Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Johnny Bognor]

It's funny how you read that quote. I read it as the sort of thing an executioner says just before bringing down the guillotine.

 

Verhofstadt is a federal fundamentalist. He's also the European Parliament's point man for Brexit negotiations. He's not going to go soft - on the contrary, he thinks Britain out of the EU is a good thing. That's the problem: each bit of the EU has lined up arch opponents of Britain to do the negotiating. Brexiters, who've been in the habit of talking as if the UK can simply announce its terms, turn up to meetings and leave stuffed with UK-friendly agreements, are in for an awful shock.

 

OK I do get where you're coming from... there is a 'but' after his statement.

 

However, remainers seem to be at odds with each other. We're told that it is better to be in a club where all nations work together for the benefit of all.

 

When brexiters cite that an undemocratic EU is controlled by non elected, corrupt politiicans and nation states have no real say or influence, we are told that the nation states do hold the real power.

 

You seem to be intimating that it is a few fundamentalist nutjobs in fact have the real power??

 

If it is the nutjobs, then we are better off out as who knows where they will lead us. If it is the nutjobs, then the EU will be acting in its own self interest as opposed to the best interests of the citizens of member states. it could lead to an even greater power struggle between the EU and elected national heads of state.

 

However, If it is the democratically elected leaders of nation states that hold the power, then we have less to worry about as it will be in their interests to strike some kind of deal and the nutjobs (who dont hold the real power according to most remainers) will have to tow the line.

 

Perhaps a remainer can clarify where the power really lies...

Edited 15 September, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

0.9 is 10% less than 1.0

 

You have to be very careful when using percentage changes to be specific about what the change refers to. For example, a fall of 50% followed by a rise of 50% doesn't get you back to where you started.

 

You may not be exporting but your raw materials and energy costs will rise if they are imported

 

So people will buy local? It has boosted farming.

[John B]

OK I do get where you're coming from... there is a 'but' after his statement.

 

However, remainers seem to be at odds with each other. We're told that it is better to be in a club where all nations work together for the benefit of all.

 

When brexiters cite that an undemocratic EU is controlled by non elected, corrupt politiicans and nation states have no real say or influence, we are told that the nation states do hold the real power.

 

You seem to be intimating that it is a few fundamentalist nutjobs in fact have the real power??

 

If it is the nutjobs, then we are better off out as who knows where they will lead us. If it is the nutjobs, then the EU will be acting in its own self interest as opposed to the best interests of the citizens of member states. it could lead to an even greater power struggle between the EU and elected national heads of state.

 

However, If it is the democratically elected leaders of nation states that hold the power, then we have less to worry about as it will be in their interests to strike some kind of deal and the nutjobs (who dont hold the real power according to most remainers) will have to tow the line.

 

Perhaps a remainer can clarify where the power really lies...

 

I am not sure you have a grasp of what the EU actually is and how it works

[ashnats]

There were enough positives that a majority of those who voted in the referendum thought it worthwhile to vote to get out of the EU. I'm sorry if more of those positives didn't penetrate your psyche, but it isn't the Leave campaign's fault if some had their fingers in their ears during the Referendum debate.

 

I'm not saying there aren't positives - I even stated the one I found. It is a genuine question - can you name some of the positive outcomes? I'm finding it hard to get a straight answer to this from people who voted out. What can we look forward to when we're out? how does the post-EU UK differ to the current one? (from a positive perspective, ignoring all of the doom-gloom) - all the talk now is how it won't be much worse than now. yippee, but will anything be better?

[Wes Tender]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37369917

 

This article rather flies in the face of Verbal's assertion that there are no pragmatic aspects to the EU's prospective negotiations with the UK once Article 50 is triggered.

 

Originally Posted by Verbal:

And yet still you miss my point. It isn't that there are federalist fundamentalists mouthing off about kicking Britain out. These people - like Juncker and Verhofstadt - are politicians from Benelux countries that have always been richly rewarded by EU membership. The point is, the fundamentalists - also including Michel Barnier, the negotiator for the Commission - are in all the controlling positions for negotiating Brexit. The German pragmatists are nowhere. This means there will be the strongest push by the EU to inflict maximum damage to the UK during Brexit negotiations and beyond. Brexiteer fantasies about German car makers not allowing this to happen are just that - hopeless fantasies.

 

If the German pragmatists were nowhere, why would Van Rompuy express the opinion that nothing substantive in the negotiations would be decided before the new German Government was formed following the elections next September?

 

And then of course, Van Rompuy insists that there is not an agenda to give the UK a good kicking. He actually states that Verhostadt and Barnier although being tough negotiators, were also pragmatists, recognising that there was a need to achieve a deal that was mutually beneficial.

 

It is clear that the red line on both sides is the freedom of movement of peoples. We cannot accept it as a condition of continuing membership of the single market, but the pragmatic approach from both sides would be to allow the UK access to the single market from outside the EU, without imposing punitive tariffs which would affect both sides adversely. Verhostadt and Barnier can propose a tough negotiating stance on the conditions of our future trade with the EU, but ultimately surely that will have to be ratified presumably by the Council of Ministers or the MEPs. It is then that the more pragmatic solutions will be come into play when the individual member states assess the impact on their own industries and economies.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not saying there aren't positives - I even stated the one I found. It is a genuine question - can you name some of the positive outcomes? I'm finding it hard to get a straight answer to this from people who voted out. What can we look forward to when we're out? how does the post-EU UK differ to the current one? (from a positive perspective, ignoring all of the doom-gloom) - all the talk now is how it won't be much worse than now. yippee, but will anything be better?

 

I recommend that you find out this information yourself on Google. Type in something along the lines of "why the UK should leave the EU" or something along those lines.

 

Of course, there will inevitably be an element of spin depending on the sources and therefore you can take some opinions with a pinch of salt, but that applies to both sides. Other than that, the future position depends on several factors to be determined by negotiations, but equally of course the future holds few certainties had we voted to remain in the EU

[Whitey Grandad]

I recommend that you find out this information yourself on Google. Type in something along the lines of "why the UK should leave the EU" or something along those lines.

 

You are quite consistent in your approcach to this. One day it would be good to get your own views as to why you wanted out.

 

Of course, there will inevitably be an element of spin depending on the sources and therefore you can take some opinions with a pinch of salt, but that applies to both sides. Other than that, the future position depends on several factors to be determined by negotiations, but equally of course the future holds few certainties had we voted to remain in the EU

 

This is another feeble Brexit contention. Inside the EU we had infinitely more control over its future than we do now. (I use 'infinitely because now we have zero influence whereas before we had control so anything is infinitely more than zero)

[aintforever]

I'm not saying there aren't positives - I even stated the one I found. It is a genuine question - can you name some of the positive outcomes? I'm finding it hard to get a straight answer to this from people who voted out. What can we look forward to when we're out? how does the post-EU UK differ to the current one? (from a positive perspective, ignoring all of the doom-gloom) - all the talk now is how it won't be much worse than now. yippee, but will anything be better?

 

The main reason I sided with out was because uncontrolled mass immigration means downward pressure on wages, pressure on public services and a housing problem that is impossible to resolve.

 

Hopefully now we are out these problems can at least be started to be looked at, wether they are or not is a different matter. At least if they are not we can elect a government with a different plan, at the moment whoever we elect are powerless to do anything about the above. You get situations like 'Call me Dave' getting elected on the promise to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands when he knew all along he had no control whatsoever.

[Johnny Bognor]

This is another feeble Brexit contention. Inside the EU we had infinitely more control over its future than we do now. (I use 'infinitely because now we have zero influence whereas before we had control so anything is infinitely more than zero)

Before we had control... lol... carry on taking the pills.

 

Can you remind me what happened when the UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and a host of other nations played the yellow card (only for the 2nd time) to block unwanted legislation??

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

This is another feeble Brexit contention. Inside the EU we had infinitely more control over its future than we do now. (I use 'infinitely because now we have zero influence whereas before we had control so anything is infinitely more than zero)

 

I have expressed my reasons several times. I suggest that if you wish to know what they were, you read back through the thread, or rather the Referendum thread that proceeded it. You will also find that I had posted that I had campaigned on the doorstep as a young man to join the Common Market and also campaigned to remain in the Common Market during Wilson's referendum.

 

But of course, what it became since bears very scant resemblance to what it was when we joined. Who cares what influence we have on the EU now? We are leaving it and our doing so will have far more effect on its future direction than if we had stayed, when we would have been seen to be acquiescent to further progress towards federalism. The best outcome would be a EU regressing towards solely the original Common Market concept, forced into that position by other member states voting to leave it, or a two tier Europe comprised of those who wished to have closer federal ties and those who didn't.

[Whitey Grandad]

The main reason I sided with out was because uncontrolled mass immigration means downward pressure on wages, pressure on public services and a housing problem that is impossible to resolve.

 

Hopefully now we are out these problems can at least be started to be looked at, wether they are or not is a different matter. At least if they are not we can elect a government with a different plan, at the moment whoever we elect are powerless to do anything about the above. You get situations like 'Call me Dave' getting elected on the promise to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands when he knew all along he had no control whatsoever.

 

Theresa May was in charge of immigration controls at the time. The Home Office won't play ball and do what they are told. Do you really believe that there wil be any difference once we have left? There have been just as many coming from the rest of the world as from the EU. We had total control over them and a fat lot of good it did us. Do you think that suddenly all the EU nationals will stop coming leaving only the others?

[Whitey Grandad]

I have expressed my reasons several times. I suggest that if you wish to know what they were, you read back through the thread, or rather the Referendum thread that proceeded it. You will also find that I had posted that I had campaigned on the doorstep as a young man to join the Common Market and also campaigned to remain in the Common Market during Wilson's referendum.

 

But of course, what it became since bears very scant resemblance to what it was when we joined. Who cares what influence we have on the EU now? We are leaving it and our doing so will have far more effect on its future direction than if we had stayed, when we would have been seen to be acquiescent to further progress towards federalism. The best outcome would be a EU regressing towards solely the original Common Market concept, forced into that position by other member states voting to leave it, or a two tier Europe comprised of those who wished to have closer federal ties and those who didn't.

 

There you go again. You're repeating the same tactic that you always use. Perhaps you have forgotten why you voted

[hutch]

Are you dimwits really suggesting that net immigration would only be three hundred odd thousand if there were no controls on non-EU immigrants?

[Wes Tender]

There you go again. You're repeating the same tactic that you always use. Perhaps you have forgotten why you voted

 

Since I had wanted the opportunity to vote out since Maastricht in 1992, I'm hardly likely to have forgotten that. It is as boring to me being asked to repeat what I have said several times, as it would be to others to have to hear it repeated constantly. I know pretty well what the stance is for most of the regular posters on this thread, so why haven't you recalled what mine was? Is your memory failing you?

[buctootim]

Are you dimwits really suggesting that net immigration would only be three hundred odd thousand if there were no controls on non-EU immigrants?

 

Nope no-one has said that. Dont let that stop the outrage though.

[Bath Saint]

Before we had control... lol... carry on taking the pills.

 

Can you remind me what happened when the UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and a host of other nations played the yellow card (only for the 2nd time) to block unwanted legislation??

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-often-does-eu-overrule-british-ministers/

 

The influence that all member states have is behind the scenes, as outlined in this quote from the above article.

 

As Business for Britain concedes in its own report: "national governments usually try and stop proposals that they don't like from ever reaching the Council of the European Union".

 

In fact, some research has suggested that around 70% of decisions are actually taken in practice before they reach a council vote. The Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER), for instance, is made up of civil servants from member states who take part in the decision-making process without formally voting.

 

Various commentators have argued that this has an effect on how member states behave. Some may, for instance, oppose a policy informally but vote in favour with the majority so as not to appear isolated. And others may never go to a vote because of significant opposition early on.

 

These 'informal' maneuverings obviously aren't as measurable as formal votes, so there are limits to what research can tell us about the UK's 'influence' at the EU Council.

 

With that in mind, simply pointing to 55 occasions in which the UK has been overruled by the rest of the Council doesn't necessarily reflect that the UK has no influence on the policies that come out. We should also be asking about the policies that don't ever make it to a vote.

[buctootim]

Before we had control... lol... carry on taking the pills.

 

Can you remind me what happened when the UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and a host of other nations played the yellow card (only for the 2nd time) to block unwanted legislation??

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

John B is right. You dont know how the EU works. The EC only propose legislation. It is approved or rejected by the Council and Parliament. The yellow card is simply a warning that a number of countries dislike the legislation and its best not to waste time on it because it wont be approved.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I see the BoE have had to revise their growth figures up again .

[Whitey Grandad]

Since I had wanted the opportunity to vote out since Maastricht in 1992, I'm hardly likely to have forgotten that. It is as boring to me being asked to repeat what I have said several times, as it would be to others to have to hear it repeated constantly. I know pretty well what the stance is for most of the regular posters on this thread, so why haven't you recalled what mine was? Is your memory failing you?

 

Do you really expect me to have to remember all your stuff as well as my own?

[Johnny Bognor]

John B is right. You dont know how the EU works. The EC only propose legislation. It is approved or rejected by the Council and Parliament. The yellow card is simply a warning that a number of countries dislike the legislation and its best not to waste time on it because it wont be approved.

 

 

OK then you will be able to enlighten me as to where we have control, as suggested earlier.

 

What specific 'control' aside from a 1/28th say in things have we lost?

Edited 15 September, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-often-does-eu-overrule-british-ministers/

 

The influence that all member states have is behind the scenes, as outlined in this quote from the above article.

 

That's influence. Influence (which doesn't seem to be much based on your article) is very different to control.

 

It has been claimed that we lose control by leaving. In reality, the only 'control' we have in regards to Europe, are things we have opted out of

Edited 15 September, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

OK then you will be able to enlighten me as to where we have control, as suggested earlier.

 

What specific 'control' aside from a 1/28th say in things have we lost?

 

The UK has a veto on foreign and security policy, citizenship, accession of new EU members, taxation, EU finances, justice and home affairs, social security and social protection. Anything else is subject to approval by national ministers and the EU parliament on a majority basis.

 

Yep somethings the UK has a veto on, mostly the serious stuff and some is majority voting, mostly things like rules on winter sown crops to protect wood pigeons. Now you will claim "aah so we dont have control on this particular aspect then, so I win".

[Johnny Bognor]

The UK has a veto on foreign and security policy, citizenship, accession of new EU members, taxation, EU finances, justice and home affairs, social security and social protection. Anything else is subject to approval by national ministers and the EU parliament on a majority basis.

 

Great. So can you now explain how we lose control of these things if we leave?????

[buctootim]

Great. So can you now explain how we lose control of these things if we leave?????

 

No we keep control of those. We only lose control of access to the single market.

 

Its going to be great, having control of the bacterial count regs. Well worth the loss of jobs. Makes you feel proud to be British.

[Johnny Bognor]

So whitey's concern that by leaving, we'll lose control is unfounded.

 

Thought so

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37369917

 

This article rather flies in the face of Verbal's assertion that there are no pragmatic aspects to the EU's prospective negotiations with the UK once Article 50 is triggered.

 

 

 

If the German pragmatists were nowhere, why would Van Rompuy express the opinion that nothing substantive in the negotiations would be decided before the new German Government was formed following the elections next September?

 

And then of course, Van Rompuy insists that there is not an agenda to give the UK a good kicking. He actually states that Verhostadt and Barnier although being tough negotiators, were also pragmatists, recognising that there was a need to achieve a deal that was mutually beneficial.

 

It is clear that the red line on both sides is the freedom of movement of peoples. We cannot accept it as a condition of continuing membership of the single market, but the pragmatic approach from both sides would be to allow the UK access to the single market from outside the EU, without imposing punitive tariffs which would affect both sides adversely. Verhostadt and Barnier can propose a tough negotiating stance on the conditions of our future trade with the EU, but ultimately surely that will have to be ratified presumably by the Council of Ministers or the MEPs. It is then that the more pragmatic solutions will be come into play when the individual member states assess the impact on their own industries and economies.

 

Aside from your usual self-serving mythologising, how on earth did you miss the really big implication of that article - that if the big beasts (you have to include France as well who have elections) in the EU won't be ready to negotiate until the Autumn, then it makes no sense to trigger Article 50 until after those elections. After all, what politician in their right mind would trigger a two-year-deadline-driven legal clause and then twiddle their thumbs for up to nine months of those two year?

 

But - this being Brexit and the age of post-factual, irrational politics - how are politicians going to withstand the rising hysteria from Brexiters if Article 50 is NOT triggered in Jan/Feb next year?

 

It seems May and her three Brexiteers are bound to make a decision they know is wrong - and hugely damaging to British economic interests.

[aintforever]

Theresa May was in charge of immigration controls at the time. The Home Office won't play ball and do what they are told. Do you really believe that there wil be any difference once we have left? There have been just as many coming from the rest of the world as from the EU. We had total control over them and a fat lot of good it did us. Do you think that suddenly all the EU nationals will stop coming leaving only the others?

 

If nothing is done about immigration after we have left and there are still the same issues then the government will be held to account. At the moment there is no one we can vote for to do anything.

[buctootim]

If nothing is done about immigration after we have left and there are still the same issues then the government will be held to account. At the moment there is no one we can vote for to do anything.

 

Will they? No-one has held them to account for the 300,000 non EU immigrants - including 100,000 who come as students but don't go home. Why is it suddenly going to be different? At least we get access to the single market in exchange for EU immigration, and despite what every Brexiter wants to believe, EU immigration is generally high skill high pay. The average pay of an EU immigrant is more than the average Brit. Immigration from Pakistan and Bangladesh is far lower skilled and paid.

[aintforever]

Will they? No-one has held them to account for the 300,000 non EU immigrants - including 100,000 who come as students but don't go home. Why is it suddenly going to be different? At least we get access to the single market in exchange for EU immigration, and despite what every Brexiter wants to believe, EU immigration is generally high skill high pay. The average pay of an EU immigrant is more than the average Brit. Immigration from Pakistan and Bangladesh is far lower skilled and paid.

 

 

Just because the average EU immigrant pay is higher doesn't mean that companies having an unlimited pool of low skilled labour doesn't depress wages for the low paid. The average doesn't tell the whole story, especially when it's the low paid british workers who's pay is forced down. A few European footballers or high paid bankers can easily skew the average.

 

We employ loads of Polish at my company because they are cheap. It always used to be British people doing the same jobs.

[buctootim]

Just because the average EU immigrant pay is higher doesn't mean that companies having an unlimited pool of low skilled labour doesn't depress wages for the low paid. The average doesn't tell the whole story, especially when it's the low paid british workers who's pay is forced down. A few European footballers or high paid bankers can easily skew the average.

 

We employ loads of Polish at my company because they are cheap. It always used to be British people doing the same jobs.

 

But your point was about being held to account. Im not saying EU migration isnt an issue - but if no-one held them to account for non EU migration why will they when the stakes and losses are higher - loss of access to the single market?

[aintforever]

But your point was about being held to account. Im not saying EU migration isnt an issue - but if no-one held them to account for non EU migration why will they when the stakes and losses are higher - loss of access to the single market?

 

I'm not sure non EU immigration was a problem before hundreds of thousands started turning up from Europe as well each year. we are seeing levels of immigration way higher than ever before (except during WW2 I believe). Where they come from is irrelivant, it's the shear numbers.

 

Why do you think dodgy Dave promised to get it down to 10s of thousands if it wasn't an issue for the electorate?

[buctootim]

Why do you think dodgy Dave promised to get it down to 10s of thousands if it wasn't an issue for the electorate?

 

Why do you think he got re-elected even though he didn't do it? Why do you think the Tory party made Theresa May the new PM even though it was her responsibility? Doesn't look to me like people care enough to hold them to account.

[Whitey Grandad]

So whitey's concern that by leaving, we'll lose control is unfounded.

 

Thought so

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

We lose our veto. That is total control.

[Guided Missile]

More good news.

In a ringing endorsement of the UK economy post-Brexit, the Japanese boss of Honda in Europe says the car maker is firmly committed to building its vehicles in Britain and exporting them to the wider world.Katsushi Inoue, Honda Europe's president and chief operating officer, said: 'The launch of this new model is very significant for the European region, not just because of the improvements made in the product, but also what it means for this factory here in the UK.

'The strategy of transforming Swindon into a global production hub was our plan regardless of Brexit. It was the plan before the vote in June and it remains our plan after the Brexit vote. There's no change.'

[aintforever]

Why do you think he got re-elected even though he didn't do it?

 

Who else were people supposed to vote for in the FPTP system? Miliband or the Lib Dems were both pro immigration so dodgy Dave's 10k promise is the best they could hope for. Vote for anyone other than the main three parties you might as well roll you poll card up and shove it up your arse.

 

People obviously cared about immigration because they prefer the Brexit leap in the dark to what they have at the moment.

[CB Fry]

Who else were people supposed to vote for in the FPTP system? Miliband or the Lib Dems were both pro immigration so dodgy Dave's 10k promise is the best they could hope for. Vote for anyone other than the main three parties you might as well roll you poll card up and shove it up your arse.

 

People obviously cared about immigration because they prefer the Brexit leap in the dark to what they have at the moment.

So we won't hold anyone to account then, after all. Clear.

[Wes Tender]

Aside from your usual self-serving mythologising, how on earth did you miss the really big implication of that article - that if the big beasts (you have to include France as well who have elections) in the EU won't be ready to negotiate until the Autumn, then it makes no sense to trigger Article 50 until after those elections. After all, what politician in their right mind would trigger a two-year-deadline-driven legal clause and then twiddle their thumbs for up to nine months of those two year?

 

But - this being Brexit and the age of post-factual, irrational politics - how are politicians going to withstand the rising hysteria from Brexiters if Article 50 is NOT triggered in Jan/Feb next year?

 

It seems May and her three Brexiteers are bound to make a decision they know is wrong - and hugely damaging to British economic interests.

 

Typically of your usual MO. Your previous point is debunked, so you deflect away from that and concentrate on something else, the timing of Brexit which is an entirely separate issue. Of course, having commented on the article and how it contradicted your assertion that there would be no pragmatism from the EU's hatchet men chosen to negotiate on their behalf, or that the German pragmatists were nowhere to be seen, naturally I read the rest of the article.

 

I am entirely content to await developments and then to comment, unlike most of the Remainians on here, who prefer to go off at half-cock based on assumptions, presumptions and pure guesswork

[Johnny Bognor]

We lose our veto. That is total control.

 

Total control of what?

 

Isn't the triggering of article 50 the veto of all vetos?

[Whitey Grandad]

Total control of what?

 

Isn't the triggering of article 50 the veto of all vetos?

 

Control in the sense that we can (now could) prevent the accession of any new member that we didn't like amongst many other things.

 

No, article 50 is just a resignation. A walk away from the decisions and slamming the door behind us. A bit like suicide in terms of vetos.

[Johnny Bognor]

Control in the sense that we can (now could) prevent the accession of any new member that we didn't like amongst many other things.

 

No, article 50 is just a resignation. A walk away from the decisions and slamming the door behind us. A bit like suicide in terms of vetos.

That's not total control of the EU though is it. One area of it, granted. But total in my world means everything

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

That's not total control of the EU though is it. One area of it, granted. But total in my world means everything

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

Wel nobody has total control of everything. Certainly not the British government operating in Britain.

[aintforever]

So we won't hold anyone to account then, after all. Clear.

 

Of course we could. If the governments immigration policy is not working they could be voted out if an alternative policy seems better. At the moment our government has no control of the numbers so our votes, like any immigration policy, are meaningless.

 

It's not that hard to understand.

[Whitey Grandad]

Of course we could. If the governments immigration policy is not working they could be voted out if an alternative policy seems better. At the moment our government has no control of the numbers so our votes, like any immigration policy, are meaningless.

 

It's not that hard to understand.

 

We have no control of the government, that much is easy to understand.

[aintforever]

We have no control of the government, that much is easy to understand.

 

It's called voting. At the moment it doesn't matter who we vote for in regards to immigration and it's effects.

 

That's why the subject has been ignored by all our major parties, thats why most people ignored them on referendum day.

[buctootim]

Who else were people supposed to vote for in the FPTP system? Miliband or the Lib Dems were both pro immigration so dodgy Dave's 10k promise is the best they could hope for. Vote for anyone other than the main three parties you might as well roll you poll card up and shove it up your arse.

 

People obviously cared about immigration because they prefer the Brexit leap in the dark to what they have at the moment.

 

There was survey a few years ago about attitudes to the EU. At the time most people polled wanted to come out by a factor of about 2:1 and cited things like immigration, interference in British laws, contribution to EU coffers etc. They were then asked to rank in order of importance the issues facing the country - unemployment, pensions, the NHS, education, transport etc. The EU came way down the bottom of the list - sixth or seventh. Thats the paradox - people say they are angry - but when it comes down to it they don't care that much compared to other issues.

 

If the Government actually deliver on what people say they want, lower immigration, at the cost of free access to the single market, then there will be a massive hit to services and industry and inevitably job losses. Who will the electorate blame for the Government delivering what they said they wanted? - yep the Government. Theresa May knows that, which is why the deal with the EU will be a massive fudge with no real impact on immigration. The only thing to change will be that the country will have been through a massive period of uncertainty and currency fluctuation - damaging Britain's reputation as a safe stable place to invest.

[aintforever]

There was survey a few years ago about attitudes to the EU. At the time most people polled wanted to come out by a factor of about 2:1 and cited things like immigration, interference in British laws, contribution to EU coffers etc. They were then asked to rank in order of importance the issues facing the country - unemployment, pensions, the NHS, education, transport etc. The EU came way down the bottom of the list - sixth or seventh. Thats the paradox - people say they are angry - but when it comes down to it they don't care that much compared to other issues.

 

If the Government actually deliver on what people say they want, lower immigration, at the cost of free access to the single market, then there will be a massive hit to services and industry and inevitably job losses. Who will the electorate blame for the Government delivering what they said they wanted? - yep the Government. Theresa May knows that, which is why the deal with the EU will be a massive fudge with no real impact on immigration. The only thing to change will be that the country will have been through a massive period of uncertainty and currency fluctuation - damaging Britain's reputation as a safe stable place to invest.

 

Well they cared enough to vote for Brexit despite it clearly having a potentially negative impact on the economy so maybe your little survey was about as accurate as the other polls.

[buctootim]

Well they cared enough to vote for Brexit despite it clearly having a potentially negative impact on the economy so maybe your little survey was about as accurate as the other polls.

 

I used to work for the NHS in Public Health trying to find out how people wanted their money spent. Ask them if the NHS should do everything it can to save premature babies born before 24 weeks regardless of cost and over 90% said yes. Ask them if the NHS should do everything it can to save premature babies born before 24 weeks even if 75% are born with a long term disability that will require lifetime healthcare costs of up to £4m the large majority said no.

 

What people say depends on the information you give them.

[Wes Tender]

There was survey a few years ago about attitudes to the EU. At the time most people polled wanted to come out by a factor of about 2:1 and cited things like immigration, interference in British laws, contribution to EU coffers etc. They were then asked to rank in order of importance the issues facing the country - unemployment, pensions, the NHS, education, transport etc. The EU came way down the bottom of the list - sixth or seventh. Thats the paradox - people say they are angry - but when it comes down to it they don't care that much compared to other issues.

 

If the Government actually deliver on what people say they want, lower immigration, at the cost of free access to the single market, then there will be a massive hit to services and industry and inevitably job losses. Who will the electorate blame for the Government delivering what they said they wanted? - yep the Government. Theresa May knows that, which is why the deal with the EU will be a massive fudge with no real impact on immigration. The only thing to change will be that the country will have been through a massive period of uncertainty and currency fluctuation - damaging Britain's reputation as a safe stable place to invest.

 

The crux of your post, is that the survey was a few years ago, so I presume it pre-dated the massive influx of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria, which together with the refugees fleeing the Middle East and the huge numbers of economic migrants from sub-Sahara Africa amongst other areas. People respond to polls like this based on how it affects them and if they find that their children's classrooms are too crowded, or that the NHS queues are considerably longer, that there is a housing shortage, all as a result of immigration, then that starts to go up in importance.

 

If as a result of our Brexit the cost of accessing the single market is increased by tariffs, then the other side of the coin is that it will be set against the monies we will no longer have to pay into the EU coffers and the future boost to the economy which will ensue from broadening our trade horizons to the rest of the World. In your opinion you say that Theresa May will arrange a fudge to protect trade at the expense of allowing the free movement of people, but I say that is our red line and she realises that the political cost of doing that will be far worse than it would be if there was a hit to services and industry with some accompanying job losses.

 

May has two reasons for comfort in the current situation. She can point to the fact ttat she had been a Remainer, albeit a low profile one and she can say that there were warnings of the potential consequences of our Brexit. She is also in the happy position that there is no realistic opposition that could mount a challenge to the Conservatives at the next election.

[Whitey Grandad]

The crux of your post, is that the survey was a few years ago, so I presume it pre-dated the massive influx of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria, which together with the refugees fleeing the Middle East and the huge numbers of economic migrants from sub-Sahara Africa amongst other areas. People respond to polls like this based on how it affects them and if they find that their children's classrooms are too crowded, or that the NHS queues are considerably longer, that there is a housing shortage, all as a result of immigration, then that starts to go up in importance.

 

If as a result of our Brexit the cost of accessing the single market is increased by tariffs, then the other side of the coin is that it will be set against the monies we will no longer have to pay into the EU coffers and the future boost to the economy which will ensue from broadening our trade horizons to the rest of the World. In your opinion you say that Theresa May will arrange a fudge to protect trade at the expense of allowing the free movement of people, but I say that is our red line and she realises that the political cost of doing that will be far worse than it would be if there was a hit to services and industry with some accompanying job losses.

 

May has two reasons for comfort in the current situation. She can point to the fact ttat she had been a Remainer, albeit a low profile one and she can say that there were warnings of the potential consequences of our Brexit. She is also in the happy position that there is no realistic opposition that could mount a challenge to the Conservatives at the next election.

 

This will not happen. There is nothing to stop us doing that at the moment and trading with somebody on the other side of the planet can never be as efficient or convenient as dealing with somebody who is only a few hours away. Putting up barriers can only reduce trade, not increase it.

 

Immigration has been a probelm since the early 1990s and certainly since 2001. This from 2009: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/making-immigration-work-britain-what-can-history-teach-us

[CB Fry]

Of course we could. If the governments immigration policy is not working they could be voted out if an alternative policy seems better. At the moment our government has no control of the numbers so our votes, like any immigration policy, are meaningless.

 

It's not that hard to understand.

We seem to be going round in circles - but hey, let's try again.

 

With non-EU immigration (100%, total, complete control) the Tories failed and Labour and the LDs won't promise anything to resolve it, and voting for anyone else is like shoving a polling card up your bottom (according to you).

 

Why would EU immigration be different and who are you going to vote for to hold the Tories to account?