Ireland have been willing to repay its loans in advance, but the loan from the UK has fixed terms and a severe penalty break clause. Which means that early repayment would cost Ireland more than continuing until the due date for repayment.
Thank you for providing mor evidence that brexit I'd a good thing. The Irish due to financial mismanagement of there own economy have to borrow a load of money and somehow they make it out to be our fault.
The UK will be much better off away from this sort of behaviour.
You do realise that most of the debt accrued by the Irish Government was to bail the banks out, with the Government taking on their bad debts through NAMA and nationalising of some banks?
A significant proportion of the banks that were bailed out were the Irish operations of British banks, and the UK was lending to protect its own banks.
The UK, while a fully-fledged member of the EU, made a sovereign decision to offer a bilateral loan, at rates and under terms that suited the UK.
It is accepted in Ireland that the banking crisis, while part of a worldwide phenomenon, was not someone else's fault.
But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that one lender set terms for its loan that made early repayment prohibitively expensive, in comparison with the other lenders.
All parties were operating on the basis of self-interest.
Some very interesting points here but the whole thing looks so far from being resolved and I think we can all agree that if this was any other country putting themselves through this we would look at them as a complete basketcase. Whether we want the UK in or out of the EU the whole process has been a complete mess led by some of the most incompetent politicians ever seen. I just wish the same amount of interest went into a national debate about the education or health system - real issues that impact people day to day.
Some very interesting points here but the whole thing looks so far from being resolved and I think we can all agree that if this was any other country putting themselves through this we would look at them as a complete basketcase. Whether we want the UK in or out of the EU the whole process has been a complete mess led by some of the most incompetent politicians ever seen. I just wish the same amount of interest went into a national debate about the education or health system - real issues that impact people day to day.
Absolutely this CM. 99% of things the EU has influenced in UK law have done no harm to anyones everyday life. Unlike the daily horrorshow coming out of Westminster.
I also think (just an opinion, but based on the hysteria from a number of leavers) that were it, for example, the Netherlands quitting, those same people that think the EU should bend over backwards to accommodate the pipe-dreams of the UK government would be saying things like "They made their bed, let them lie in it" and "Why should we compromise, it's their decision to leave - no one forced them"...
Some very interesting points here but the whole thing looks so far from being resolved and I think we can all agree that if this was any other country putting themselves through this we would look at them as a complete basketcase. Whether we want the UK in or out of the EU the whole process has been a complete mess led by some of the most incompetent politicians ever seen. I just wish the same amount of interest went into a national debate about the education or health system - real issues that impact people day to day.
Absolutely this CM. 99% of things the EU has influenced in UK law have done no harm to anyones everyday life. Unlike the daily horrorshow coming out of Westminster.
I also think (just an opinion, but based on the hysteria from a number of leavers) that were it, for example, the Netherlands quitting, those same people that think the EU should bend over backwards to accommodate the pipe-dreams of the UK government would be saying things like "They made their bed, let them lie in it" and "Why should we compromise, it's their decision to leave - no one forced them"...
And the Dutch press would be saying things like "It's all the EU's fault, especially the UK, for not seeking to compromise".
If we divide the population into three groups - EU migrants, UK citizens and Non EU migrants. EU migrants are the biggest contributors per person followed in turn by UK citizens, who in turn contribute more on average than non EU migrants. Within those figures there will be those contributing a lot and those nothing - but it would be economically crazy to curb EU immigration. EU immigration is falling, but non EU immigration, which is less beneficial statistically is rising. The EU has nothing to do with this at all. So if you think EU immigration is bad, you are basically incorrect. They are more likely than we are to be skilled and motivated to work hard and are less of a drain on the services they help to pay for and man.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Is the goal merely to reduce the inflow of migrants?
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
I have no problem accepting the fact that migration is necessary and will continue with or without Brexit. The argument that migrants will add to the growth of GDP is a reasonable assertion, but if you look at the context in which they are presented, you will see that the contribution from migrants is calculated over a lifetime, comparing consumption of services against economic output allowing for birth rates and earnings capacity. It conflicts with the anecdotal evidence on how much migrants spend and how much is repatriated, which is a key part of the GDP impact. The volume and pace of migration does not form part of the equation.
You should always test an hypothesis by taking it to the absolute extreme, if it collapses, the hypothesis is flawed.
So we currently have a population of 66m. We have a GDP of £502bn. So GDP per head of population averages £7,600. If we doubled the population to 132m in twelve months by inviting Africa to join us, would our GDP output also double to £1trillion in twelve months in order to maintain the same level of services and investment? How long would it take for the economy to take advantage of a huge increase in labour supply by creating jobs to employ them? In the meantime how much would it cost to support the families? How quickly could we double the capacity of housing, health services, schools, public transport etc. to accommodate the increase in population.
The figures are ridiculous but at what level of migration are we able to maintain equilibrium between labour supply, new job creation, public services and GDP growth? That is the grown up debate to be had. Brexit has simply taken the stopper out of the bottle to allow a debate, which Remainers don't think is necessary, because it's proven by the experts there is no case for restricting migration. i do not accept that the majority of Brexit have any sympathy with the idea of stopping immigration, it's merely control. Arguments it could have happened before are now irrelevant, Brexit increases the level of control, even if numbers are the same.
Because experts didn't address the issue, it's reasonable for people to assume the experts believe the pace of migration is not an issue, that's underpinned by the message from Remainers. Brexit voters who see for themselves the pressure on public services in their particular town, think it is an issue and the experts are wrong.
The experts should have made it clear they were forecasting it would be fine over the next 80 years, not the next twelve months.
The ignorance on both sides is the same. Remainers thinking they understand the statistics fed by the experts (the LSE), and repeated parrot fashion until it becomes an undeniable truth, and Brexit voters knowing they don't understand what the experts have told them because it flies in the face of their everyday experience.
If we divide the population into three groups - EU migrants, UK citizens and Non EU migrants. EU migrants are the biggest contributors per person followed in turn by UK citizens, who in turn contribute more on average than non EU migrants. Within those figures there will be those contributing a lot and those nothing - but it would be economically crazy to curb EU immigration. EU immigration is falling, but non EU immigration, which is less beneficial statistically is rising. The EU has nothing to do with this at all. So if you think EU immigration is bad, you are basically incorrect. They are more likely than we are to be skilled and motivated to work hard and are less of a drain on the services they help to pay for and man.
On the other hand, and for balance, remember that Nigel Farage was left feeling uncomfortable due to people not speaking English when he was on a train on the way home to see his German wife. So, you know, swings and roundabouts...
If we divide the population into three groups - EU migrants, UK citizens and Non EU migrants. EU migrants are the biggest contributors per person followed in turn by UK citizens, who in turn contribute more on average than non EU migrants. Within those figures there will be those contributing a lot and those nothing - but it would be economically crazy to curb EU immigration. EU immigration is falling, but non EU immigration, which is less beneficial statistically is rising. The EU has nothing to do with this at all. So if you think EU immigration is bad, you are basically incorrect. They are more likely than we are to be skilled and motivated to work hard and are less of a drain on the services they help to pay for and man.
On the other hand, and for balance, remember that Nigel Farage was left feeling uncomfortable due to people not speaking English when he was on a train on the way home to see his German wife. So, you know, swings and roundabouts...
Or could he, perhaps, have been on a train to meet his French girlfriend?
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Is the goal merely to reduce the inflow of migrants?
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
I have no problem accepting the fact that migration is necessary and will continue with or without Brexit. The argument that migrants will add to the growth of GDP is a reasonable assertion, but if you look at the context in which they are presented, you will see that the contribution from migrants is calculated over a lifetime, comparing consumption of services against economic output allowing for birth rates and earnings capacity. It conflicts with the anecdotal evidence on how much migrants spend and how much is repatriated, which is a key part of the GDP impact. The volume and pace of migration does not form part of the equation.
You should always test an hypothesis by taking it to the absolute extreme, if it collapses, the hypothesis is flawed.
So we currently have a population of 66m. We have a GDP of £502bn. So GDP per head of population averages £7,600. If we doubled the population to 132m in twelve months by inviting Africa to join us, would our GDP output also double to £1trillion in twelve months in order to maintain the same level of services and investment? How long would it take for the economy to take advantage of a huge increase in labour supply by creating jobs to employ them? In the meantime how much would it cost to support the families? How quickly could we double the capacity of housing, health services, schools, public transport etc. to accommodate the increase in population.
The figures are ridiculous but at what level of migration are we able to maintain equilibrium between labour supply, new job creation, public services and GDP growth? That is the grown up debate to be had. Brexit has simply taken the stopper out of the bottle to allow a debate, which Remainers don't think is necessary, because it's proven by the experts there is no case for restricting migration. i do not accept that the majority of Brexit have any sympathy with the idea of stopping immigration, it's merely control. Arguments it could have happened before are now irrelevant, Brexit increases the level of control, even if numbers are the same.
Because experts didn't address the issue, it's reasonable for people to assume the experts believe the pace of migration is not an issue, that's underpinned by the message from Remainers. Brexit voters who see for themselves the pressure on public services in their particular town, think it is an issue and the experts are wrong.
The experts should have made it clear they were forecasting it would be fine over the next 80 years, not the next twelve months.
The ignorance on both sides is the same. Remainers thinking they understand the statistics fed by the experts (the LSE), and repeated parrot fashion until it becomes an undeniable truth, and Brexit voters knowing they don't understand what the experts have told them because it flies in the face of their everyday experience.
I love the way you try to make it look like you know what you are talking about by typing a lot. What is all this 80 years nonsense? It is here and now that EU migrants benefit the economy as they are more likely to be skilled and of working age and less likely to be work shy or pensioners. The figures are easy to find, but the principle isn't LSE, it is basic common sense!
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Is the goal merely to reduce the inflow of migrants?
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
I have no problem accepting the fact that migration is necessary and will continue with or without Brexit. The argument that migrants will add to the growth of GDP is a reasonable assertion, but if you look at the context in which they are presented, you will see that the contribution from migrants is calculated over a lifetime, comparing consumption of services against economic output allowing for birth rates and earnings capacity. It conflicts with the anecdotal evidence on how much migrants spend and how much is repatriated, which is a key part of the GDP impact. The volume and pace of migration does not form part of the equation.
You should always test an hypothesis by taking it to the absolute extreme, if it collapses, the hypothesis is flawed.
So we currently have a population of 66m. We have a GDP of £502bn. So GDP per head of population averages £7,600. If we doubled the population to 132m in twelve months by inviting Africa to join us, would our GDP output also double to £1trillion in twelve months in order to maintain the same level of services and investment? How long would it take for the economy to take advantage of a huge increase in labour supply by creating jobs to employ them? In the meantime how much would it cost to support the families? How quickly could we double the capacity of housing, health services, schools, public transport etc. to accommodate the increase in population.
The figures are ridiculous but at what level of migration are we able to maintain equilibrium between labour supply, new job creation, public services and GDP growth? That is the grown up debate to be had. Brexit has simply taken the stopper out of the bottle to allow a debate, which Remainers don't think is necessary, because it's proven by the experts there is no case for restricting migration. i do not accept that the majority of Brexit have any sympathy with the idea of stopping immigration, it's merely control. Arguments it could have happened before are now irrelevant, Brexit increases the level of control, even if numbers are the same.
Because experts didn't address the issue, it's reasonable for people to assume the experts believe the pace of migration is not an issue, that's underpinned by the message from Remainers. Brexit voters who see for themselves the pressure on public services in their particular town, think it is an issue and the experts are wrong.
The experts should have made it clear they were forecasting it would be fine over the next 80 years, not the next twelve months.
The ignorance on both sides is the same. Remainers thinking they understand the statistics fed by the experts (the LSE), and repeated parrot fashion until it becomes an undeniable truth, and Brexit voters knowing they don't understand what the experts have told them because it flies in the face of their everyday experience.
I am not sure where to start with this post. Maybe at the point where you're suggesting there's a sensible point to be made by suggesting what might happen were we to "invite Africa to join us". Or at the point where you are suggesting our GDP is £502bn. Bizarre.
Golfie was suggesting that, were we to remain in the EU (which, of course, we should, for many, many reasons), that the inflow of migrants would not reduce. He's therefore suggesting the UK would be better off if we were to reduce migration due to Brexit. To be clear, this would mean reducing EU migrants, since Brexit would not make any difference to inward migration from elsewhere in the world (except, perhaps, to dissuade non-EU migrants to choose to work in the UK over the EU27 since all workers in the UK would fall outside the work and consumer protection offered by the EU).
If your argument is that we should control migration better, I agree. If your argument is that we should control migration, with the most important criterion being whether the change in migration numbers leads to better levels of public service for people living in the UK, I agree. If your argument is that the only way to control migration is to leave the EU, I couldn't disagree more. And I could hardly imagine you being more wrong. Except, of course, that I have just seen you have quoted UK GDP as being £502bn. So there seems no limit to how wrong you're able to be.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
exactly, the entire reason the tories havent reduced migration significantly is because that will remove the economy's life support. Their need to look economically competent (at least was) more important than reducing migration
I have no problem with anybody coming freely to this country......the problem is where we bloody put them !! We have a serious lack of housing, the NHS is bursting at the seams & our road & rail infrastructure is 20 years behind schedule.....and you are happy to kerp adding 300k more people every year. Yes, we could limit those from non EU countries, but seeing as many of those are from ex-colonial countries I think we should look after those first. The nurses may well come from Europe but a lot of the doctors come from India.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Is the goal merely to reduce the inflow of migrants?
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
I have no problem accepting the fact that migration is necessary and will continue with or without Brexit. The argument that migrants will add to the growth of GDP is a reasonable assertion, but if you look at the context in which they are presented, you will see that the contribution from migrants is calculated over a lifetime, comparing consumption of services against economic output allowing for birth rates and earnings capacity. It conflicts with the anecdotal evidence on how much migrants spend and how much is repatriated, which is a key part of the GDP impact. The volume and pace of migration does not form part of the equation.
You should always test an hypothesis by taking it to the absolute extreme, if it collapses, the hypothesis is flawed.
So we currently have a population of 66m. We have a GDP of £502bn. So GDP per head of population averages £7,600. If we doubled the population to 132m in twelve months by inviting Africa to join us, would our GDP output also double to £1trillion in twelve months in order to maintain the same level of services and investment? How long would it take for the economy to take advantage of a huge increase in labour supply by creating jobs to employ them? In the meantime how much would it cost to support the families? How quickly could we double the capacity of housing, health services, schools, public transport etc. to accommodate the increase in population.
The figures are ridiculous but at what level of migration are we able to maintain equilibrium between labour supply, new job creation, public services and GDP growth? That is the grown up debate to be had. Brexit has simply taken the stopper out of the bottle to allow a debate, which Remainers don't think is necessary, because it's proven by the experts there is no case for restricting migration. i do not accept that the majority of Brexit have any sympathy with the idea of stopping immigration, it's merely control. Arguments it could have happened before are now irrelevant, Brexit increases the level of control, even if numbers are the same.
Because experts didn't address the issue, it's reasonable for people to assume the experts believe the pace of migration is not an issue, that's underpinned by the message from Remainers. Brexit voters who see for themselves the pressure on public services in their particular town, think it is an issue and the experts are wrong.
The experts should have made it clear they were forecasting it would be fine over the next 80 years, not the next twelve months.
The ignorance on both sides is the same. Remainers thinking they understand the statistics fed by the experts (the LSE), and repeated parrot fashion until it becomes an undeniable truth, and Brexit voters knowing they don't understand what the experts have told them because it flies in the face of their everyday experience.
I love the way you try to make it look like you know what you are talking about by typing a lot. What is all this 80 years nonsense? It is here and now that EU migrants benefit the economy as they are more likely to be skilled and of working age and less likely to be work shy or pensioners. The figures are easy to find, but the principle isn't LSE, it is basic common sense!
You can add that as the vast majority of Eu migrants are young and healthy they don’t add any additional strain on our creaking NHS. Most are single without children and not impacting on our schools. Whatever Brexit is delivered we all better pray to whoever we can that they don’t decide to go home.
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
exactly, the entire reason the tories havent reduced migration significantly is because that will remove the economy's life support. Their need to look economically competent (at least was) more important than reducing migration
I have no problem with anybody coming freely to this country......the problem is where we bloody put them !! We have a serious lack of housing, the NHS is bursting at the seams & our road & rail infrastructure is 20 years behind schedule.....and you are happy to kerp adding 300k more people every year. Yes, we could limit those from non EU countries, but seeing as many of those are from ex-colonial countries I think we should look after those first. The nurses may well come from Europe but a lot of the doctors come from India.
How will you be able to pay for those existing services if the economy is not growing eg cut migration?
The only way around it is to invest in housing and infrastructure, infrastructure investment especially is an almost cast iron way of generating growth. Meanwhile if we cut migration our workforce will dwindle (aging population), so how will we pay for that infrastructure investment?
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
Is the goal merely to reduce the inflow of migrants?
If so, we could do that at a stroke, by introducing and administering rules for non-EU migrants, who make up approximately half the UK's I flow of migrants. And we could do that without reference to the EU at all and without breaching or changing any international free trade agreements.
But that's not enough for some people desperately whipped up into a frenzy of fear about foreigners is it? We have to go further and end freedom of movement from citizens of countries far closer to the UK. And, in order to achieve that "goal", we have to rip up the biggest, most lucrative, wide-ranging and beneficial free trade deal we have ever been a participant in.
So, to reduce the inflow of migrants (whose presence increases, rather than decreases our GDP) we have to lose the benefits of our biggest free trade deal, lose the ability to work in 27 other countries, lose investment in infrastructure in the most needy parts of the UK, threaten Northern Ireland's position in the UK, risk the termination of the Belfast Agreement, see jobs in atomic energy and medicine lost, risk the profitability of our financial services industry, see our economy decline and have a far less clear economic outlook for the next generation or so.
Leaving the EU to reduce inward migration. Honestly? It's a solution we can't afford, delivered in a way we can't agree on, to a problem we don't understand that is believed to create an issue that doesn't exist.
And people think remainers should stop "banging on about it"?
I have no problem accepting the fact that migration is necessary and will continue with or without Brexit. The argument that migrants will add to the growth of GDP is a reasonable assertion, but if you look at the context in which they are presented, you will see that the contribution from migrants is calculated over a lifetime, comparing consumption of services against economic output allowing for birth rates and earnings capacity. It conflicts with the anecdotal evidence on how much migrants spend and how much is repatriated, which is a key part of the GDP impact. The volume and pace of migration does not form part of the equation.
You should always test an hypothesis by taking it to the absolute extreme, if it collapses, the hypothesis is flawed.
So we currently have a population of 66m. We have a GDP of £502bn. So GDP per head of population averages £7,600. If we doubled the population to 132m in twelve months by inviting Africa to join us, would our GDP output also double to £1trillion in twelve months in order to maintain the same level of services and investment? How long would it take for the economy to take advantage of a huge increase in labour supply by creating jobs to employ them? In the meantime how much would it cost to support the families? How quickly could we double the capacity of housing, health services, schools, public transport etc. to accommodate the increase in population.
The figures are ridiculous but at what level of migration are we able to maintain equilibrium between labour supply, new job creation, public services and GDP growth? That is the grown up debate to be had. Brexit has simply taken the stopper out of the bottle to allow a debate, which Remainers don't think is necessary, because it's proven by the experts there is no case for restricting migration. i do not accept that the majority of Brexit have any sympathy with the idea of stopping immigration, it's merely control. Arguments it could have happened before are now irrelevant, Brexit increases the level of control, even if numbers are the same.
Because experts didn't address the issue, it's reasonable for people to assume the experts believe the pace of migration is not an issue, that's underpinned by the message from Remainers. Brexit voters who see for themselves the pressure on public services in their particular town, think it is an issue and the experts are wrong.
The experts should have made it clear they were forecasting it would be fine over the next 80 years, not the next twelve months.
The ignorance on both sides is the same. Remainers thinking they understand the statistics fed by the experts (the LSE), and repeated parrot fashion until it becomes an undeniable truth, and Brexit voters knowing they don't understand what the experts have told them because it flies in the face of their everyday experience.
I love the way you try to make it look like you know what you are talking about by typing a lot. What is all this 80 years nonsense? It is here and now that EU migrants benefit the economy as they are more likely to be skilled and of working age and less likely to be work shy or pensioners. The figures are easy to find, but the principle isn't LSE, it is basic common sense!
You can add that as the vast majority of Eu migrants are young and healthy they don’t add any additional strain on our creaking NHS. Most are single without children and not impacting on our schools. Whatever Brexit is delivered we all better pray to whoever we can that they don’t decide to go home.
Yes, you can. It really is obvious isn't it? Did I mis-undertsand the 80 year stuff - was Dippenhall making a different point? It was a bit long so I might have read it wrong!
Maybe not in one sense, but Remainers would have to accept it! Now they believe, rightly or wrongly, that most people do not want what it looks like we could be getting. if they are wrong, it would be time to shut up and get on with it. Any Brexiter who is confident that is not the case would be desperate for another referendum. That fact they are not, tells its own story.
you reckon ??? not on your nelly. they will still be banging on about it 20 years later,
just give in & let the remainers have the last say. Cancel Brexit & see where we all are in 20 years time. You think the inflow of migrants will reduce ???
exactly, the entire reason the tories havent reduced migration significantly is because that will remove the economy's life support. Their need to look economically competent (at least was) more important than reducing migration
I have no problem with anybody coming freely to this country......the problem is where we bloody put them !! We have a serious lack of housing, the NHS is bursting at the seams & our road & rail infrastructure is 20 years behind schedule.....and you are happy to kerp adding 300k more people every year. Yes, we could limit those from non EU countries, but seeing as many of those are from ex-colonial countries I think we should look after those first. The nurses may well come from Europe but a lot of the doctors come from India.
Woah. Hold on a moment. You think the UK should look after people from ex-colonial countries first? Do you really mean that? Ireland is an ex-colonial country, yet your posts do not contain any suggestions for looking after Irish people, quite the reverse actually. Maybe you could magic up a solution to the Irish border as a way of looking after the people of an ex-colony.
If there is anyone still clinging on to the hope that the 2016 referendum was a fair exercise in democracy might like to know what the latest status is with regards to criminal investigations into the actions of campaigners. If the referendum was fair and carried out within the law, it should be honoured. However, if it wasn't, there must be further questions to ask about its legitimacy and whether it should be revisited, notwithstanding the extent to which people's voting intentions might have changed in the interim. (h/t Carole Cadwalladr).
On the Leave side 1. Leave.eu and Arron Banks were fined £135,000 today for breaking data protection laws in sending out more than a million emails with an offer contingent on Leave winning the referendum. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46109883
2. The National Crime Agency is investigating Banks on suspicion of committing "multiple criminal offences" round whether the source of his funding of Leave.eu was from overseas (and therefore illegal). https://www.ft.com/content/2401bf9a-ddd1-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b
On the Remain side 1. The Lib Dems have been accused of selling the personal data of its members for £100,000 to an anti Brexit campaign group.
As you can see, both sides have questions to answer. Although, it's easy to draw the conclusion that one side has more than the other.
Was the referendum fairly run? So far, it seems there are several reasons to believe not. And, on that basis, should we ask questions about the legitimacy of the referendum and, just as importantly, give the public an opportunity to react to the extent to which they've been lied to, disrespected and conned?
Dippenhall we have control of our borders at the moment with regard to non-EU migrants aided robustly by the French at Calais. For all migrants we have the option to remove many benefits after 3 months but choose not to do so. We can do much more without breaching EU laws. We don't. What will change when we leave?
BTW has anyone noticed that most prominent Leave politicians are married to non-EU citizens?
Will of the people? My arse! 54% Remain 46% Leave. Poll of 20,000 people.
Yes I saw that Channel 4 programme.
The problem with it's poll that no one mentioned is that virtually all the polls and most of the 'pundits' also predicted a 'Remain' win in the run up to the original June 23rd 2016 vote - and look what happened.
The screenshot below shows the polls in the week leading up to June 23rd:
I still don't understand what problem anybody has about a second referendum. This thing has split the country and both Brexiters and Remainers can agree the negotiations have been a pigs ear. If we have a referendum and the result is the same, It will be fully accepted, we have heard the lies about it, but we still want it! And ultimately, the result will reflect the will of the people.
The strength of antagonism some have to the concept only suggests they are worried what the result would be. But if this is true, they are showing they are not really that interested in the will of the people!
As a strong leaver, the campaign from the leave side was lies but their were lies from the remain side too. Both were as bad as one another but I knew exactly what I voted for.
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
I still don't understand what problem anybody has about a second referendum. This thing has split the country and both Brexiters and Remainers can agree the negotiations have been a pigs ear. If we have a referendum and the result is the same, It will be fully accepted, we have heard the lies about it, but we still want it! And ultimately, the result will reflect the will of the people.
The strength of antagonism some have to the concept only suggests they are worried what the result would be. But if this is true, they are showing they are not really that interested in the will of the people!
As a strong leaver, the campaign from the leave side was lies but their were lies from the remain side too. Both were as bad as one another but I knew exactly what I voted for.
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
What were the lies from the Remain side? I don’t think there were any. I vaguely remember some of the right wing shit rags trying to claim that Cameron was suggesting we are risking war if we leave the EU. But what else? I think all the lies and misinformation came from the Leave side.
I still don't understand what problem anybody has about a second referendum. This thing has split the country and both Brexiters and Remainers can agree the negotiations have been a pigs ear. If we have a referendum and the result is the same, It will be fully accepted, we have heard the lies about it, but we still want it! And ultimately, the result will reflect the will of the people.
The strength of antagonism some have to the concept only suggests they are worried what the result would be. But if this is true, they are showing they are not really that interested in the will of the people!
As a strong leaver, the campaign from the leave side was lies but their were lies from the remain side too. Both were as bad as one another but I knew exactly what I voted for.
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
What were the lies from the Remain side? I don’t think there were any. I vaguely remember some of the right wing shit rags trying to claim that Cameron was suggesting we are risking war if we leave the EU. But what else? I think all the lies and misinformation came from the Leave side.
Here is 5 lies
1. George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. Emergency budget?
2. Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date.
3. 3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about.
4. Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place.
I still don't understand what problem anybody has about a second referendum. This thing has split the country and both Brexiters and Remainers can agree the negotiations have been a pigs ear. If we have a referendum and the result is the same, It will be fully accepted, we have heard the lies about it, but we still want it! And ultimately, the result will reflect the will of the people.
The strength of antagonism some have to the concept only suggests they are worried what the result would be. But if this is true, they are showing they are not really that interested in the will of the people!
As a strong leaver, the campaign from the leave side was lies but their were lies from the remain side too. Both were as bad as one another but I knew exactly what I voted for.
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
What were the lies from the Remain side? I don’t think there were any. I vaguely remember some of the right wing shit rags trying to claim that Cameron was suggesting we are risking war if we leave the EU. But what else? I think all the lies and misinformation came from the Leave side.
Here is 5 lies
1. George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. Emergency budget?
2. Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date.
3. 3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about.
4. Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place.
I still don't understand what problem anybody has about a second referendum. This thing has split the country and both Brexiters and Remainers can agree the negotiations have been a pigs ear. If we have a referendum and the result is the same, It will be fully accepted, we have heard the lies about it, but we still want it! And ultimately, the result will reflect the will of the people.
The strength of antagonism some have to the concept only suggests they are worried what the result would be. But if this is true, they are showing they are not really that interested in the will of the people!
As a strong leaver, the campaign from the leave side was lies but their were lies from the remain side too. Both were as bad as one another but I knew exactly what I voted for.
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
What were the lies from the Remain side? I don’t think there were any. I vaguely remember some of the right wing shit rags trying to claim that Cameron was suggesting we are risking war if we leave the EU. But what else? I think all the lies and misinformation came from the Leave side.
Here is 5 lies
1. George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. Emergency budget?
2. Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date.
3. 3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about.
4. Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place.
I still don't understand what problem anybody has about a second referendum. This thing has split the country and both Brexiters and Remainers can agree the negotiations have been a pigs ear. If we have a referendum and the result is the same, It will be fully accepted, we have heard the lies about it, but we still want it! And ultimately, the result will reflect the will of the people.
The strength of antagonism some have to the concept only suggests they are worried what the result would be. But if this is true, they are showing they are not really that interested in the will of the people!
As a strong leaver, the campaign from the leave side was lies but their were lies from the remain side too. Both were as bad as one another but I knew exactly what I voted for.
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
What were the lies from the Remain side? I don’t think there were any. I vaguely remember some of the right wing shit rags trying to claim that Cameron was suggesting we are risking war if we leave the EU. But what else? I think all the lies and misinformation came from the Leave side.
Here is 5 lies
1. George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. Emergency budget?
2. Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date.
3. 3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about.
4. Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place.
Disco. In retrospect item 5 was hardly a lie but a statesman-like speech two years after the Leave vote.
Obviously referring to the Russian annexation of Crimea and threats to its former mineral rich colonies. Whereas we Brits pay lip service to money laundering of high-end London apartments and multiple murders involving chemical weapons/unexplained suicides on our shores.
I still don't understand what problem anybody has about a second referendum. This thing has split the country and both Brexiters and Remainers can agree the negotiations have been a pigs ear. If we have a referendum and the result is the same, It will be fully accepted, we have heard the lies about it, but we still want it! And ultimately, the result will reflect the will of the people.
The strength of antagonism some have to the concept only suggests they are worried what the result would be. But if this is true, they are showing they are not really that interested in the will of the people!
As a strong leaver, the campaign from the leave side was lies but their were lies from the remain side too. Both were as bad as one another but I knew exactly what I voted for.
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
What were the lies from the Remain side? I don’t think there were any. I vaguely remember some of the right wing shit rags trying to claim that Cameron was suggesting we are risking war if we leave the EU. But what else? I think all the lies and misinformation came from the Leave side.
Here is 5 lies
1. George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. Emergency budget?
2. Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date.
3. 3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about.
4. Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place.
I like this "both sides told lies in the campaign, so it's even" line. Even that is another untruth. To illustrate this, here's five for each of your five, Disco.
We send £350m a week to Brussels - we don't We can’t decide to stop Turkey joining the EU - we can We can’t stop a European army being formed - we can We are still liable to pay EU eurozone bailouts - nope The "UK rebate" can be changed against our will - nope The UK VAT exemptions will be ended - nope Cameron’s negotiated deal was not legally binding - yes it was EU law is adopted by unelected bureaucrats - nope We can’t control our borders while we are in the EU - we can (but we don't) Criminals arriving in Germany can get EU passports and come over here - no they can't Health tourism costs us billions of pounds a year - no it doesn't They (the EU) need us (the UK) for trade more than we need them - (did anyone believe this in the first place?) Past EU referendum results have been ignored - no they haven't Auditors still refuse to sign off the EU's accounts - nope The Common Agricultural Policy adds £400 to British food bills - no it doesn't British steel suffers because of the EU - nope The Irish border will be unaffected by Brexit - @seth plum do you have any comment on this? The UK can’t deport EU criminals - yes we can The UK is always outvoted - no we're not 60-70% of UK laws come from the EU - wrong We can't renationalise industries while we are in the EU - yes we can We get no veto on future treaty change or integration - yes we do The EU budget ceiling can increase without our consent - nope We were told we were only joining a free trade zone - no we weren't We will give £350m a week to the NHS from the money we give to Brussels - not true
I like this "both sides told lies in the campaign, so it's even" line. Even that is another untruth. To illustrate this, here's five for each of your five, Disco.
We send £350m a week to Brussels - we don't We can’t decide to stop Turkey joining the EU - we can We can’t stop a European army being formed - we can We are still liable to pay EU eurozone bailouts - nope The "UK rebate" can be changed against our will - nope The UK VAT exemptions will be ended - nope Cameron’s negotiated deal was not legally binding - yes it was EU law is adopted by unelected bureaucrats - nope We can’t control our borders while we are in the EU - we can (but we don't) Criminals arriving in Germany can get EU passports and come over here - no they can't Health tourism costs us billions of pounds a year - no it doesn't They (the EU) need us (the UK) for trade more than we need them - (did anyone believe this in the first place?) Past EU referendum results have been ignored - no they haven't Auditors still refuse to sign off the EU's accounts - nope The Common Agricultural Policy adds £400 to British food bills - no it doesn't British steel suffers because of the EU - nope The Irish border will be unaffected by Brexit - @seth plum do you have any comment on this? The UK can’t deport EU criminals - yes we can The UK is always outvoted - no we're not 60-70% of UK laws come from the EU - wrong We can't renationalise industries while we are in the EU - yes we can We get no veto on future treaty change or integration - yes we do The EU budget ceiling can increase without our consent - nope We were told we were only joining a free trade zone - no we weren't We will give £350m a week to the NHS from the money we give to Brussels - not true
Getting an EU passport reminded me of the Tory's just last month still spewing out more nonsense
Talking of passports, do you remember the outrage because the EU had imposed the smaller burgundy passport on us - then the truth came out that our government could have gone with symbolic blue ones but had very sensibly decided to save money by using the free EU template.
Comments
A significant proportion of the banks that were bailed out were the Irish operations of British banks, and the UK was lending to protect its own banks.
The UK, while a fully-fledged member of the EU, made a sovereign decision to offer a bilateral loan, at rates and under terms that suited the UK.
It is accepted in Ireland that the banking crisis, while part of a worldwide phenomenon, was not someone else's fault.
But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that one lender set terms for its loan that made early repayment prohibitively expensive, in comparison with the other lenders.
All parties were operating on the basis of self-interest.
I also think (just an opinion, but based on the hysteria from a number of leavers) that were it, for example, the Netherlands quitting, those same people that think the EU should bend over backwards to accommodate the pipe-dreams of the UK government would be saying things like "They made their bed, let them lie in it" and "Why should we compromise, it's their decision to leave - no one forced them"...
Buck passing is a universal human instinct.
You should always test an hypothesis by taking it to the absolute extreme, if it collapses, the hypothesis is flawed.
So we currently have a population of 66m. We have a GDP of £502bn. So GDP per head of population averages £7,600. If we doubled the population to 132m in twelve months by inviting Africa to join us, would our GDP output also double to £1trillion in twelve months in order to maintain the same level of services and investment? How long would it take for the economy to take advantage of a huge increase in labour supply by creating jobs to employ them? In the meantime how much would it cost to support the families? How quickly could we double the capacity of housing, health services, schools, public transport etc. to accommodate the increase in population.
The figures are ridiculous but at what level of migration are we able to maintain equilibrium between labour supply, new job creation, public services and GDP growth? That is the grown up debate to be had. Brexit has simply taken the stopper out of the bottle to allow a debate, which Remainers don't think is necessary, because it's proven by the experts there is no case for restricting migration. i do not accept that the majority of Brexit have any sympathy with the idea of stopping immigration, it's merely control. Arguments it could have happened before are now irrelevant, Brexit increases the level of control, even if numbers are the same.
Because experts didn't address the issue, it's reasonable for people to assume the experts believe the pace of migration is not an issue, that's underpinned by the message from Remainers. Brexit voters who see for themselves the pressure on public services in their particular town, think it is an issue and the experts are wrong.
The experts should have made it clear they were forecasting it would be fine over the next 80 years, not the next twelve months.
The ignorance on both sides is the same. Remainers thinking they understand the statistics fed by the experts (the LSE), and repeated parrot fashion until it becomes an undeniable truth, and Brexit voters knowing they don't understand what the experts have told them because it flies in the face of their everyday experience.
Golfie was suggesting that, were we to remain in the EU (which, of course, we should, for many, many reasons), that the inflow of migrants would not reduce. He's therefore suggesting the UK would be better off if we were to reduce migration due to Brexit. To be clear, this would mean reducing EU migrants, since Brexit would not make any difference to inward migration from elsewhere in the world (except, perhaps, to dissuade non-EU migrants to choose to work in the UK over the EU27 since all workers in the UK would fall outside the work and consumer protection offered by the EU).
If your argument is that we should control migration better, I agree. If your argument is that we should control migration, with the most important criterion being whether the change in migration numbers leads to better levels of public service for people living in the UK, I agree. If your argument is that the only way to control migration is to leave the EU, I couldn't disagree more. And I could hardly imagine you being more wrong. Except, of course, that I have just seen you have quoted UK GDP as being £502bn. So there seems no limit to how wrong you're able to be.
The only way around it is to invest in housing and infrastructure, infrastructure investment especially is an almost cast iron way of generating growth. Meanwhile if we cut migration our workforce will dwindle (aging population), so how will we pay for that infrastructure investment?
Hold on a moment.
You think the UK should look after people from ex-colonial countries first?
Do you really mean that?
Ireland is an ex-colonial country, yet your posts do not contain any suggestions for looking after Irish people, quite the reverse actually.
Maybe you could magic up a solution to the Irish border as a way of looking after the people of an ex-colony.
On the Leave side
1. Leave.eu and Arron Banks were fined £135,000 today for breaking data protection laws in sending out more than a million emails with an offer contingent on Leave winning the referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46109883
2. The National Crime Agency is investigating Banks on suspicion of committing "multiple criminal offences" round whether the source of his funding of Leave.eu was from overseas (and therefore illegal).
https://www.ft.com/content/2401bf9a-ddd1-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b
3. Leave.eu was fined £70,000 by the Electoral Commission for illegal overspending and submitting incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns and the case referred to the Metropolitan Police for investigation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/leaveeu-fined-70k-breaches-of-electoral-law-eu-referendum?CMP=share_btn_tw
4. The Financial Conduct Authority (the conduct regulator for 58,000 financial services firms and financial markets in the UK and the prudential regulator for over 18,000 of those firms) are investigating the claims of Banks's wealth and have asked to see bank statements.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/city-watchdog-the-fca-joins-investigation-into-arron-bankss-wealth-hb8vhfbfw
5. The NCA is - according to the DCMS - investigating whether Arron Banks has profited from meetings arranged by Russian officials.
http://chronicle.gi/2018/07/heavy-criticism-for-brexiteers-in-mps-report-into-fake-news/
6. Vote Leave (the Boris Johnson/Michael Gove campaign vehicle) was fined £61,000 and referred to the Met Police.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-fined-and-reported-to-police-by-electoral-commission-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw
7. Darren Grimes (head of BeLeave) was fined £20,000 and referred to the Met Police for channeling hundreds of thousands of pounds into targeted Facebook ads.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/darren-grimes-the-student-pro-brexit-activist-fined-22k-vote-leave?CMP=share_btn_tw
8. The Information Commissioners Office is investigating UKIP and Cambridge Analytica for work CA did on UKIP data which was subsequently paid for by Leave.eu. UKIP has refused to co-operate and has gone to the High Court, who dismissed their appeal.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/11/watchdog-investigates-links-between-data-firm-aggregateiq-and-leave-campaigns
On the Remain side
1. The Lib Dems have been accused of selling the personal data of its members for £100,000 to an anti Brexit campaign group.
As you can see, both sides have questions to answer. Although, it's easy to draw the conclusion that one side has more than the other.
Was the referendum fairly run? So far, it seems there are several reasons to believe not. And, on that basis, should we ask questions about the legitimacy of the referendum and, just as importantly, give the public an opportunity to react to the extent to which they've been lied to, disrespected and conned?
BTW has anyone noticed that most prominent Leave politicians are married to non-EU citizens?
I agree about a 2nd Referendum but have one 5 years after we leave the EU as it will give us real certainty where we want to be. We have a lot of 'unknown' facts at the moment and a 2nd referendum will make us look weak in the negotiations if the leave side win again.
1. George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. Emergency budget?
2. Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date.
3. 3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about.
4. Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place.
5. EU Army ‘a dangerous fantasy’ quoted by Nick Clegg to Farage...here you go https://news.sky.com/story/emmanuel-macron-calls-for-real-european-army-to-defend-against-russia-and-us-11546376
Oh and not to forget Cameron got Obama to say the ‘back of the queue’ nonsense when it came to trade.
4 and 5 non-stories. Never heard them B4 and not in the public perception.
Only five Disco? Did the dog eat you homework?
Obviously referring to the Russian annexation of Crimea and threats to its former mineral rich colonies. Whereas we Brits pay lip service to money laundering of high-end London apartments and multiple murders involving chemical weapons/unexplained suicides on our shores.
We send £350m a week to Brussels - we don't
We can’t decide to stop Turkey joining the EU - we can
We can’t stop a European army being formed - we can
We are still liable to pay EU eurozone bailouts - nope
The "UK rebate" can be changed against our will - nope
The UK VAT exemptions will be ended - nope
Cameron’s negotiated deal was not legally binding - yes it was
EU law is adopted by unelected bureaucrats - nope
We can’t control our borders while we are in the EU - we can (but we don't)
Criminals arriving in Germany can get EU passports and come over here - no they can't
Health tourism costs us billions of pounds a year - no it doesn't
They (the EU) need us (the UK) for trade more than we need them - (did anyone believe this in the first place?)
Past EU referendum results have been ignored - no they haven't
Auditors still refuse to sign off the EU's accounts - nope
The Common Agricultural Policy adds £400 to British food bills - no it doesn't
British steel suffers because of the EU - nope
The Irish border will be unaffected by Brexit - @seth plum do you have any comment on this?
The UK can’t deport EU criminals - yes we can
The UK is always outvoted - no we're not
60-70% of UK laws come from the EU - wrong
We can't renationalise industries while we are in the EU - yes we can
We get no veto on future treaty change or integration - yes we do
The EU budget ceiling can increase without our consent - nope
We were told we were only joining a free trade zone - no we weren't
We will give £350m a week to the NHS from the money we give to Brussels - not true