7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
Genuine question but are you aware of the problems that arise from building on peat bogs?
A very short sighted answer for a long standing problem.
Also, have you factored in the environmental impact of destroying said bogs?
Something needs to be done but this, for me, is both a pointless and a ridiculous suggestion.
It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion, but I suspect you knew that already! It was merely illustrative of the ridiculous claim, that we hear far too often, that the UK is only a small island and we are full up.
I was just making a change from the often used golf club to housing in Surrey ration...
You could, and probably should, have whooshed me
I think the 'full up' claim refers to, as @Valiantphil has been championing, the lack of school places, public services, hospital beds etc.
I think most people are aware that we're a green and pleasant land.
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
I accept that this is your view, but to bring the infrastructure and services up to the required standard (for today) will take several years. During which time, we have no idea what our population may have risen to, so we could be building infrastructure on all this spare space and peat bogs that is not fit for purpose on the day of completion.
Sad to see you say that how we want our environment to look and deliver for us in the future is pointless and hypothetical. For me, it is very much about the kind of UK we are going to leave to our grandchildren - full to the rafters with folk falling through the social safety nets and living in overcrowded sub-standard housing, or living in a UK that provides for the needs of its population, whether that be a medical appointment or a stroll on the peat bog with the dog.
As I have said before - NHS service times, Housing shortage, transport congestion, lack of school places (for me) all point towards too many people using up the availability. Blaming the past on Tories, Gordon, Tony or whoever, is not going to help us deal with the problem we face NOW.
In a post-referendum study of why people voted (for either option), Economy (21%) was top of the "most important factors when deciding how to vote", immigration was next with (20%), sovereignty was third (17%). So it would seem that Remain voters put the economy first, and the Leave vote was mainly made up of the other two factors.
This is why we have to turn off the tap before we fix the leak in the bath so the repair can set and dry - that is, reduce immigration while we bring our services up to standard for the existing population.
Then we can proceed from there, according to our predicted needs for a controlled population number.
To pick up on your tap analogy, if we had an overflowing bath, I'm pretty sure we would get a plumber to make sure both taps were working properly, not just turn off one before deciding to smash the thing to pieces anyway and go back to having a wash down in front of the coal fire!
1. As I have said before, I am not in favour of telling folk where in the UK they can settle. One hopes that migrants settle where the work and housing are available, but I wonder if this is true in practice.
I haven't seen a breakdown of the age/marital status etc, but it's a big stretch to say that EU migrants are less likely to have the sort of impact as I described on schools/public services/housing. An average person from the EU is the same as an average person already in the UK - and we can each measure what demand we make as individuals on the above items. I don't think it makes a difference where folk originated.
The educational standard / "quality" of migrant is not an issue for me, and I agree that many future experts (like prof Heinz Woolf) will emerge from this part of the population.
2. Yes, there are a few that hold this view, but again I don't think it is representative of a big section of Brits, nor a core reason why folk voted Brexit.
3. Just like the UK - any country that wants to buy our stuff will be encouraged to do so, and I don't think those former Commonwealth nations will be holding any sort of grudge about being "abandoned" by UK many years ago. I was in Sth Africa recently and those guys are itching to revive the old days of Cape fruit and veg being sold into the UK post Brexit.
4. Yes, maybe you are right. The Trump speech tonight was a bit scary.
Nothing wrong with a dangerous lefty, just thank heaven we live in a country with freedom of speech.
1. In effect, with Freedom of Movement, intra-EU economic migration is the same as internal economic migration (or Irish to the UK). Because of the lack of barriers, migration is not necessarily assumed to be permanent. Historically, in these circumstances, people migrate at an earlier age and without families. This is not to say that migrants might not marry during their sojourn - almost every Irish family will have relatives abroad who are the result of such marriage. The same patterns can be seen for just about every migrant group other than refugees. I'm on my phone, and struggle with links, but there are research papers easily available on EU migration (I'm inclined to lean towards the ones published by Parliament).
The age profile (most migrants are in their 20s or 30s), the general lack of children and/or parents brought with them, and the fact that most are in work, would logically suggest that they will be less of a drain on resources than the wider population.
Depending on the migrants' background, obviously, things can change over time, as people settle, but I very much doubt that, with the exception of the Roma (who are, frankly, persecuted in many parts if Europe - and who, along with the homosexuals, were not offered a state of their own following their experience of the Holocaust), there is likely to be significant numbers of extended family members seeking to enter the country as family members rather than economic migrants in their own right (second or third generation chain migration, where relatives may help find a job and accommodation, but really do not intend migrants to live with them).
2. I don't think that Fintan O'Toole suggested, other than a nostalgic feeling, that an imperial nationalism is widely and sincerely held among the majority in the UK (though it appears more popular among those that see themselves as opinion formers in the media and politics than the wider population - and it is these people that helped create the "sore tooth"), rather that it is one variety of English nationalism. We could debate forever the degree to which those things that might be ascribed to imperial nationalism are real or ironic.... Or possibly not.
If influential people and opinion formers (because they own media channels and shape the debate) hold to an imperial nationalist line, even if it represents a tiny percentage of the population, it will be important. I will say that the number of times I have read comments (often below online articles in The Guardian) where suggestions have been made that the UK should threaten the EU with military force, or to withdraw defence cooperation within NATO, if the EU was not willing to give the UK what it wanted, would make me believe that imperial nationalism may be more prevalent than we would have expected.
As an aside, I did like the fact that he shares my view that the historical triumph of English nationalism has been the construction of a Britishness largely in its own image.
3. I've been buying South African fruit for years (since the end of Apartheid - I am right on like that). Membership if the EU has not prevented this trade. Indeed, the continued importation of South African fruit in the days of Apartheid was the cause of prolonged industrial action in Ireland (look up the Dunnes Stores workers dispute).
I do agree that, provided it is in their interests, all countries will trade with each other. And yes, in the Commonwealth a number of countries are looking forward to the opportunities provided by Brexit, because they see the renegotiation of WTO schedules as an opportunity to increase their access to the current EU market. We have already seen the first shots across the bow, in conjunction with Argentina and the USA, in this regard. But it's not because they are Commonwealth countries, or in any way pro-UK, their reaction to the outline agreement between the UK and EU27 on splitting the EU's WTO quotas is, if anything, anti-UK (certainly anti-UK producer).
The Commonwealth countries will not, as you say, be holding a grudge, but equally they won't be doing any favours. They will, quite rightly, prioritise their own interests and seek to maximise trading benefits, including, potentially, dealing with the EU first in trade negotiations.
It is Liam Fox and his ilk that have made comments that suggests that at least some at the heart of Brexit believe the Commonwealth will, like the 7th Cavalry in the old Westerns, ride to the rescue for UK trade. It may happen, and I'm very definitely not saying that it won't happen, but I'm fairly sure that neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Justin Trudeau are John Wayne.
Re 2. Better wait til we get that leaky aircraft carrier fixed :-)
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
Genuine question but are you aware of the problems that arise from building on peat bogs?
A very short sighted answer for a long standing problem.
Also, have you factored in the environmental impact of destroying said bogs?
Something needs to be done but this, for me, is both a pointless and a ridiculous suggestion.
It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion, but I suspect you knew that already! It was merely illustrative of the ridiculous claim, that we hear far too often, that the UK is only a small island and we are full up.
I was just making a change from the often used golf club to housing in Surrey ration...
You could, and probably should, have whooshed me
I think the 'full up' claim refers to, as @Valiantphil has been championing, the lack of school places, public services, hospital beds etc.
I think most people are aware that we're a green and pleasant land.
Do you? Maybe the majority might but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen and heard Leavers state that the UK (often England) is an island and it's full up with immigrants...
Anyway, there's little point in going over old ground again. I'm more interested in where we're heading and how to get there than rerunning the referendum argument tbh.
1. As I have said before, I am not in favour of telling folk where in the UK they can settle. One hopes that migrants settle where the work and housing are available, but I wonder if this is true in practice.
I haven't seen a breakdown of the age/marital status etc, but it's a big stretch to say that EU migrants are less likely to have the sort of impact as I described on schools/public services/housing. An average person from the EU is the same as an average person already in the UK - and we can each measure what demand we make as individuals on the above items. I don't think it makes a difference where folk originated.
The educational standard / "quality" of migrant is not an issue for me, and I agree that many future experts (like prof Heinz Woolf) will emerge from this part of the population.
2. Yes, there are a few that hold this view, but again I don't think it is representative of a big section of Brits, nor a core reason why folk voted Brexit.
3. Just like the UK - any country that wants to buy our stuff will be encouraged to do so, and I don't think those former Commonwealth nations will be holding any sort of grudge about being "abandoned" by UK many years ago. I was in Sth Africa recently and those guys are itching to revive the old days of Cape fruit and veg being sold into the UK post Brexit.
4. Yes, maybe you are right. The Trump speech tonight was a bit scary.
Nothing wrong with a dangerous lefty, just thank heaven we live in a country with freedom of speech.
1. In effect, with Freedom of Movement, intra-EU economic migration is the same as internal economic migration (or Irish to the UK). Because of the lack of barriers, migration is not necessarily assumed to be permanent. Historically, in these circumstances, people migrate at an earlier age and without families. This is not to say that migrants might not marry during their sojourn - almost every Irish family will have relatives abroad who are the result of such marriage. The same patterns can be seen for just about every migrant group other than refugees. I'm on my phone, and struggle with links, but there are research papers easily available on EU migration (I'm inclined to lean towards the ones published by Parliament).
The age profile (most migrants are in their 20s or 30s), the general lack of children and/or parents brought with them, and the fact that most are in work, would logically suggest that they will be less of a drain on resources than the wider population.
Depending on the migrants' background, obviously, things can change over time, as people settle, but I very much doubt that, with the exception of the Roma (who are, frankly, persecuted in many parts if Europe - and who, along with the homosexuals, were not offered a state of their own following their experience of the Holocaust), there is likely to be significant numbers of extended family members seeking to enter the country as family members rather than economic migrants in their own right (second or third generation chain migration, where relatives may help find a job and accommodation, but really do not intend migrants to live with them).
2. I don't think that Fintan O'Toole suggested, other than a nostalgic feeling, that an imperial nationalism is widely and sincerely held among the majority in the UK (though it appears more popular among those that see themselves as opinion formers in the media and politics than the wider population - and it is these people that helped create the "sore tooth"), rather that it is one variety of English nationalism. We could debate forever the degree to which those things that might be ascribed to imperial nationalism are real or ironic.... Or possibly not.
If influential people and opinion formers (because they own media channels and shape the debate) hold to an imperial nationalist line, even if it represents a tiny percentage of the population, it will be important. I will say that the number of times I have read comments (often below online articles in The Guardian) where suggestions have been made that the UK should threaten the EU with military force, or to withdraw defence cooperation within NATO, if the EU was not willing to give the UK what it wanted, would make me believe that imperial nationalism may be more prevalent than we would have expected.
As an aside, I did like the fact that he shares my view that the historical triumph of English nationalism has been the construction of a Britishness largely in its own image.
3. I've been buying South African fruit for years (since the end of Apartheid - I am right on like that). Membership if the EU has not prevented this trade. Indeed, the continued importation of South African fruit in the days of Apartheid was the cause of prolonged industrial action in Ireland (look up the Dunnes Stores workers dispute).
I do agree that, provided it is in their interests, all countries will trade with each other. And yes, in the Commonwealth a number of countries are looking forward to the opportunities provided by Brexit, because they see the renegotiation of WTO schedules as an opportunity to increase their access to the current EU market. We have already seen the first shots across the bow, in conjunction with Argentina and the USA, in this regard. But it's not because they are Commonwealth countries, or in any way pro-UK, their reaction to the outline agreement between the UK and EU27 on splitting the EU's WTO quotas is, if anything, anti-UK (certainly anti-UK producer).
The Commonwealth countries will not, as you say, be holding a grudge, but equally they won't be doing any favours. They will, quite rightly, prioritise their own interests and seek to maximise trading benefits, including, potentially, dealing with the EU first in trade negotiations.
It is Liam Fox and his ilk that have made comments that suggests that at least some at the heart of Brexit believe the Commonwealth will, like the 7th Cavalry in the old Westerns, ride to the rescue for UK trade. It may happen, and I'm very definitely not saying that it won't happen, but I'm fairly sure that neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Justin Trudeau are John Wayne.
Re 2. Better wait til we get that leaky aircraft carrier fixed :-)
To say nothing of getting the aircraft for it to carry...
I'm not an armchair general/admiral/air chief marshal, but I'm inclined to worry about the direction of UK military procurement.
It looks very likely that the UK will end up with aircraft carriers but not the support, assault and defensive vessels necessary to make aircraft carriers an effective means of projecting force overseas. If you have aircraft carriers but cannot reasonably safely send them far from home, you end up with little more than very expensive airfields that could have been provided much more cheaply, with more fighting aircraft, on land. Even force projection abroad will rarely require carrier-borne aircraft. An awful lot of what the new carriers can achieve can be provided by conventionally armed cruise missiles aboard submarines.
At the same time, the army is shrinking to levels not seen in modern times, and the RAF is also declining.
Perhaps there is a reason why some politicians seem to revel in the idea of resurrecting an Elizabethan English spirit (for the post Brexit environment), handily, for them, central Government was almost non-existent and almost every service or activity that we expect today was provided either by charity (health and social services?) or by private enterprise (including naval power, colonial settlement in Ireland and the Americas, and, with privately raised regiments and mercenaries, the army), or was non-existent....
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
Genuine question but are you aware of the problems that arise from building on peat bogs?
A very short sighted answer for a long standing problem.
Also, have you factored in the environmental impact of destroying said bogs?
Something needs to be done but this, for me, is both a pointless and a ridiculous suggestion.
It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion, but I suspect you knew that already! It was merely illustrative of the ridiculous claim, that we hear far too often, that the UK is only a small island and we are full up.
I was just making a change from the often used golf club to housing in Surrey ration...
You could, and probably should, have whooshed me
I think the 'full up' claim refers to, as @Valiantphil has been championing, the lack of school places, public services, hospital beds etc.
I think most people are aware that we're a green and pleasant land.
Do you? Maybe the majority might but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen and heard Leavers state that the UK (often England) is an island and it's full up with immigrants...
Anyway, there's little point in going over old ground again. I'm more interested in where we're heading and how to get there than rerunning the referendum argument tbh.
In my area parents have struggled to get a school place for their children. Two new primary schools have been built in the last 6 or 7 years, another is on it's way and a 4th was just denied planning permission. We've had an influx of Eastern Europeans and unfortunately many of the residents here have put two and two together and come up with five, as according to them, there are no spaces due to all the immigrants. They fail to take into account that only a small percentage of the children in the schools are of non-British descent.
The real reason for the shortage is boom in both house building and births in the area in the late 00s and early 10s. The local council has never acted fast enough to keep up with the boom, but they cannot seem to get this into their heads despite my attempts to persuade them. We've had this anti-immigrant rhetoric plastered all over the news for the last few years and people believe it and use it as an excuse for everything that's wrong, instead of looking at where the real issues lie, which is with our government and the local authorities.
So whilst we have problems, the real issue is trying to get across to people that they need to look further than the Daily Mail or Express to understand why things are going wrong in this country.
Really, really good analysis of a toxic situation and that cancelling Brexit still remains the best solution.
There are and always were discrete options: 1) No deal - fairly traumatic for UK plc 2) Canada - not much better 3) Norway + CU - Brexit in name only 4) Abort the process
Option 1 has virtually disappeared. Canada +++ doesn't exist so 2018 is a choice between option 2 and 3.
Option 4 comes into play should option 3 beat option 2. Commentators are already stating what's the point of Brexit?!
For now we have a choice between Canada and Norway. If people thought phase one was brutal on the UK, then they should wait to see phase two! The Brexiloons will continue with their walk away mantra sponsored by the Mail. The rest of us can simply keep calm and observe... with the assistance of commentators such as Fintan O'Toole.
Agreed that Canada+ (ie including services) certainly does not exist yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Barnier is setting up his stall by ruling out a special offer for the City of London. This is what a Canada+ deal would include.
May has responded, via a spokesman, stating that Britain seeks a "significantly more ambitious" agreement with Brussels than its one with Canada. In addition, it is reiterated that a Norway-style arrangement would be "democratically unsustainable, because it would mean automatically adopting all EU rules without influence or a vote". In other words, as I have stated frequently, no point in leaving if this is the way forward.
We all know that these are negotiating tactics. To rule out, at this stage, any potential option, makes no sense. This will go to the wire as all EU negotiations do.
Really, really good analysis of a toxic situation and that cancelling Brexit still remains the best solution.
There are and always were discrete options: 1) No deal - fairly traumatic for UK plc 2) Canada - not much better 3) Norway + CU - Brexit in name only 4) Abort the process
Option 1 has virtually disappeared. Canada +++ doesn't exist so 2018 is a choice between option 2 and 3.
Option 4 comes into play should option 3 beat option 2. Commentators are already stating what's the point of Brexit?!
For now we have a choice between Canada and Norway. If people thought phase one was brutal on the UK, then they should wait to see phase two! The Brexiloons will continue with their walk away mantra sponsored by the Mail. The rest of us can simply keep calm and observe... with the assistance of commentators such as Fintan O'Toole.
Agreed that Canada+ (ie including services) certainly does not exist yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Barnier is setting up his stall by ruling out a special offer for the City of London. This is what a Canada+ deal would include.
May has responded, via a spokesman, stating that Britain seeks a "significantly more ambitious" agreement with Brussels than its one with Canada. In addition, it is reiterated that a Norway-style arrangement would be "democratically unsustainable, because it would mean automatically adopting all EU rules without influence or a vote".
We all know that these are negotiating tactics. To rule out, at this stage, any potential option, makes no sense. This will go to the wire as all EU negotiations do.
My understanding, which is imperfect, is that if the EU and UK agree a Free Trade Agreement that is substantially better than the other FTAs that the EU has agreed those other countries will demand equal treatment (there are some who have suggested that this is written into the agreements, however, despite all the indications to the contrary, my life is not so "interesting" that I read such documents for pleasure).
My view would be that the political agreement of a framework for the future relationship next October, for ratification prior to Brexit, will be a choice of Single Market, Customs Union, or Free Trade Agreement. I really don't think there is any chance of agreeing anything much beyond that, and the EU have always been clear that the detailed trade negotiations are a post Brexit activity. If the UK is genuinely going for the sort of deal that Davis and May suggest, I'd be amazed if that could be agreed and ratified within the two year transition period.
Mind you, the stated and opposed views on any transition period make such a thing unlikely without some form of climb down.
Barnier will only negotiate what he is mandated to negotiate by the EU 27, if they say no to Canada+, he has no power to agree it.
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
I for one have no desire to see much more of our beautiful island concreted but then the reality for me in the area I live in has seen a dramatic transformation where town houses have been converted into flats and so we have three times as many people trying to live in the same amount of space as before. The roads are constantly gridlocked, local infrastructure is at breaking point and property prices continue to climb. This is generally down to our position as a desirable commuter belt town so it is largely the pull of London that is impacting us as opposed to EU migrants filling up the place.
So whilst I mirror Valiantphil's view that we should be aware of the dangers of overcrowding, he seems to be completely missing the point as to how this has little to do with the EU.
Firstly, the figure on long term EU migrants every 5 minutes is more or less unverifiable. EU migrants are not asked on their arrival how long they intend to stay and EU nationals are not counted out of the country.
Secondly, the housing shortage is really only an affordable housing shortage. If you look on any property buying/renting website or search on those subletting or advertising spare rooms you will find thousands of listings in the busiest areas. Generally speaking, EU migrants earn well, are less likely to bring children or parents with them and are net tax contributors. You are conflating the non-issue of an EU migrant finding somewhere to live with a British family in poverty unable to find suitable housing.
Thirdly, the overcrowding of services is more accurately described as an underfunding of services and again this is largely affecting low income British families as opposed to EU nationals. An EU national is far less likely to have children in school or become a burden on the health system due to the very nature of their reason for coming to the UK - their skills are in demand and they are young, fit, healthy and mobile, as well intelligent enough not only to possess skills but also confident enough to have conversational skills in a country infamous for being generally poor at foreign languages. Public services are not getting worse because more EU migrants are using them but because their funding is not in line with what is required of them and that has much more to do with lifestyle changes and the professional requirements of those working in these services, including for example a chronic shortage of teachers to match the modern demands of the role. These are all issues firmly within the control of our own government.
As I have said before, our government and our media have been allowed to get away with blaming their political and ideological failings and the consequences of refusing to adapt to a modern, globalised economy on our EU membership when really the underlying causes of the issues that vex Brexiters so much are almost entirely down to domestic policy as opposed to a consequence of our membership of the EU.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Thank you for this answer. I probably, no definitely qualify as a milk cryer for what ever days I have left because the money and the finance means as little to me as immigration does to you. There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone. I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Really, really good analysis of a toxic situation and that cancelling Brexit still remains the best solution.
There are and always were discrete options: 1) No deal - fairly traumatic for UK plc 2) Canada - not much better 3) Norway + CU - Brexit in name only 4) Abort the process
Option 1 has virtually disappeared. Canada +++ doesn't exist so 2018 is a choice between option 2 and 3.
Option 4 comes into play should option 3 beat option 2. Commentators are already stating what's the point of Brexit?!
For now we have a choice between Canada and Norway. If people thought phase one was brutal on the UK, then they should wait to see phase two! The Brexiloons will continue with their walk away mantra sponsored by the Mail. The rest of us can simply keep calm and observe... with the assistance of commentators such as Fintan O'Toole.
Agreed that Canada+ (ie including services) certainly does not exist yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Barnier is setting up his stall by ruling out a special offer for the City of London. This is what a Canada+ deal would include.
May has responded, via a spokesman, stating that Britain seeks a "significantly more ambitious" agreement with Brussels than its one with Canada. In addition, it is reiterated that a Norway-style arrangement would be "democratically unsustainable, because it would mean automatically adopting all EU rules without influence or a vote".
We all know that these are negotiating tactics. To rule out, at this stage, any potential option, makes no sense. This will go to the wire as all EU negotiations do.
My understanding, which is imperfect, is that if the EU and UK agree a Free Trade Agreement that is substantially better than the other FTAs that the EU has agreed those other countries will demand equal treatment (there are some who have suggested that this is written into the agreements, however, despite all the indications to the contrary, my life is not so "interesting" that I read such documents for pleasure).
My view would be that the political agreement of a framework for the future relationship next October, for ratification prior to Brexit, will be a choice of Single Market, Customs Union, or Free Trade Agreement. I really don't think there is any chance of agreeing anything much beyond that, and the EU have always been clear that the detailed trade negotiations are a post Brexit activity. If the UK is genuinely going for the sort of deal that Davis and May suggest, I'd be amazed if that could be agreed and ratified within the two year transition period.
Mind you, the stated and opposed views on any transition period make such a thing unlikely without some form of climb down.
Barnier will only negotiate what he is mandated to negotiate by the EU 27, if they say no to Canada+, he has no power to agree it.
I am also no expert, but the reason why I refer to Canada+ is that the Canada deal does not include services, whereas a UK/EU would need to include a solution in order to address these issues.
Therefore, it is a different type of deal and not equitable. I am not convinced the EU27 would be opposed to such negotiations. Isn’t it better for all to clarify how this will work?
However, I would need to learn more about this ‘equal treatment’ arrangement to which you are referring.. however, as I am not a negotiator, that can wait until the New Year
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Population is a world, a planetary problem. Creating a bubble over certain places does not provide a solution in my view, it buys temporary respite that's all.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Thank you for this answer. I probably, no definitely qualify as a milk cryer for what ever days I have left because the money and the finance means as little to me as immigration does to you. There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone. I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Well I'm the eternal optimist so there is always so much to look forward to. On a personal level, things like watching my kids grow up (or grand-children if you are of a certain age), enjoying life with my family in general, holidays, hobbies, getting rid of Roland, our rise again to the Premier League, etc etc. There's more to life than politics.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Thank you for this answer. I probably, no definitely qualify as a milk cryer for what ever days I have left because the money and the finance means as little to me as immigration does to you. There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone. I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Well I'm the eternal optimist so there is always so much to look forward to. On a personal level, things like watching my kids grow up (or grand-children if you are of a certain age), enjoying life with my family in general, holidays, hobbies, getting rid of Roland, our rise again to the Premier League, etc etc. There's more to life than politics.
I was speaking politically. In the political sense where I once thought the UK had made a positive political move forward in my lifetime, I must now watch it get thrown away. I have relatives in Ireland and Germany so on a personal level that does have an impact, as well as the rise of low level casual racism towards my son since the referendum. In that context a 'deal' means little to me, and I can see no benefits at all, especially when contemplating the practicalities that the UK politicians are supposed to deal with. If you can persuade me that brexit will be any good on a non personal level I am all ears, because on a personal level it is already damaging.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Thank you for this answer. I probably, no definitely qualify as a milk cryer for what ever days I have left because the money and the finance means as little to me as immigration does to you. There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone. I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Well I'm the eternal optimist so there is always so much to look forward to. On a personal level, things like watching my kids grow up (or grand-children if you are of a certain age), enjoying life with my family in general, holidays, hobbies, getting rid of Roland, our rise again to the Premier League, etc etc. There's more to life than politics.
I was speaking politically. In the political sense where I once thought the UK had made a positive political move forward in my lifetime, I must now watch it get thrown away. I have relatives in Ireland and Germany so on a personal level that does have an impact, as well as the rise of low level casual racism towards my son since the referendum. In that context a 'deal' means little to me, and I can see no benefits at all, especially when contemplating the practicalities that the UK politicians are supposed to deal with. If you can persuade me that brexit will be any good on a non personal level I am all ears, because on a personal level it is already damaging.
It goes back to what I said previously I guess. Both sides are going to have some bitter pills to swallow. Remainers because the referendum result went against them and leavers because it was tight and the 48% needs to be recognised. I believe that during the negotiations, the UK will need to soften their approach to Brexit if they want a satisfactory deal that our parliament will ratify. It's about compromise, which people hate to do, but sometimes it's necessary. There are often many things in our lives that are beyond our control, and this is one of those situations.
I feel for you and more particularly for your son as nobody should be subjected to that type of behaviour, but unfortunately I don't have the answers you need. I can't tell you how to cope going forward, it's something that the individual is going to need to work out for themselves. Clearly the first thing we all need to do is to wait and see how the next phase of negotiations go, so we can build up a picture of what our future is going to look like. Only then can we understand what it all means for each of us personally.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Thank you for this answer. I probably, no definitely qualify as a milk cryer for what ever days I have left because the money and the finance means as little to me as immigration does to you. There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone. I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Well I'm the eternal optimist so there is always so much to look forward to. On a personal level, things like watching my kids grow up (or grand-children if you are of a certain age), enjoying life with my family in general, holidays, hobbies, getting rid of Roland, our rise again to the Premier League, etc etc. There's more to life than politics.
I was speaking politically. In the political sense where I once thought the UK had made a positive political move forward in my lifetime, I must now watch it get thrown away. I have relatives in Ireland and Germany so on a personal level that does have an impact, as well as the rise of low level casual racism towards my son since the referendum. In that context a 'deal' means little to me, and I can see no benefits at all, especially when contemplating the practicalities that the UK politicians are supposed to deal with. If you can persuade me that brexit will be any good on a non personal level I am all ears, because on a personal level it is already damaging.
It goes back to what I said previously I guess. Both sides are going to have some bitter pills to swallow. Remainers because the referendum result went against them and leavers because it was tight and the 48% needs to be recognised. I believe that during the negotiations, the UK will need to soften their approach to Brexit if they want a satisfactory deal that our parliament will ratify. It's about compromise, which people hate to do, but sometimes it's necessary. There are often many things in our lives that are beyond our control, and this is one of those situations.
I feel for you and more particularly for your son as nobody should be subjected to that type of behaviour, but unfortunately I don't have the answers you need. I can't tell you how to cope going forward, it's something that the individual is going to need to work out for themselves. Clearly the first thing we all need to do is to wait and see how the next phase of negotiations go, so we can build up a picture of what our future is going to look like. Only then can we understand what it all means for each of us personally.
This bit seems to spectacularly go over most people's heads. A system where the 48 million people who did not back Brexit are effectively disenfranchised and threatened with abuse/violence if they speak up cannot under any reasonable definition be considered democratic.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Thank you for this answer. I probably, no definitely qualify as a milk cryer for what ever days I have left because the money and the finance means as little to me as immigration does to you. There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone. I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Well I'm the eternal optimist so there is always so much to look forward to. On a personal level, things like watching my kids grow up (or grand-children if you are of a certain age), enjoying life with my family in general, holidays, hobbies, getting rid of Roland, our rise again to the Premier League, etc etc. There's more to life than politics.
I was speaking politically. In the political sense where I once thought the UK had made a positive political move forward in my lifetime, I must now watch it get thrown away. I have relatives in Ireland and Germany so on a personal level that does have an impact, as well as the rise of low level casual racism towards my son since the referendum. In that context a 'deal' means little to me, and I can see no benefits at all, especially when contemplating the practicalities that the UK politicians are supposed to deal with. If you can persuade me that brexit will be any good on a non personal level I am all ears, because on a personal level it is already damaging.
It goes back to what I said previously I guess. Both sides are going to have some bitter pills to swallow. Remainers because the referendum result went against them and leavers because it was tight and the 48% needs to be recognised. I believe that during the negotiations, the UK will need to soften their approach to Brexit if they want a satisfactory deal that our parliament will ratify. It's about compromise, which people hate to do, but sometimes it's necessary. There are often many things in our lives that are beyond our control, and this is one of those situations.
I feel for you and more particularly for your son as nobody should be subjected to that type of behaviour, but unfortunately I don't have the answers you need. I can't tell you how to cope going forward, it's something that the individual is going to need to work out for themselves. Clearly the first thing we all need to do is to wait and see how the next phase of negotiations go, so we can build up a picture of what our future is going to look like. Only then can we understand what it all means for each of us personally.
This bit seems to spectacularly go over most people's heads. A system where the 48 million people who did not back Brexit are effectively disenfranchised and threatened with abuse/violence if they speak up cannot under any reasonable definition be considered democratic.
48 million?
Surely just a few of them were a little too young to vote?
And they have all effectively been threatened with abuse/violence?
It’s disgusting that abuse has happened but please don’t distort the figures to suit your argument.
You normally take more care not to go over the top.
Surely just a few of them were a little too young to vote?
And they have all effectively been threatened with abuse/violence?
It’s disgusting that abuse has happened but please don’t distort the figures to suit your argument.
You normally take more care not to go over the top.
Those who cannot or did not vote are still entitled to representation in Parliament, their MP is expected to represent their interests as equally at those who are eligible to vote; a parent may take a child to a constituency clinic if their family has a grievance, for example. And when those MPs who defend the interests of the non-Brexit supporting are sent death threats, or called traitors or enemies of the people in the national press, then their constituents are also being indirectly attacked.
A democracy involves every citizen, not just those who happened to be in right camp on a specific day.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Thank you for this answer. I probably, no definitely qualify as a milk cryer for what ever days I have left because the money and the finance means as little to me as immigration does to you. There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone. I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Well I'm the eternal optimist so there is always so much to look forward to. On a personal level, things like watching my kids grow up (or grand-children if you are of a certain age), enjoying life with my family in general, holidays, hobbies, getting rid of Roland, our rise again to the Premier League, etc etc. There's more to life than politics.
I was speaking politically. In the political sense where I once thought the UK had made a positive political move forward in my lifetime, I must now watch it get thrown away. I have relatives in Ireland and Germany so on a personal level that does have an impact, as well as the rise of low level casual racism towards my son since the referendum. In that context a 'deal' means little to me, and I can see no benefits at all, especially when contemplating the practicalities that the UK politicians are supposed to deal with. If you can persuade me that brexit will be any good on a non personal level I am all ears, because on a personal level it is already damaging.
It goes back to what I said previously I guess. Both sides are going to have some bitter pills to swallow. Remainers because the referendum result went against them and leavers because it was tight and the 48% needs to be recognised. I believe that during the negotiations, the UK will need to soften their approach to Brexit if they want a satisfactory deal that our parliament will ratify. It's about compromise, which people hate to do, but sometimes it's necessary. There are often many things in our lives that are beyond our control, and this is one of those situations.
I feel for you and more particularly for your son as nobody should be subjected to that type of behaviour, but unfortunately I don't have the answers you need. I can't tell you how to cope going forward, it's something that the individual is going to need to work out for themselves. Clearly the first thing we all need to do is to wait and see how the next phase of negotiations go, so we can build up a picture of what our future is going to look like. Only then can we understand what it all means for each of us personally.
This is much more elegant than the abridged version: 'you lost get over it', so thank you for taking the trouble. I am very much aware that I am the loser, and in order to cope with the disappointment of losing I won't swallow the bitter pill until I have thoroughly examined it's ingredients.
Surely just a few of them were a little too young to vote?
And they have all effectively been threatened with abuse/violence?
It’s disgusting that abuse has happened but please don’t distort the figures to suit your argument.
You normally take more care not to go over the top.
Those who cannot or did not vote are still entitled to representation in Parliament, their MP is expected to represent their interests as equally at those who are eligible to vote; a parent may take a child to a constituency clinic if their family has a grievance, for example. And when those MPs who defend the interests of the non-Brexit supporting are sent death threats, or called traitors or enemies of the people in the national press, then their constituents are also being indirectly attacked.
A democracy involves every citizen, not just those who happened to be in right camp on a specific day.
Surely just a few of them were a little too young to vote?
And they have all effectively been threatened with abuse/violence?
It’s disgusting that abuse has happened but please don’t distort the figures to suit your argument.
You normally take more care not to go over the top.
Those who cannot or did not vote are still entitled to representation in Parliament, their MP is expected to represent their interests as equally at those who are eligible to vote; a parent may take a child to a constituency clinic if their family has a grievance, for example. And when those MPs who defend the interests of the non-Brexit supporting are sent death threats, or called traitors or enemies of the people in the national press, then their constituents are also being indirectly attacked.
A democracy involves every citizen, not just those who happened to be in right camp on a specific day.
That is one hell of a stretched argument.
What part do you disagree with, specifically?
And it's not really an argument, more a statement of the facts.
Surely just a few of them were a little too young to vote?
And they have all effectively been threatened with abuse/violence?
It’s disgusting that abuse has happened but please don’t distort the figures to suit your argument.
You normally take more care not to go over the top.
Those who cannot or did not vote are still entitled to representation in Parliament, their MP is expected to represent their interests as equally at those who are eligible to vote; a parent may take a child to a constituency clinic if their family has a grievance, for example. And when those MPs who defend the interests of the non-Brexit supporting are sent death threats, or called traitors or enemies of the people in the national press, then their constituents are also being indirectly attacked.
A democracy involves every citizen, not just those who happened to be in right camp on a specific day.
That is one hell of a stretched argument.
What part do you disagree with, specifically?
And it's not really an argument, more a statement of the facts.
Don’t be facetious. You know what I was saying as you are an intelligent person.
You don’t agree with me, fair enough, but no point in us being repetitious.
Surely just a few of them were a little too young to vote?
And they have all effectively been threatened with abuse/violence?
It’s disgusting that abuse has happened but please don’t distort the figures to suit your argument.
You normally take more care not to go over the top.
Those who cannot or did not vote are still entitled to representation in Parliament, their MP is expected to represent their interests as equally at those who are eligible to vote; a parent may take a child to a constituency clinic if their family has a grievance, for example. And when those MPs who defend the interests of the non-Brexit supporting are sent death threats, or called traitors or enemies of the people in the national press, then their constituents are also being indirectly attacked.
A democracy involves every citizen, not just those who happened to be in right camp on a specific day.
That is one hell of a stretched argument.
What part do you disagree with, specifically?
And it's not really an argument, more a statement of the facts.
Don’t be facetious. You know what I was saying as you are an intelligent person.
You don’t agree with me, fair enough, but no point in us being repetitious.
OK, I'll rephrase it in a less contentious way.
I'm not saying that all 48 million people who did not vote to Leave, or could not vote, are definitely Remainers. But the point is MPs are there to represent their constituents' interests first. A constituent can be of any age or mental faculty. In fact an MP does not just represent their constituents but their constituency, meaning the environment and wildlife as in their remit too.
The vast majority of MPs were Remain supporters prior to the referendum. Clearly they thought that it was in their constituency's best interests to remain in the EU. That hasn't changed, but what has changed is an MP's willingness to defend their constituency's interests in public in the face of Brexit. This is not down to mere populism; for decades MPs have not been afraid to stand up for ideas that are not popular but they thought were the right thing to do. They are been cowed into silence by threats and abuse. Threats from within their own party, threats from the media and the fourth estate and threats from the loud minority of the public who believe that any MP who wants to scrutinise Brexit is a traitor and deserves what's coming to them. Hanging and the murder of Jo Cox seem to be regular themes and it isnt helped by the BBC airing the views of those who tacitly endorse these sentiments like we saw on QT last week.
Comments
I think the 'full up' claim refers to, as @Valiantphil has been championing, the lack of school places, public services, hospital beds etc.
I think most people are aware that we're a green and pleasant land.
"Ohh 30 billion to leave? Why not take another 30 billion, call it my other cheek."
"They know not what they have done EU members, take pity upon them"
"you shall burn in the fires of hell unless you agree with me and meet my requirements."
Anyway, there's little point in going over old ground again. I'm more interested in where we're heading and how to get there than rerunning the referendum argument tbh.
I'm not an armchair general/admiral/air chief marshal, but I'm inclined to worry about the direction of UK military procurement.
It looks very likely that the UK will end up with aircraft carriers but not the support, assault and defensive vessels necessary to make aircraft carriers an effective means of projecting force overseas. If you have aircraft carriers but cannot reasonably safely send them far from home, you end up with little more than very expensive airfields that could have been provided much more cheaply, with more fighting aircraft, on land. Even force projection abroad will rarely require carrier-borne aircraft. An awful lot of what the new carriers can achieve can be provided by conventionally armed cruise missiles aboard submarines.
At the same time, the army is shrinking to levels not seen in modern times, and the RAF is also declining.
Perhaps there is a reason why some politicians seem to revel in the idea of resurrecting an Elizabethan English spirit (for the post Brexit environment), handily, for them, central Government was almost non-existent and almost every service or activity that we expect today was provided either by charity (health and social services?) or by private enterprise (including naval power, colonial settlement in Ireland and the Americas, and, with privately raised regiments and mercenaries, the army), or was non-existent....
The real reason for the shortage is boom in both house building and births in the area in the late 00s and early 10s. The local council has never acted fast enough to keep up with the boom, but they cannot seem to get this into their heads despite my attempts to persuade them. We've had this anti-immigrant rhetoric plastered all over the news for the last few years and people believe it and use it as an excuse for everything that's wrong, instead of looking at where the real issues lie, which is with our government and the local authorities.
So whilst we have problems, the real issue is trying to get across to people that they need to look further than the Daily Mail or Express to understand why things are going wrong in this country.
Barnier is setting up his stall by ruling out a special offer for the City of London. This is what a Canada+ deal would include.
May has responded, via a spokesman, stating that Britain seeks a "significantly more ambitious" agreement with Brussels than its one with Canada. In addition, it is reiterated that a Norway-style arrangement would be "democratically unsustainable, because it would mean automatically adopting all EU rules without influence or a vote". In other words, as I have stated frequently, no point in leaving if this is the way forward.
We all know that these are negotiating tactics. To rule out, at this stage, any potential option, makes no sense. This will go to the wire as all EU negotiations do.
My view would be that the political agreement of a framework for the future relationship next October, for ratification prior to Brexit, will be a choice of Single Market, Customs Union, or Free Trade Agreement. I really don't think there is any chance of agreeing anything much beyond that, and the EU have always been clear that the detailed trade negotiations are a post Brexit activity. If the UK is genuinely going for the sort of deal that Davis and May suggest, I'd be amazed if that could be agreed and ratified within the two year transition period.
Mind you, the stated and opposed views on any transition period make such a thing unlikely without some form of climb down.
Barnier will only negotiate what he is mandated to negotiate by the EU 27, if they say no to Canada+, he has no power to agree it.
So whilst I mirror Valiantphil's view that we should be aware of the dangers of overcrowding, he seems to be completely missing the point as to how this has little to do with the EU.
Firstly, the figure on long term EU migrants every 5 minutes is more or less unverifiable. EU migrants are not asked on their arrival how long they intend to stay and EU nationals are not counted out of the country.
Secondly, the housing shortage is really only an affordable housing shortage. If you look on any property buying/renting website or search on those subletting or advertising spare rooms you will find thousands of listings in the busiest areas. Generally speaking, EU migrants earn well, are less likely to bring children or parents with them and are net tax contributors. You are conflating the non-issue of an EU migrant finding somewhere to live with a British family in poverty unable to find suitable housing.
Thirdly, the overcrowding of services is more accurately described as an underfunding of services and again this is largely affecting low income British families as opposed to EU nationals. An EU national is far less likely to have children in school or become a burden on the health system due to the very nature of their reason for coming to the UK - their skills are in demand and they are young, fit, healthy and mobile, as well intelligent enough not only to possess skills but also confident enough to have conversational skills in a country infamous for being generally poor at foreign languages. Public services are not getting worse because more EU migrants are using them but because their funding is not in line with what is required of them and that has much more to do with lifestyle changes and the professional requirements of those working in these services, including for example a chronic shortage of teachers to match the modern demands of the role. These are all issues firmly within the control of our own government.
As I have said before, our government and our media have been allowed to get away with blaming their political and ideological failings and the consequences of refusing to adapt to a modern, globalised economy on our EU membership when really the underlying causes of the issues that vex Brexiters so much are almost entirely down to domestic policy as opposed to a consequence of our membership of the EU.
There can never be any kind of good deal in my view because we will have split from our EU neighbours, and all kinds of unfortunate genies out of the bottle, the damage now done cannot be undone.
I am sorry, but there is nothing to look forward to or make the best of for me. Can you help me out by suggesting anything?
Therefore, it is a different type of deal and not equitable. I am not convinced the EU27 would be opposed to such negotiations. Isn’t it better for all to clarify how this will work?
However, I would need to learn more about this ‘equal treatment’ arrangement to which you are referring.. however, as I am not a negotiator, that can wait until the New Year
In the political sense where I once thought the UK had made a positive political move forward in my lifetime, I must now watch it get thrown away.
I have relatives in Ireland and Germany so on a personal level that does have an impact, as well as the rise of low level casual racism towards my son since the referendum.
In that context a 'deal' means little to me, and I can see no benefits at all, especially when contemplating the practicalities that the UK politicians are supposed to deal with.
If you can persuade me that brexit will be any good on a non personal level I am all ears, because on a personal level it is already damaging.
I feel for you and more particularly for your son as nobody should be subjected to that type of behaviour, but unfortunately I don't have the answers you need. I can't tell you how to cope going forward, it's something that the individual is going to need to work out for themselves. Clearly the first thing we all need to do is to wait and see how the next phase of negotiations go, so we can build up a picture of what our future is going to look like. Only then can we understand what it all means for each of us personally.
Surely just a few of them were a little too young to vote?
And they have all effectively been threatened with abuse/violence?
It’s disgusting that abuse has happened but please don’t distort the figures to suit your argument.
You normally take more care not to go over the top.
A democracy involves every citizen, not just those who happened to be in right camp on a specific day.
I am very much aware that I am the loser, and in order to cope with the disappointment of losing I won't swallow the bitter pill until I have thoroughly examined it's ingredients.
Picky, picky, picky.
And it's not really an argument, more a statement of the facts.
You don’t agree with me, fair enough, but no point in us being repetitious.
I'm not saying that all 48 million people who did not vote to Leave, or could not vote, are definitely Remainers. But the point is MPs are there to represent their constituents' interests first. A constituent can be of any age or mental faculty. In fact an MP does not just represent their constituents but their constituency, meaning the environment and wildlife as in their remit too.
The vast majority of MPs were Remain supporters prior to the referendum. Clearly they thought that it was in their constituency's best interests to remain in the EU. That hasn't changed, but what has changed is an MP's willingness to defend their constituency's interests in public in the face of Brexit. This is not down to mere populism; for decades MPs have not been afraid to stand up for ideas that are not popular but they thought were the right thing to do. They are been cowed into silence by threats and abuse. Threats from within their own party, threats from the media and the fourth estate and threats from the loud minority of the public who believe that any MP who wants to scrutinise Brexit is a traitor and deserves what's coming to them. Hanging and the murder of Jo Cox seem to be regular themes and it isnt helped by the BBC airing the views of those who tacitly endorse these sentiments like we saw on QT last week.