nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Econ_

trellheim wrote: »

As someone who wishes they would remain I cannot see at the moment how the Commons would majority vote to reverse the Article 50 process - and that is ALL that matters here. There is almost exactly 1 year to the crash out and there is NO transition agreed, nothing at all ( never mind the post-transition agreement FTA ) ( PS the EU revised it the other day again fk sake )

Right now its the hardest of hard exits.

The Commons wouldn't be voting to reverse article 50, they would be voting for a referendum on the final terms of the deal with the inclusion of a remain option. It's not going to be overturned without another referendum.

Right now, the prospect of a new referendum seems unlikely. But things can change.

For instance if Soubry's amendment passes in parliament, the UK governments 'plans' for Brexit is thrown out the window. If would lead to more people questioning the entire process and strengthen arguments for another referendum.

trellheim

The Commons wouldn't be voting to reverse article 50, they would be voting for a referendum on the final terms of the deal with the inclusion of a remain option. It's not going to be overturned without another referendum.

As it stands right now the final deal will not be done by March 2019 going off the current pace of discussions - they might agree a transition ; but that is too late and by then they are out and will not be able to remain . It took a year or so to get the Brexit referendum through if I recall so you'd have to start now. Essentially with zero majority the Conservatives will not push this ( and have no desire to) and Labour have not really convinced themselves of it either

Even a GE tomorrow in UK would not change the current fact that a majority of the Commons does not want to touch the current process.

Enzokk

Experience_day wrote: »

I think its hard for us to have a full grasp of why Britain voted for Brexit. I spent considerable time across there as much as here, and there are factors that we are lucky enough not to be afflicted with.

One of which is the idea of the EU overstepping its remit and the chain of command. The commission has become very heavy in its bureaucracy and there is a strong feeling (not just from the Brits) of a lack of accountability.

I think this is deliberately whipped by some into being antieuropean rather than just anti EU.

And obviously the issue around migration played a huge part..

Britain has "enjoyed" a substantial amount of immigration, I know we think of ourselves as open but entire communities have been reshaped in the UK, with very very little oversight. There are swathes of non EU migration and considerable amounts of EU migration.

From people i know in the UK the vote was for a wake up call to the government that things were not rosy. Not about going back to a rule Britannia situation. They have already achieved that by making English the lingua franca...

I think it's a unfortunate situation for all to be in, but at the same time, not everything in life should be about economics...

Its not hard to know why people voted for Brexit. There were a lot of reasons but a majority of them were due to misinformation and not following the rules in place by the government. Its down to UK politicians being incompetent and incapable of standing up for the truth because the lies suited them. Its sickening and I am getting close to losing any sympathy for the country and to try and have any empathy for the people.

Calina

Econ_ wrote: »

The Commons wouldn't be voting to reverse article 50, they would be voting for a referendum on the final terms of the deal with the inclusion of a remain option. It's not going to be overturned without another referendum.

Right now, the prospect of a new referendum seems unlikely. But things can change.

For instance if Soubry's amendment passes in parliament, the UK governments 'plans' for Brexit is thrown out the window. If would lead to more people questioning the entire process and strengthen arguments for another referendum.

The remain option is not within their gift any more because they issued the Article 50 notice. Theoretically, they need either to provide that that notice was not issued in accordance with their own constitutional arrangements or they will need an ECJ ruling on whether Article 50 can be rescinded or not or they need the agreement of the other 27 members at a political level

They are delusional if they think they control the process to the extent of being able to stop it any more.

Water John

Yes, they would have ask the other EU States to suspend/cancel the Art 50 notification. This would only get a positive hearing if, something like the Anna Soubury Amendment was passed, IWT.

First Up

Article 50 is not a negotiating tactic. It's an admission of failure.

The UK has jumped out of the plane without a parachute and its hoping to land in a haystack.

Strazdas

Experience_day wrote: »

I think its hard for us to have a full grasp of why Britain voted for Brexit. I spent considerable time across there as much as here, and there are factors that we are lucky enough not to be afflicted with.

One of which is the idea of the EU overstepping its remit and the chain of command. The commission has become very heavy in its bureaucracy and there is a strong feeling (not just from the Brits) of a lack of accountability.

I think this is deliberately whipped by some into being antieuropean rather than just anti EU.

And obviously the issue around migration played a huge part..

Britain has "enjoyed" a substantial amount of immigration, I know we think of ourselves as open but entire communities have been reshaped in the UK, with very very little oversight. There are swathes of non EU migration and considerable amounts of EU migration.

From people i know in the UK the vote was for a wake up call to the government that things were not rosy. Not about going back to a rule Britannia situation. They have already achieved that by making English the lingua franca...

I think it's a unfortunate situation for all to be in, but at the same time, not everything in life should be about economics...

There are more far Eastern Europeans in Dublin than there are in virtually any city in Britain.

Their immigrant / non national population is not especially high compared to any country in western Europe : only around 12% of the population were born outside the UK. This idea that they have been overrun by "out of control immigration" is largely an invention of their right wing press.

strandroad

Strazdas wrote: »

There are more far Eastern Europeans in Dublin than there are in virtually any city in Britain.

Their immigrant / non national population is not especially high compared to any country in western Europe : only around 12% of the population were born outside the UK. This idea that they have been overrun by "out of control immigration" is largely an invention of their right wing press.

If you're a certain type of Brexiteer, you don't care where people were born; you don't want to see "darkies" around you even if they are third generation...

Strazdas

strandroad wrote: »

If you're a certain type of Brexiteer, you don't care where people were born; you don't want to see "darkies" around you even if they are third generation...

Very true. What the right wing press and Brexit voters are referring to as "immigrants" are probably people speaking with London and Birmingham accents.

Sand

Experience_day wrote: »

I think its hard for us to have a full grasp of why Britain voted for Brexit. I spent considerable time across there as much as here, and there are factors that we are lucky enough not to be afflicted with.

One of which is the idea of the EU overstepping its remit and the chain of command. The commission has become very heavy in its bureaucracy and there is a strong feeling (not just from the Brits) of a lack of accountability.

They are largely mistaken. The EU bureaucracy is lean. The EU budget is about 1% of EU GDP. EU member state governments spend 50 times more on average. UK government spending alone was roughly 7 times that of the EU. Of that 1%, EU governments manage about 80%. Only about 5% of the EU budget (so 0.0005 of EU GDP) goes on 'administration', of which the commission is only a portion.

Its not to say the EU isnt a whipping boy for waste in the UK, but UK taxpayers will find much more corruption and waste in their own government than they will in the EU.

I think this is deliberately whipped by some into being antieuropean rather than just anti EU.

Agreed. I think anti-EU sentiment in the UK is not necessarily artificial, but its definitely managed and controlled for the self interest of the British elites.

And obviously the issue around migration played a huge part..

Yes, this is massive. In many ways, Merkel created a situation in 2015 where the EU had lost control of its borders. People were presented with images of millions of people streaming west and north. Merkel and her colleagues claimed this was the new normal, and Europeans would simply have to accept it.

Europeans are relentlessly clear on this whenever they are polled. They will not accept it. They do not want mass migration. This image of endless movements of people from Africa and Asia was a gift to the Brexiteers.

Britain has "enjoyed" a substantial amount of immigration, I know we think of ourselves as open but entire communities have been reshaped in the UK, with very very little oversight. There are swathes of non EU migration and considerable amounts of EU migration.

Again, agreed. The migration into the UK over the past 20 years has been without historical precedent. The indigenous population of the UK are now a minority within their own capital, and indeed with many towns across the UK. As above, they do not want this. Brexit was perceived as an opportunity to end this mass migration.

The problem is, the policy of mass migration into the UK was always a British government policy, not an EU policy. The Blair government deliberately initiated mass migration into the UK for party political reasons: the aim being to drown the Tories with ethnic minority voters. Brexit is the collateral damage of that policy.

From people i know in the UK the vote was for a wake up call to the government that things were not rosy. Not about going back to a rule Britannia situation. They have already achieved that by making English the lingua franca...

I think it's a unfortunate situation for all to be in, but at the same time, not everything in life should be about economics...

Unfortunately for the people voting Brexit to take back control, Brexit has been hijacked by the Global Britain crew. Their aim is to see more neoliberalism, more migration from the former commonwealth and less control for ordinary voters. The complete opposite of the take back control message.

I think Brexit was a genuine expression of popular will, but if the British peoples really want to take back control their conflict is primarily with their own government and elites. The British political parties (even UKIP effected to be global in outlook) have not offered any genuine platform for what sits behind Brexit. We could be looking at 20-30 years of turmoil in the UK as this works its way out.

Lemming

Sand wrote: »

The indigenous population of the UK are now a minority within their own capital, and indeed with many towns across the UK.

Stats to go with that? 2016 Greater London population modelling says otherwise. Bold emphasis is mine in the below excerpt.

source

Between 2016 and 2041 the total London population is projected to increase by 1.98 million (22 per cent)
to 10.8 million. The housing-led variant projects that the Other White group will see a significant increase,
577 thousand (44 per cent) to 1.89 million. The White British population is projected to increase by 203
thousand (six per cent) to 3.76 million. The BAME (all ethnic groups except the three White groups)
population is projected to increase by 1.19 million (32 per cent) to 4.94 million.

The White British group will remain as the biggest individual ethnic group, by a significant margin, over the
2016 to 2041 period. Over the projection period the second-biggest individual ethnic group will be Other
White. The next largest groups will be Black African (increasing by 31 per cent to 828 thousand in 2041),
Indian (increasing by 32 per cent to 811 thousand in 2041), and Other Asian (increasing by 42 per cent to
671 thousand in 2041).

The most stable groups (i.e. smallest relative change), apart from White British, are projected to be the
White Irish (increasing by only six per cent to 196 thousand in 2041), and Black Caribbean (increasing by
only six per cent to 370 thousand in 2041).

The remaining ethnic groups, including the individual Mixed groups (White & Black Caribbean, White &
Black African, White & Asian, and Other Mixed) and also the Arab group, are all projected to increase
noticeably in relative terms over the period. The Pakistani group is projected to increase by 33 per cent to
351 thousand in 2041.

Sand

Lemming wrote: »

Stats to go with that? 2016 Greater London population modelling says otherwise. Bold emphasis is mine in the below excerpt.

source

It doesn't say otherwise. It says indigenous British/English will be the single biggest ethnic group. But they are still a minority in their own city. And are declining, with the prediction of being the biggest group only extending to another 23 years. London has stopped being an English/British city, and instead become some sort of large helicopter pad for globalism.

If that's a good or a bad thing is arguable. Innit?

Strazdas

Sand wrote: »

It doesn't say otherwise. It says indigenous British/English will be the single biggest ethnic group. But they are still a minority in their own city. And are declining, with the prediction of being the biggest group only extending to another 23 years. London has stopped being an English/British city, and instead become some sort of large helicopter pad for globalism.

If that's a good or a bad thing is arguable. Innit?

Or British colonialism - many people who live in London are there because its former imperial past and connection to Commonwealth countries.

Sand

Strazdas wrote: »

Or British colonialism - many people who live in London are there because its former imperial past and connection to Commonwealth countries.

That presumes mass migration and colonialism are more than trivially linked. If it were true Istanbul, an imperial capital for at least 1600 years would be the capital of the world but its not. London was an imperial capital for about 150-200 years without ever not being an English city. The English only became a minority in London *after* the Empire, not during it.

Many people who live in London are there because of British policies from 1948 on to the present day, and the (largely unintended) consequence of them. The UK is increasingly not a European country, but a global one. The ties that bind it to a European project like the EU are of course weakened. Brexit has arisen because the British peoples have noted the effects of these policies and they do not agree with them. While some well meaning people might advise fatalism, the people who voted for Brexit are not accepting mass migration is inevitable. They don't want to be a minority in their own capital, and they want an end to those policies that facilitate it.

Either British political parties accept this ( and none of them do, including UKIP) or the British conflict between the peoples of Britain and their elites continues for at least another few decades.

The EU can only sit on the sidelines while this struggle plays itself out. Of course, the UK is only one such case. France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are other examples of similar tensions.

joeysoap

Water John wrote: »

A fine long queue, every time they go to and from their apartment in Spain and when they go for their sun holiday would let them know how, the shoe will begin to pinch.

I’m not sure about that, Spain and Portugal need British tourists. Faro has a new airport. They have build brand new passport controls in the past year. About 2 hatches for EU citizens and about 4/6 for non EU. And practically the only EU will be the Brits. (Few Russians in peak season but otherwise ...) As only the Non *Schengen go through passport controls they have worked out that they need more non EU, so I can’t see there be any greater delays for UK than current)

* just after security they separate Schengen and non Schengen when you are departing, then EU and non EU.

trellheim

The ties that bind it to a European project like the EU are of course weakened. Brexit has arisen because the British peoples have noted the effects of these policies and they do not agree with them

In your opinion.

It is not that simple. If it was it would be far simpler. Like it or not the UK remains in Europe post Brexit. The Brexit ref outcome was a protest against many things, not all of which are at the EU's door

Sand

trellheim wrote: »

In your opinion.

It is not that simple. If it was it would be far simpler. Like it or not the UK remains in Europe post Brexit. The Brexit ref outcome was a protest against many things, not all of which are at the EU's door

Agreed, but unfortunately for those looking for a nuanced outcome the decision was a *really* simple in/out on EU membership. Every talking head stated it was a really bad idea for very good reasons. The public voted out anyway. A protest vote to be appeased by an increase in social welfare or a cut in taxes, it was not. It was a statement. This is why support for Brexit remains stubbornly high despite all the economic indicators being bad for CEOs and the City of London.

At some point, observers have to accept that the (largely indigenous) peoples of the UK voted leave against the perceived economic interests of the UK as a whole. Even in economic terms alone, there has been a disconnect between the bankers bonus and the take home pay of the average worker - most of whom cant afford to live in London.

Janan Ganesh is a British journalist. He expressed the views of many of his class before Brexit when he stated that '[The UK] may have to live with a caucus of permanently aggrieved voters amounting to a quarter or a third of the whole....A seething minority is still a minority'. So **** them. Right?

He wrote this from the complacency prior to Brexit, prior to the election of Trump. So from his perspective, which again is the perspective of many today, Brexit is not a directive. It is an error. A mistake. Something which should not have happened. The big mental hurdle to leap is that is it is not. It's a genuine and democratic expression of discontent with the direction the UK, and many other European states, has taken over the past 70 years. Maybe the solution of Ganesh is to remove votes from the 'permanently aggrieved' electorate, but otherwise their government need to stop preaching and start listening.

Strazdas

Sand wrote: »

Agreed, but unfortunately for those looking for a nuanced outcome the decision was a *really* simple in/out on EU membership. Every talking head stated it was a really bad idea for very good reasons. The public voted out anyway. A protest vote to be appeased by an increase in social welfare or a cut in taxes, it was not. It was a statement. This is why support for Brexit remains stubbornly high despite all the economic indicators being bad for CEOs and the City of London.

At some point, observers have to accept that the (largely indigenous) peoples of the UK voted leave against the perceived economic interests of the UK as a whole. Even in economic terms alone, there has been a disconnect between the bankers bonus and the take home pay of the average worker - most of whom cant afford to live in London.

Janan Ganesh is a British journalist. He expressed the views of many of his class before Brexit when he stated that '[The UK] may have to live with a caucus of permanently aggrieved voters amounting to a quarter or a third of the whole....A seething minority is still a minority'. So **** them. Right?

He wrote this from the complacency prior to Brexit, prior to the election of Trump. So from his perspective, which again is the perspective of many today, Brexit is not a directive. It is an error. A mistake. Something which should not have happened. The big mental hurdle to leap is that is it is not. It's a genuine and democratic expression of discontent with the direction the UK, and many other European states, has taken over the past 70 years. Maybe the solution of Ganesh is to remove votes from the 'permanently aggrieved' electorate, but otherwise their government need to stop preaching and start listening.

What exactly would Brexiteers be trying to withdraw from with their vote : the ever increasing globalised world? They see it as a vote to end multiculturalism? My response would be "Good luck with that". They might as well be voting for the country to be 100% white by 2050 or everyone in Britain to be rich.

Sand

Strazdas wrote: »

What exactly would Brexiteers be trying to withdraw from with their vote : the ever increasing globalised world? They see it as a vote to end multiculturalism? My response would be "Good luck with that". They might as well be voting for the country to be 100% white by 2050 or everyone in Britain to be rich.

You misunderstand, I view the 'Ganesh solution' as being removing the vote from the 'permanently aggrieved'.

As for the ever increasingly globalised world and the presumed link to multiculturalism : China was 93% Han in the 1950s. It has hugely, hugely benefited from globalism in the past 60 years. It is 92% Han today. So, the fatalistic idea that global trade and multiculturalism are somehow inseperable is not correct. Multiculturalism in the UK today is a (again, largely unintended) result of 70 years of UK policy. It can be curbed by an end to that UK policy.

The Brexit vote was not a vote against gravity. It was not a vote against prosperity. It was a vote against a national government's policy. People who disagree with the outcome need to grasp that if they truly want to advance the EU agenda. Stop trying to sail directly into the wind. Tack against it.

Peregrinus

Sand wrote: »

It doesn't say otherwise. It says indigenous British/English will be the single biggest ethnic group. But they are still a minority in their own city. And are declining, with the prediction of being the biggest group only extending to another 23 years. London has stopped being an English/British city, and instead become some sort of large helicopter pad for globalism.

If that's a good or a bad thing is arguable. Innit?

Whatever about arguments over whether it's good or bad, it's hardly arguable that a vote to Brexit was a rational response, or that it will do anything to change the situation.

The population of London is about 45% indigenous British (as of the 2011 census). Of the remaining 55%, only about 15% are "other White". If you exclude the Irish, "other White" comes down to 13%. You've got 19% Asian, 13% Black, 5% mixed descent, 3% Other.

Clearly, the Black, Asian and most of the "Other" category are in no way the outcome of EU membership, and Brexit is not necessary for the UK to review or change the policies which have given rise to London's large Black/Asian/Other population. If anything, Brexit seems likely to accelerate the trend; if the factors which give rise to immigration to the UK are not addressed, then any effective restriction on migration from EU countries is likely to be replaced by more migration from elsewhere.

The only way Brexit might tend to reduce migration from non-EU countries would be by making the UK a less attractive place into which to immigrate; this would be the outcome of economic recession, a declining currency and falling real wages. To be fair, Brexit does seem calculated to produce these effects, but I kind of doubt that Brexit voters intended to address whatever migration/identity concerns they had by making themselves poorer.

Furthermore, note that although 55% of the population of London are not indigenous British, only 37% are foreign-born (and some of those, presumably, are foreign-born but nevertheless indigenous British). And, of the foreign born, the great bulk are from non-EU countries. Of the top ten countries for foreign-born Londoners, only 3 are EU countries, and one of these is Ireland. (The others are Poland and France.) The other seven are all Commonwealth countries.

In short, London's ethnic and cultural diversity is not the outcome of EU membership, but of the Commonwealth immigration policies that have been pursued over the past 2 generations. Brexit is not a rational response to that. Even if we explain Brexit as the outcome of cultural insecurity, it does not follow that respect for that feeling means that we must give effect to Brexit. Surely, in fact, if we acknowledge that a a problem then we need to implement policies that will actually address it rather than policies which are more likely to exacerbate it?

murphaph

Sand wrote: »

You misunderstand, I view the 'Ganesh solution' as being removing the vote from the 'permanently aggrieved'.

As for the ever increasingly globalised world and the presumed link to multiculturalism : China was 93% Han in the 1950s. It has hugely, hugely benefited from globalism in the past 60 years. It is 92% Han today. So, the fatalistic idea that global trade and multiculturalism are somehow inseperable is not correct. Multiculturalism in the UK today is a (again, largely unintended) result of 70 years of UK policy. It can be curbed by an end to that UK policy.

The Brexit vote was not a vote against gravity. It was not a vote against prosperity. It was a vote against a national government's policy. People who disagree with the outcome need to grasp that if they truly want to advance the EU agenda. Stop trying to sail directly into the wind. Tack against it.

Surely one of the main reasons the UK has a disproportionate amount of migrants compared to other EU countries (my assumption) is because they speak the language most spoken as a second language.

Don't the other major anglophone countries all exhibit high inward migration? Even Ireland once our economy offered a few jobs was a destination for global inward migration.

The thing is the UK could have controlled non-EU migration completely and they could have indirectly controlled EU migration by enforcing existing EU laws which allow them to send EU migrants home if they are freshly (<5 years) arrived and become a burden on the state.

They could have listened to this seething minority and taken actual action rather than commit economic suicide as a means of possibly reducing migration. It's certainly a case of the treatment being worse than the "disease".

Harika

And to add to the adverse reaction to migration, London voted to stay in the EU http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-06-24/at-a-glance-how-london-voted-in-the-eu-referendum/ what according to the hypothesis should be an overwhelming leave as London is full of foreigners. But this is a general trend across Europe and globally. Areas with a lot of immigration tend to vote more Liberal than regions without migration. See Germany where the Afd is strongest in areas where there is no migration, basically the whole Eastern Germany. Cologne and Berlin with the attacks that made it into the press, no chance for the afd. Same in Austria, the areas with highest migration are also mostly voting Liberal and the far right have it hard to get in there.
I think it is a fair assessment that several factors are playing together that are detached as the press reports in a way it thinks its readers want to read but by doing that avoid the two sides. That's why Essex thinks there are great problems in London with immigration and so votes to solve the issue for them, while themselves experiencing none and London also shrugs those issues off as being able to be handled or seen as overblown. According to the yellow press London is a battlefield with blood and acid running through the streets.

First Up

So is Brexit just a cock up caused by the geographically challenged who thought it would keep "the darkies" out?

Worth mentioning that many of these simpletons spend their saturdays cheering football teams dominated by foreign players and often managed by them too.

Sam Russell

The UK Commons Select Committee on Brexit recomends that UK remain in the EU until they solve the NI border issue.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/uk-should-consider-remaining-in-eu-beyond-march-2019-brexit-committee-proposes-1.3431458

UK should consider remaining in EU beyond March 2019, Brexit committee proposes
Committee chairman Hilary Benn says Border issue ‘deeply concerning’
about 10 hours ago
Denis Staunton London Editor

Britain should consider remaining in the European Union beyond March 2019 to allow more time to resolve issues such as the future of the Border, the House of Commons Brexit committee has proposed.

The cross-party committee says in a report on the current negotiations that Theresa May’s government has made little progress on solving the problem of how to maintain an open Irish border with no checks and no infrastructure, if the UK leaves the customs union and the single market.

“The government must now come forward with credible, detailed proposals as to how it can operate a ‘frictionless border’ between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland because at the moment, the Committee is not persuaded that this can be done at the same time as the UK is leaving the single market and the customs union. We know of no international border, other than the internal borders of the EU, that operates without checks and physical infrastructure. This is deeply concerning,” the committee’s chairman, Labour’s Hilary Benn said.

Tropheus

Brexiteers threaten EU.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/933239/brexit-news-jacob-rees-mogg-leave-means-leave-letter-EU

A LEADING group of Brexiteers has warned the EU to stop bullying Britain and “get on with Brexit” – or face losing our multi-billion pound “divorce” payment.

Do they not understand their place in the modern world? They'll be threatening Russia next

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

So is Brexit just a cock up caused by the geographically challenged who thought it would keep "the darkies" out?

Worth mentioning that many of these simpletons spend their saturdays cheering football teams dominated by foreign players and often managed by them too.

This is quite facile to be honest. If you want to see the truth, follow the money. Take Britian First who've recently been banned by Facebook. Sure, you have your racists there who like the page on Facebook but behind that you have people like Jim Dowson who has fingers in many pies and has even had the page advertise property in Hungary with it's ethnographics or perhaps lack thereof advertised as a selling point. Ultimately though, it's overblown and the media loves to make hay with it to sell papers and ad space. The left-wing press loves to slag the righjt off for racism while the right-wing press in turn likes to slag off the lefties for things like wanting free handouts and being naive. The two ultimately feed off each other, offering ever more populist policies while the moderates who ask questions like "How do we pay for this?" or "What will this do to the economy?" get drowned out.

Here's a good BBC documentary about Britain First if anyone is interested.

Sand states that Blair was hoping to bin the Tories by letting in so many EU migrants. If there's any more info on this, I would be very interested. Perhaps Blair had plans to streamline citizenship applications and was confident of winning the next election so that the requisite 5 years could pass for these EU nationals to be eligible to vote. Only Ireland, Sweden and the UK declined to put restrictions on Eastern EU migration in place following their accession to the EU.

The other thing to bear in mind is that most people aren't terribly interested in Politics so a lot of people voting for Leave, or indeed Remain for that matter probably made up their minds very quickly based on the messages that went into their houses or devices. That's not a good thing but it's ubiquitous across the world. Too many people just look for the party they usually vote for on the ballot paper and put an "X" in the corresponding box and on they get with their lives.

Ultimately though, I think Brexit was the result of a perfect storm:

[*]NHS: Successive Blair governments were responsible for the PFI scandal which is still a major drain on NHS finances. Factor in the fact that the state seems to have no interest in evolving the service to meet the demands of an ageing population and a lack of interest in properly increasing its funding or specialising hospitals further and it's no surprise that it was a major talking point during the debate.

[*]Immigration: As with the NHS, various governments involving all 3 major parties really should have done better with managing immigration. Houses were not built in sufficient quantities while existing social housing stock continued to be sold off. New Garden cities could have been built during the boom, more could have been invested in social housing to protect the poorest Britons from homelessness or the government could have restricted it for years while developing a long term strategy. Instead, a laissez-faire attitude was adopted. Things were going fine so nobody rocked the boat and northern towns which are quite poor and received no support for Westminster voted to Leave when given the chance.

[*]Sovereignty: Ultimately, I think that much of the British establishment was hoping for a "Remain" win from the referendum, even among Leave leaning but not pro-Leave contingents within and without the Conservative party. It would have settled the question for a generation. However, the narrative that the UK is actually run by Brussels has permeated deep into the minds of many voters. The Ashcroft polls ascribe 49% of the Leave vote to Sovereignty which is massive, especially compared to the 33% who say they were primarily concerned about immigration.

I do not know what is going to happen next. I don't think that a second referendum yielding a slight win for remain will fix anything. British society is deeply unequal and divided. Many cosmopolitans resent being dragged out of the European project by the lower classes while said lower classes struggle to see the EU and the establishment as a fixed game with the odds being stacked overwhelmingly against them. This needs addressing urgently. The right Brexit might do that. I don't know how that might happen but if the elites finally see that this schism needs addressing then that might lead to some progress and perhaps even a re-entry to the EU.

ancapailldorcha

Tropheus wrote: »

Brexiteers threaten EU.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/933239/brexit-news-jacob-rees-mogg-leave-means-leave-letter-EU

Do they not understand their place in the modern world? They'll be threatening Russia next

That's not a threat to be honest. It's empty posturing for the benefit of looking strong. A paper tiger if you will. What they fail to understand is that nobody in Brussels is going to care one whit about nonsense like this.

trellheim

They are technically correct ref the divorce payment but since that implies a hard Brexit , so much the worse for them. There is narrative in the past, did we ourselves not have to pay certain sums regularly to the British post Independence

Sam Russell

trellheim wrote: »

They are technically correct ref the divorce payment but since that implies a hard Brexit , so much the worse for them. There is narrative in the past, did we ourselves not have to pay certain sums regularly to the British post Independence

I think that failing to pay their dues will be tantamount to declaring a trade war. That will not go well for the UK, and as is said often 'No one wins a trade war'.

The exit payment is only paying for those charges that they had already agreed to, so welshing on them would be considered a hostile act and result in retaliation. Now the UK want to continue as best mates as far as Russia and defense/security is concerned, I think refusing to pay your debts will not end well.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

The thing is the UK could have controlled non-EU migration completely and they could have indirectly controlled EU migration by enforcing existing EU laws which allow them to send EU migrants home if they are freshly (<5 years) arrived and become a burden on the state.

Yes it theory, but not if you want to get re-elected! There is a large shall, we say, ex Commonwealth block of voters, so bit of a problem there. On the EU side the requirement to threat all EU citizens the same as your own makes it hard to argue the they have to leave on economic grounds when their entitlement to benefits means they can live the same way a sizable block of the population do. Unless you reduce everyone’s benefits and and that is not a vote winner for sure.