendum in their manifesto, was talking about Norway and Switzerland as examples of countries doing quite well out of the EU for most of the many years he has been campaigning. I think where he ended up, by making immigration the focus, at least at the end of the leave campaign, was unfortunately a leave position that was likely to include not having access to the single market.
Would there have been the pressure to have a referendum in the first place, if Farage had had to overcome the economic argument in the early days?
I think not. What was argued for up until the Referendum was given, was that Norway and Switzerland do all right. Once the referendum was going ahead, the polls showed them way behind, so they mobilised the thick, racist and gullible, with false suggestions of increased NHS spending, no Syrian refugees, and the economic argument that had been ducked by never mentioning getting out of the single market before, was brushed aside as fear mongering.

UKIP view:
http://www.ukip.org/myths_still_abound_over_access_to_eu_market
Gove:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0c5c74bc-151e-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e
Schauble in the guardian this time:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ss-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says

UKIP seem to have made their position clear on the single market, stating that they would perhaps be out of it and they disassociated themselves from Norway etc. They spoke of other large economies that operated either with trade agreements or operating under wto rules.

The remain camp equally made it clear that a vote to leave would most likely result in leaving the single market and there are many online articles citing plans they had to try to avoid leaving it.

I believe it was abundantly clear that we would possibly leave the single market by both sides but remainers find it more palatable to put the blame on racists who are thick.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The comments are only made where one individual is unable to accept that they have basically lied (which they have done on more than one occasion) and refuse to accept their error. It is nothing to do with differing views, however some people seem to hide behind 'its my view' to escape having to accept what they have stated is wrong.

At a basic level if someone says 3+3 is 15, then clearly a post will follow which will point out this is wrong. Not a problem or it shouldn't be but what you get is either the 'its my view, therefore I'm right' or putting up something else and refusing to accept that they even posted the error post.

Still I'm sure you will enjoy the debat on Wednesday

If you or others feel the need to tell other posters they are liars or stupid then I suppose that is between you and them although I find it rather distasteful and it certainly doesn't reflect you in a good light.
It is not the case though that such language is used solely in the pursuit of these personal vendettas. There are also many posts (especially in recent pages) writing off the views of many of our fellow citizens as unimportant because of their 'stupidity'.My polite request is for you and others to research learning difference, reasons to do with the brain for mismatch between traditional academic skills and intellect and also the impact of social environment such as family problems on learning outcomes. I think if you take the time to familiarize yourself with this fascinating subject you will be a little disappointed that you ever used such intolerant language about people who do not have the privilege of functioning in a manner that our society will reward.
It is a hidden issue. There are many people you will meet who make compensations and you will not notice their difficulty. By doing the research though it may enourage you to desist from writing them off as 'thick'.

 

[portslade seagull]

Leaving aside the grammatical errors, which I see have been commented on, you seem to be confusing different things into one. Clearly you can label an individual leave voter as thick where they display an inability to understand basic concepts as logic, facts and the difference between right and wrong, However this does not translate into not understanding the outcome of the referendum and that at the present time the Government is working towards an exit, in whatever shape or form that takes.

There will be differing views on what the outcome should look like and what the economic cost is to achieve this. Their are differing views and discussions on these are welcomed. However where someone has clearly got a fact wrong, or failed to understate the issue as opposed to having a differing view, then obviously they will be called out.

The problem comes when that individual either does not wish to acknowledge their error, or does not hold the required ability to understand the point being made/

Stand by for a deluge of differing views in Wednesday when the Autumn Statement is made in the House. Its looking like a fun day.

OMG grammatical errors is that the best you can come up with. Not doing to bad for being thick though, in a managers job that pays extremly well and my own house to boot
Very middle class some would say, college boy. Does mummy still do your washing