Can somebody explain to me how we will get all of our Brexit money back when we will now need to set up a bigger civil service to do all those things that we currently do collectively with the EU, pay for our liabilities from being a member and possibly pay to access the EU markets?
In regards to my last point about rights of residency it is usually that once rights are given they cannot be removed and the mess is to do with the U.K. having such a laissez-faire attitude to immigration and where people live. And since it is the UK governments choice to allow people here without registration then they cannot blame the immigrants. People have been legally residing in the U.K. and I can see another court case coming.
It is really easy to see when I arrived in Sweden as I had to register with the council to state that I live here and get a national id code. From reading the page about residency rights in the EU the only criteria is that one has been living there legally so I assume the working stuff is more to do with proof than a qualification?
But then again it seems to be a none issue where the U.K. government is having an argument with its self much like the rest of Brexit when seen from the distance of living in another country. Very sad in all meanings of the word.
The whole Brexit/nation state thing is harking back to the good old days and quietly forgets that even if we were outside the EU we would and will still be subject to laws and rules outside our control and decided collectively. A case in point would be Hinkley Point where even though we may have wanted to scrap the whole thing as too expensive we could not as we needed to have the Chinese and other parties onside to further our other goals. The same may happen to when we negotiate trade deals. We may want to protect our farmers but sacrifice them in order to get better access for our financial services as they make us way more money and we are good at them
Dissection of a [s]good[/s] successful campaign…
A hell of a lot of good stuff in there, so I apologise for cherry picking a few choice bits…
If about 600,000 people – just over 1% of registered voters – had decided differently, IN would have won.
The office could only do so much. If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘[b]Turkey/NHS/£350 million[/b]’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost.
2. ‘The official bill of EU membership is £350 million per week – let’s spend our money on our priorities like the NHS instead.’ (Sometimes we said ‘we send the EU £350m’ to provoke people into argument. This worked much better than I thought it would. There is no single definitive figure because there are different sets of official figures but the Treasury gross figure is slightly more than £350m of which we get back roughly half, though some of this is spent in absurd ways like subsidies for very rich landowners to do stupid things.)
Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. [b]Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. [/b]Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way…
…sorry for taking out of context… the whole piece is worth reading, but not really aimed at skimmers.
Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way…
Which really sums it up as a pure ideological campaign where the cornerstones of the reasons to leave were so greatly exaggerated to a point where they accept had they told the truth people would not have voted for them. Then have the balls to suggest the other side was using project fear...
Yes, they had the balls (and the brains)…
Mandelson regarded this as ‘sheer nerve, sheer chutzpah’. It was obvious. The hard thing was sticking to it despite the sensibilities of many of our own supporters.
…perhaps those running the IN campaign did not…
I suspect that in general big mistakes cause defeat much more often than excellent moves cause victory
…article is very forthright. All a good read.
How worst can the future be by comparison to the last 43 years. People have had enough of the last 43 years.
Which people? How much of the last 43 years have you observed in the UK? 43 years just happens to coincide almost exactly with the period I've been in employment and it's actually been pretty good.
@kelvin mefty posted that already. It's a long but excellent piece. I posted a few paragragphs I found interesting
who would have thought that leave would have read and absorbed Mein Kampf so well
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, where as in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies". Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.
It's a long but excellent piece. I posted a few paragragphs I found interesting
and what it's really letting people know is that the streets are not paved with gold, there will not be £350 million heading to the NHS and all the other promises well they were more like inspirational quotes.
Sorry Jamba, missed that.
mrmo & mikewsmith hence why I said the campaign was "successful" not "good".
I'm sure the Leave campaign bods would say something like "our misdirection spoke to a greater truth".
It marks a low in the politics of our lifetime hence the moniker = post truth politics
and what it's really letting people know is that the streets are not paved with gold, there will not be £350 million heading to the NHS and all the other promises well they were more like inspirational quotes.
What like "arbeit macht frei?"
As always follow the money and you will find why. Obviously the large majority of brexiters won't admit that they have been played for fools as that would be to admit that they are idiots.
Politicians need to be personally held account for their actions. If a surgeon screws up they can go to jail, it a politician lies they get to go on the after dinner circuit.
Obviously the large majority of brexiters won't admit that they have been played for fools as that would be to admit that they are idiots.
I'm afraid that is probably bullshit. The "large majority of brexiters" voted out at any cost, and were not persuaded by the campaign, they had already made up their minds. However, the vote could not have been won without the misdirection aimed at those who were undecided which way to vote, or even whether to vote. I have spoken to people who voted Leave to "do right by the NHS' etc, but they were not the majority, just the necessary minority of voters that had to be swayed for the Leave vote to win. Most Leave voters were not fooled, but the vote could not be won without fooling enough people to vote Leave.
Most Leave voters were not fooled,
Time will tell...
my mum voted out because of 'the money sent to brussles', that couldve been spent on the NHS she'd worked for for 30 years
she was definitely fooled
Edukator
[i]I think you need to revise your choice of history books, br, and perhaps spend a little time working and living in Germany. [/I]
I both lived in Germany and worked there (over a +10 year period).
I'm afraid that is probably bullshit. The "large majority of brexiters" voted out at any cost, and were not persuaded by the campaign
Not so sure, take 40 years of blaming the EU to sort the base out, then a few more months on top.
Fair comment.
The campaign had been running for years. The official campaign was just tidying up around the edges and topped off by the political face of fun Boris and animated spitting image doll Gove.
I doubt many leave voters were fooled by the official campaign but had been swayed many years previously by the (IMO) insidious drip drip campaign of fear and half truths (Farage, Dacre/Mail, Murdoch/Sun, Desmond/Express, etc.).
It is a bit like religion. It becomes unquestionable and when one is inside it you cannot see that it is illogical and built on sand. It is very hard for the brain to remove illogical ideas as they are connected to loads of other beliefs and concepts.
This will be a big problem for the UK when it comes to negotiate with the EU. Both parties are on different planets. When the EU elections where on here in Sweden there was lots of coverage how important it was for things like environmental and labour legislation while in the UK the major campaign messages were about how terrible the EU was. Both the same event but totally different perspectives and very it is hard to come out of those perspectives.
As this thread has proved arguing either way does not change peoples minds it tends just to entrench ideas.
The whole Brexit anti EU thing fits well into the British mentality of a plucky, long suffering, complaining underdog bumberling through to victory like Dad's Army.
Anyone got an ft sub?
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/0f276426-d67b-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8eOld schemes counted in post-Brexit vote inward investment tally
Trade department study of ‘£16bn’ projects coming to UK shows deals unveiled years agoInvestments announced by Liam Fox's department include: £650m in a renewable energy plant in Teesside, the regeneration of the Ferrybridge Power Station and £60m for a recycling and energy plant in Northwich © FT Montage
I both lived in Germany and worked there (over a +10 year period).
And yet you still attribute peace in Europe to the total destruction of the German state, br. Were you BFG or working with Germans?
Anyhow, you linked a book with glaring errors in the abstract, [url= http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/germany-1945-1949-a-case-study-in-post-conflict-reconstruction ]here's the first Google result.[/url]
It was similar in France, all the pre-war political groups resurfaced and quickly filled the vacuum left by Vichy. Initially it was resistance members who came to the fore, so the far left, but very quickly the political landscape was very similar to pre-war. I proof read Madame's doctorate on the subject BTW.
And yet you still attribute peace in Europe to the total destruction of the German state
I'm no expert on what other people mean but it seems fairly clear to me he was referring to the "destruction" of the 3rd Reich.
With no mention of Nazis or 3rd Reich it was far from clear.
The state is far more than the political leaders. It's the civil servants who go on doing their jobs whoever is in power, it's the institutions, the legal system, the health system, the people who look after infrastructure and services. Whilst diminished all of those remaind intact and ready to serve the new leaders - the armies of occupation initially but within a couple of years their new elected German leaders.
Still waiting for even a HINT of a plan for Northern Ireland…
I think science needs to rethink ways of testing ideas.
Sorry, I missed this hilarity from chewkw earlier 😆 😆 😆
Does anyone else read his posts with a Russian accent?
Kelvin NI is a non issue. There is already a UK / Ireland group working on it and the EU said it was fully supportive. There will be no hard border between the two. Ireland is struggling with strong € but they can manage that, maybe they will stop telling the EU they don't need the €13bn Apple are supoosed to pay in back taxes,
Read Cummings piece, the EU budget contribution was a key message, even Remain kept bringing the conversation back to it by arguing about the figure 8)
[i]There will be no hard border between the two.[/I]
Convinced enough to bet your own money?
IMO It'll have to be the same border approach as between Poland and the Ukraine, otherwise there's a soft way in to the UK and you Brexiters wouldn't like that. Or will the hard border be in our mainland ports?
Said it before the poor huddled masses that voted for Brexit are well and truly f*d the far right shite got them to vote brexit and that is the end of their usefullness to the right wing. Now their traditonal supporters (the middle ground) as many of us are due to the fact many of us come from this group have now gone * you - add in automation and deregulation of employment not to mention welfare cuts their ass is grass. We are going to have a much more isolated working/benefits class with continually reducing quality of life and they have no political representation
Kelvin NI is a non issue.
Well, the NI Executive has fallen already.
There will be no hard border between the two.
Which two? Eire&NI? NI&rUk? Eire&rUK? Eire&rEU?
It is also unclear what impact leaving the EU’s customs union would have on the UK’s land border with the Republic of Ireland. This issue is addressed more fully in our report on the implications of Brexit for UK-Irish relations.
The government would beg to differ - on both sides
The implications of the 23 June referendum result for UK-Irish relations are often overlooked, at least on this side of the Irish Sea. Yet the consequences of Brexit are highly significant, not only for the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and North-South relations between the two,1 but for the totality of relationships across these islands. Indeed, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has described the UK’s vote to withdraw from the EU as “arguably the greatest economic and social challenge for this island in fifty years.”
Stable door. Horse. Bolted. Germany reacts to repeated terrorist attacks and substantial asylum seeker benefit frauds.
Effective border controls and an EU asylum policy which member states respected would have rendered this irrelevant.
Extensive pre deportation detention and electronic tagging. Tougher residency proof requirements for those found guilty of benefit / multiple identity fraud. Plus trying to deal with countries who won't take their own citizens back.
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-sets-out-tougher-post-attack-security-measures/a-37078879
The non-issues identified by the Gov to date:
The economic implications for the Republic of Ireland, which it will face even though it had no say in the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
The economic implications for Northern Ireland, particularly given the extent of cross-border trade and the agri-food sector’s reliance on EU funding.
The consequences for the soft Irish land border of potential restrictions to the free movement of goods and people.
The implications for the Common Travel Area and for the special status of UK and Irish citizens in each other’s countries, including the right of the people of Northern Ireland to Irish (and therefore EU)
citizenship.
The potential impact on political stability in Northern Ireland, and in particular on the confidence of both communities that their interests and aspirations are being respected.
The challenge to the North-South and East-West institutional structure established under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
Re Germany: There is still more that can be done INSIDE THE EU on these matters, by nation states, if they choose to.
Effective border controls and an EU asylum policy which member states respected would have rendered this irrelevant.
I doubt it
Q: Reason for travel?
A: To explode a bomb in a crowded shopping centre
Q: How long do you intend to stay?
A: 48 hours
Q: Have a nice trip....next
Jambalaya, how did the UK government stop the IRA bombings on the mainland with explosives shipped from Libya?
How do you stop someone stealing a truck and driving it through a crowd? Do you intend to deport all second and third generation immigrants?
Seem like others have been making plans for Nigel, his anti-EU group in European parliament is going to lose the Italian contingent, which puts it perilously close to losing its status as a parliamentary group with a large loss of funding and access places on committees, speaking slots etc.
He's gone from "ambassador to the US" to part time DJ.
Also noticed that Marine Le pen is in a spot of bother over Russian funding, and has done a complete u-turn on leaving the EU/dropping the Euro after opinion polls suggested the majority wanted to stay in the EU.
It really does look like your wet dream of the break up of the EU isn't going to happen Jumbleliar, quite the opposite is happening...after seeing the Shambles that will await anyone else wanting to leave.
fourbanger - Member
I think science needs to rethink ways of testing ideas.
Sorry, I missed this hilarity from chewkw earlier
Bloody hell someone got that ... It was meant to poke fun at testing ideas as science being science they forget how to make experiment cheaper ... you clever person you got that.
You are Not meant to get that. 😆
Research, product testing or prototyping regardless what they are can be very expensive but the problem is that we keep adding complication to those areas. If you can make an "accurate" simulation or prediction of the outcome. i.e. cheaper to test. Jackpot.
Does anyone else read his posts with a Russian accent?
Russian speaking English is not so bad, try Japanese. 😛 Terri-bu-ru! 😀
[quote=teamhurtmore ]including the right of the people of Northern Ireland to Irish (and therefore EU) citizenship.
I'm not sure that one really is an issue. Plenty of UK nationals (myself included) who are entitled to Irish passports irrespective of the status of NI (my entitlement arises from before partition!) The EU also appeared kind of keen on the proposal for stateless EU citizenship post Brexit.
It did occur to me that given my UK passport has just run out it might be easier not to bother renewing it and just get an Irish one instead.
[url= http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38571117 ]City of London wants 5 year deal for stability[/url]
Wouldn't the simplest solution to this be to say that we will not trigger article 50 for 5 years and in the mean time organise ourselves so that we can no go off the Brexit cliff? 🙂
If you like making signs and meeting people.....
http://www.uniteforeurope.org
Except in the last two cases, this relies on ignoring the results of the democratic process
Bu there is little doubt that we need to agree a transition period. Despite what Brexshiteers say, this is not a simple process. Still no harm with a bit of uncertainty ?!?
Except in the last two cases, this relies on ignoring the results of the democratic process
Not sure which cases you are referring to but isn't a suitable interpretation of the democratic process being that OUT won, but only marginally, and any true government that claims to govern for all has to take into account the almost equal number of IN voters and the same number who didn't express an opinion?
That would respect the outcome of the democratic public consultation but deliver a deal that doesn't exclude or alienate people. It would unlikely satisfy the brexopaths or hardline europhiles but would probably be palatable to most in the country.
I realise that such a common sense approach is unlikely to fly with our glorious leaders who are more interested in politics and themselves than making things better, and I'm being rather naive in hoping that they might do some cross-party nationally beneficial thinking on this.
The hardest part would probably be explaining the idea to people without it being distorted by the media and the same bunch of self-serving politicians who produced the mess.......
"We" voted to leave the EU. Period. The reasons given included (rightly or wrongly) immigration and law making. So May is correct when she says that there is/was not such thing as a hard or soft Brexit.
So we have to assume the worst and hope for the best.
