Brexit negotiations

[Scott-Copywriter]

Good point, but if our aim is a free trade agreement with the EU then that would not be an issue.

Customs unions and free trade agreements are miles apart.

"Free trade" is a misnomer. In reality, there are still tariffs, controls and quotas in place.

Just look at the fine print of CETA. Many tariffs have been eliminated, but there are still numerous quotas. All those quotas require border controls to enforce them.

We can't get around the fact that, without some kind of controlled border, no one will have any idea what's moving between the ROI (the EU) and NI (the UK).

It's important to think of this in a legal context. The fact it's an island surrounded by water does not solve the fundamental issues.

If the UK wants to leave the single market and the customs union - fine. But in this situation, both the EU and the UK will need to know what's flowing between its hard borders.

The easiest solution, by far, is to remain in the customs union and single market, but we seem hell-bent on pulling out of everything regardless of the damage.

 

[The Byre]

1. There are literally thousands of crossings of the boarder - you cannot control them all now and we couldn't even control them all at the height of the 'troubles'.

2. No boarder controls and no controls between NI and the rest of the UK is a 'Red-Line' issue for the DUP and they have stated again and again,that they will vote against any bill or motion that has either in it.

3. There are dozens and dozens of properties that straddle the boarder. During the 'troubles' many were used intensively for smuggling arms and goods.

I served there in the 60s and 70s and the idea that you can control that boarder is frankly laughable.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

A customs border should not be confused with military check points and watch towers. I have seen several reporters, who should know better, confusing them. When customs were in place there were queues of lorries at the border at times and on occasions a customs officer from the RoI side making spot checks on cars crossing the border. They were largely unnoticed by the national and international media and generally not considered of any political importance - just an inconvenience. The barbed wire and military watch towers obvious got the headlines, but they had nothing to do with the customs border.

Of course. But look at the border as it exists today. Sometimes you don't even know that you've passed through into a different country. There are barely any signposts.

Going from that, back to a situation where there are border controls, even if they are fairly light in nature, is a big step backwards.

To even have the faintest idea of what's passing through the EU/UK hard border in terms of goods and people will make that border considerably different to what it is today. Certainly no military checkpoints, but no truly open border either.

For many countries, that wouldn't be so much of a problem, but the Irish border situation is uniquely sensitive.

 

[Gecko001]

1. There are literally thousands of crossings of the boarder - you cannot control them all now and we couldn't even control them all at the height of the 'troubles'.

2. No boarder controls and no controls between NI and the rest of the UK is a 'Red-Line' issue for the DUP and they have stated again and again,that they will vote against any bill or motion that has either in it.

3. There are dozens and dozens of properties that straddle the boarder. During the 'troubles' many were used intensively for smuggling arms and goods.

I served there in the 60s and 70s and the idea that you can control that boarder is frankly laughable.

When customs were active (up until the Single Market was formed) they were largely controlled by the RoI's customs officers as the RoI's higher taxes meant that tax revenue was being lost to the Republic's Exchequer if taxes relating to the different tax regimes were not collected. It seems like this is what will happen again if there is not free trade. Even today the customs/revenue in the RoI will check up on people who work in the South but live in the North to make sure that they pay their tax due in the South, so in effect there is a customs border in place at the minute.

The 100's of side roads cannot be "controlled", but it can be established my customs that goods were transported across a border without actually watching them go across that border.

The old romantic notion of smuggling goods across fields and lanes went out with "Whiskey Galore". It is organised crime now and the respective police forces both sides of the border take it seriously.

 

[The Byre]

The old romantic notion of smuggling goods across fields and lanes went out with "Whiskey Galore". It is organised crime now and the respective police forces both sides of the border take it seriously.

It was organised crime then as well. So?

That didn't make it any easier to control.

We knew who was doing it. We knew where and when they were doing it. On some occasions we even watched them do it. Could we do anything about it? No.

Why not?

Because nobody anywhere near the boarder wanted to do anything about it. Not the RUC, not the Garda, not the people living there, not the Church, nobody.

Why is that?

Because society there is not divided into neat tribes based on career and the rule of law. It is based on families and friendships. Nobody arrests their own brother, neighbour or cousin.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-partnership-bbc-radio-4-today-a7802381.html

I have to say, I'm a bit perplexed as to why business owners who rely on EU migrant labour would vote leave.

 

[Gecko001]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-partnership-bbc-radio-4-today-a7802381.html

I have to say, I'm a bit perplexed as to why business owners who rely on EU migrant labour would vote leave.

We are talking about farmers here aren't we? Ever heard of a farmer who was not complaining about something when they are given the chance. No disrespect to the farmers here, but if it is not the weather it is about not getting a grant for something or other or the fact that they cannot get labour.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/82...-Referendum-2-poll-still-vote-to-leave-the-EU

That backfired slightly.

 

[KM-Tiger]

That backfired slightly.

Surprising at the Express, but more reliable polls are showing a significant margin in favour of getting on with getting out.

On the agricultural labour question, there were special arrangements for seasonal labour from outside the UK before we joined the EU. I guess that something similar could be put in place. It's another area where we could do with information, at least in outline, of what might replace those parts of EU membership that we want and need.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Surprising at the Express, but more reliable polls are showing a significant margin in favour of getting on with getting out.

I personally think that the sentiment against changing course has less to do with the EU itself, and more to do with voter fatigue.

Few people have a major urge to go through all of it again, but if they had to, I think the sentiment would change.

Remember that up until the referendum, polls showed that the EU was way down on the list of importance for the vast majority of voters. It shot up when the campaigning was underway.

Before the announcement of the referendum, the electorate wasn't that bothered. It was never a big issue. The Government made it one.

In 2015, those who always felt Eurosceptic enough to vote for the pro-Brexit party (UKIP) amounted to 3.8 million. By comparison, the smaller, yet staunchly pro-EU parties - the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens - got nearly 5 million votes. Prior to all of this, the true number of "enthusiasts" was significantly smaller on both sides.

When the passion for the subject is artificially inflated due to the referendum, and then fades back to baseline again, we find that a lot of people aren't that bothered. May found that out the hard way when her "Brexit negotiations" angle during the GE campaign fell flat on its face.

We even saw a lot of UKIP voters defecting to Labour. How does that work?

I genuinely believe that if we had a second referendum, we would vote to remain. However, the enthusiasm on all sides has reduced so much that most people just can't be bothered to go through it again. It was easily the most exhausting and hostile campaign of a generation.

I think even the strongest remain supporters would feel bittersweet if a second referendum did happen. They would get a chance to change the course, but also be staring down the barrel of another few months of what we experienced last year.

Brenda sums it up nicely:

 

[Clinton]

I genuinely believe that if we had a second referendum, we would vote to remain.

You're clutching at straws ... and that's largely as a result of the broken logic you've used in coming to all conclusions you've stated above.

Remember that up until the referendum, polls showed that the EU was way down on the list of importance for the vast majority of voters. It shot up when the campaigning was underway.

You are correct in that it was way down on the list of importance. The operating word is "was". It is a lot more important now. And that isn't going away any time soon.

In 2015, those who always felt Eurosceptic enough to vote for the pro-Brexit party (UKIP) amounted to 3.8 million. By comparison, the smaller, yet staunchly pro-EU parties - the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens - got nearly 5 million votes.

You can't take GE election votes as an indication of how people would vote in a second referendum (see my later comments on the LibDems)! People hold their noses and vote for a particular party out of tribal loyalty, because they like their local MP ... or whatever. They probably don't even know whether their local MP supports Remain or Leave!

When the passion for the subject is artificially inflated due to the referendum, and then fades back to baseline again, we find that a lot of people aren't that bothered.

It has faded back but on what grounds do you assume it has faded "back to baseline"? Brexit is very much in the news and feelings are being stoked up on all sides with the Guardian et al explaining to us on a daily basis why Brexit is turning out to be a disaster, and the Express, Telegraph etc highlighting stories about how the EU is leaking news, playing dirty and so on. Passion, I would expect, is far higher than any old "baseline". Bear in mind, also, that the baseline has been rising for several years ...as evidenced by the number of votes that fringe, virtually unknown, UKIP party was getting in local and national elections!

May found that out the hard way when her "Brexit negotiations" angle during the GE campaign fell flat on its face.

Pundits will analyse the last GE to death but I doubt anyone will come to the conclusion that her Brexit negotiations angle lost her the majority she was hoping for. It was her lack of taking part in debates, lack of engaging with the public, her image of being a robot, manifesto U-turns, continued message of budget cuts, tough talk about "living within our means". And, credit where credit is due, it's also partly due to a great campaign run by Labour, especially on social media, and the number of young voters.

It was not people voting against Conservative in the hope that Labour would cancel Brexit! They were voting for Labour because Labour promised to deliver Brexit!

If the country really wanted to give politicians a message that they had changed their minds about Brexit you would have seen the Lib Dems do well. But the LDs fared dismally in the local elections and their share in the GE dropped from 7.9% to 7.3%. Very few people, it seems, want the party that is anti-Brexit!

We even saw a lot of UKIP voters defecting to Labour. How does that work?

There are some Labour die hards who will vote for any party except the Tories. They have a visceral hatred for the Conservatives. They switched from Labour to UKIP because they want out of the EU. And Jeremy's ploy of saying he'd honour the Referendum result won them back to Labour.

You could say people went back to Labour because they believed Labour would take us out of the EU. From where I'm sitting feelings are a lot more anti-EU now than they have ever been.

I genuinely believe that if we had a second referendum, we would vote to remain.

Nice chap though you are I believe you're living in an alternate reality.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

It has faded back but on what grounds do you assume it has faded "back to baseline"? Brexit is very much in the news and feelings are being stoked up on all sides with the Guardian et al explaining to us on a daily basis why Brexit is turning out to be a disaster, and the Express, Telegraph etc highlighting stories about how the EU is leaking news, playing dirty and so on. Passion, I would expect, is far higher than any old "baseline". Bear in mind, also, that the baseline has been rising for several years ...as evidenced by the number of votes that fringe, virtually unknown, UKIP party was getting in local and national elections!

That's the journalists. Not the people. Of course they are going to try to stoke the fire.

May thought anti-EU passions were a lot higher than they actually were. I wouldn't put it past newspapers making the same mistake.

Prior to the campaign, the number of voters who felt passionately enough to actively support the cause (by joining UKIP) was 12.6% of the electorate.

Today, now we're heading out, the number of people who still feel it's important to fight for the right outcome is 1.8%. And many of those lost joined Labour.

This shows, quite clearly, that enthusiasm has waned on all sides. Those caught up in the moment have moved on to focusing on other issues more important to them, like security, the NHS, public services and austerity (the issues that have stood the test of time).

If the country really wanted to give politicians a message that they had changed their minds about Brexit you would have seen the Lib Dems do well. But the LDs fared dismally in the local elections and their share in the GE dropped from 7.9% to 7.3%. Very few people, it seems, want the party that is anti-Brexit!

Very few people, with waning enthusiasm, want to trigger a second referendum to go through everything again.

That is my point. It's not that all of these people want to leave. It's just that they care so little now, that another referendum after 5 national votes in quick succession is sufficiently unappealing.

Don't underestimate voter fatigue. Since 2014 the UK has had:

- The Scottish independence referendum
- The EU referendum
- The 2015 general election
- The 2017 local elections
- The 2017 general election

That's an average of one vote (and the preceding campaign) every 7 months. On top of that, there's the awareness that there might even be another one if May's pact with the DUP fails.

And you can take this with a pinch of salt (the polls were wrong before, after all), but recent polls have shown that more people think we were wrong to vote to leave the EU than right:

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/question...n-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

I suspect this will increase over time as the electorate is fed weekly updates on the negotiation progress and starts to realise just how difficult Brexit will be.

I see absolutely nothing to suggest that a second referendum would result in an easy win for leave. I think it would be far tighter than it was last year.

We might struggle to find the enthusiasm for another one, but if it did happen, passions would pick up again where I feel we would see a different outcome.

The only caveat I would add, which may result in another leave vote, is that a vote to remain in the EU leaves the door open for further exit referendums in the future. Again, that's not so much because of the EU. It's more to do with the fact that people are sick of it and want to put the issue to bed either way.

Why is this? Because pro-EU and anti-EU sentiments were inflated massively by the campaign itself. Regardless of all the news, the EU has never had that much of an impact on a lot of peoples' lives.

People feel the NHS, they feel security, they feel austerity, they feel taxes, they feel public services. These have direct impacts on day-to-day lives. For most people, EU membership does not.

For that reason, when the referendum campaigning stops, the enthusiasm on all sides goes along with it until you are left with the tiny core that felt the enthusiasm all along.

 

[Clinton]

...the EU has never had that much of an impact on a lot of peoples' lives.

Wow!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Wow!

It's true. At least in ways they can directly experience.

There are thousands of laws, regulations and rights where the EU has played a big part. But there are also millions of people where, in their day-to-day routines, the EU has little impact in ways they can readily perceive.

I'm talking about personal experiences here. Just how many situations in a calendar year would ordinary people find themselves in where they blame or credit the EU?

Compare that to the other issues voters consider. For example, the NHS, where they may have relatives requiring care. Schools, where parents have children in them. Austerity, where people struggle to pay bills.

There's a good reason why EU membership was very low on the list of voter priorities before the referendum campaign happened.

There's also a good reason why issues such as the NHS, public services, pensions, taxation and the economy have remained important issues for decades and stood the test of time.

It's because those issues, for most people, are infinitely more tangible than EU membership.

This is the tracker of the three most important issues facing the country before 2016:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...rs-Issues(2)-Most-important-issues-260515.pdf

It also shows a different question: the three most important issues facing you and your family (page 2).

The statistics speak for themselves. Only two years ago, barely 10% of people thought that Europe was one of the most important issues facing themselves and their family. Quite similar to the vote share for UKIP in 2015, as it turns out.

We've been in the EU for over 40 years since the last referendum. Did everyone just fail to notice the big, bad, terrible EU running rampant through their lives until the Government pointed it out or something?

 

[Cobby]

It was not people voting against Conservative in the hope that Labour would cancel Brexit! They were voting for Labour because Labour promised to deliver Brexit!

Now who's grasping at straws?

The reasons the people you mention voted the way they did were myriad, but I think they fell into two main categories:

1. In most constituencies, First-Past-The-Post makes any vote not for Labour a vote for the Conservatives. This is bad because (just a few of the many reasons):
   a) The Conservatives showed themselves to be far less capable than their supporters believe
   b) They showed themselves to be far less trustworthy than want everyone to believe
   c) It became very clear their positions can and will change depending upon what it takes to stay in power
   
   
2. Voting for a party (Labour) that has said it will carry out Brexit isn't an explicit or even necessarily an implicit endorsement for Brexit, especially given point (1) above about FPTP. Voting for the party that can actually challenge the Conservatives and keep as many of our links and entitlements with the EU as possible? That's a compromise voters will accept rather than voting on principle for a party like the Lib Dems who have no shot at government and, going back to point (1) *again*, is diluting the vote and allowing the Conservatives to carry on driving the UK at a wall.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

That's a compromise voters will accept rather than voting on principle for a party like the Lib Dems who have no shot at government

There were several Lib Dem marginals where a strategic vote by Labour voters would have ousted the Tories.

 

[Cobby]

There were several Lib Dem marginals where a strategic vote by Labour voters would have ousted the Tories.

Yeah and there were some places the Lib Dem candidates stood down for just that tactical reason.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to generalise about all voters, or even suggest that some sections of voters are all more intelligent, I'm just highlighting the most prevailing attitudes and show how silly the idea is that because people voted for Labour they must therefore be in favour of Brexit. Non-sequitur.

 

[quikshop]

It's true. At least in ways they can directly experience.

What a curious little bubble you live in, no wonder you voted remain!

Many people equate the EU and particularly unlimited EU migration to less available housing stock, over-sized school classes, teachers unable to cope with multi-lingual classes, A&E and GP services pushed to breaking point, sweeping cultural changes to their home town, priced out of local entry level jobs, increase in town centre vagrancy and homelessness, terrorists and criminals resisting deportation through one-eyed human rights laws... and I could go on.

A lot of those issues existed before mass migration started in the early 2000s and have been inflamed by chronic under-funding by an ideological Tory Government, but they are clearly negative and entirely predictable consequences of EU membership, and for many these have a direct impact on their lives.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

they are clearly negative and entirely predictable consequences of EU membership, and for many these have a direct impact on their lives.

These are not consequences of membership. If they were why do other countries in the EU not suffer from the same problems? The answer is that we do not prioritise education, health and housing as much as we should. "Entry level jobs" says it all. Would that be jobs for those failed by the school system?

 

[Newchodge]

Government failures to implememt the available laws are also to blame. For example, a non UK EU citizen living in the UK can be returned to their country of origin if they are unemployed and on benefits for 3(?) months. Why does that not happen?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Many people equate the EU and particularly unlimited EU migration to less available housing stock, over-sized school classes, teachers unable to cope with multi-lingual classes, A&E and GP services pushed to breaking point, sweeping cultural changes to their home town, priced out of local entry level jobs, increase in town centre vagrancy and homelessness, terrorists and criminals resisting deportation through one-eyed human rights laws... and I could go on.

Many?

Just how many people in the UK do you believe experience these directly in their own personal lives?

Not what they hear on the news. Not what they think happens elsewhere. What they actually experience themselves.

A lot of the regions most in favour of leave actually have some of the lowest densities of EU migrants in the UK. Not all of them, but a lot:

http://theconversation.com/hard-evi...low-immigration-voted-mainly-for-brexit-62138

Of the 270 districts that had a lower proportion than average of people born outside the UK in 2011, in 229 (85%) the majority vote was for Leave. Of the 78 districts with a higher than average population born outside the UK, only 44% voted Leave.

In Castle Point, which had the third highest leave vote (72.7%), only 3.6% of the population is non-UK born (and that's total, not just EU nationals).

I'll say it again: pretty much everyone has personal experiences impacted by tax, public services, the NHS, the economy and so on. However, across the UK, very few have personal experiences they can readily blame the EU for.

That's why certain issues have stood the test of time, whereas others only spike when they're fanned by the media.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I'll say it again: pretty much everyone has personal experiences impacted by tax, public services, the NHS, the economy and so on. However, across the UK, very few have personal experiences they can readily blame the EU for.

Or praise the EU for. Millions take holidays in the EU but think nothing of the benefits of the Health Card. Cornwall received millions in Objective One EU funding but voted leave. One person I spoke to drives past a big sign twice a day saying that EU funding paid a chunk towards the University in Cornwall and never noticed it. Fishermen who send all their catch to France and Spain think that voting leave will make the UK eat more fish! My supposedly intelligent neighbour voted leave because he confused the EU with UN treaties.

 

[KM-Tiger]

...EU funding...

And where does that come from?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And where does that come from?

Because of decades of underfunding by the UK government Cornwall became the poorist area in the country. If the UK government was willing to pay into Europe it was only right that Cornwall could appeal to less prejudiced arbiters of need. There have already been indicators that the UK government will not support Cornwall after Brexit.

 

[quikshop]

These are not consequences of membership.

Yes my liberal hand-wringing friend, they are. Whether you agree with the EU project or not, only by bleeding the rich countries (and that includes the UK) to uplift the poor ones can the block ever reach something like parity of living standards.

The problem with that is its utter b0ll0cks. Mass migration will eventually make the richer countries even richer although paradoxically drive down living standards as we suffer the true consequences of capitalism without a social conscience. I listed some of the representations of that in my last post.

Only the naive think that the formation of a political federal block will make us all wealthier. Nothing wrong with Utopia, problem is no-one has ever returned from it with a smile on their face

 

[MASSEY]

It's true. At least in ways they can directly experience.

There are thousands of laws, regulations and rights where the EU has played a big part. But there are also millions of people where, in their day-to-day routines, the EU has little impact in ways they can readily perceive.

UKIP did a great job of pointing out all the bad ones. Whether people were directly affected or not, all of the campaigning by UKIP pointed out all the provable stupid bad parts and most people figured it was not worth being a part of when proving the "benefit" is almost impossible to do.

From the moment UKIP started gaining momentum the conservatives and labour couldn't form any sort of argument that led people to believe it was worth being a part of. It was just the same rubbish about how the nhs is built by immigrants because the British are lazy, how it stops wars (lol) how its beneficial to lose all control of your borders and cram your land with unskilled people etc.

And i wouldn't say for a copywriter there was a negative impact but for builders, plasterers, tons of different sectors including non skilled work, wages were compressed and still are for many competing against Europeans working cheap.

People should have voted leave for the simple fact tony Blair and labour ruined the country.

Then there's the simple logic that you can't have best part of 30 countries with the top three or four economies having to subsidise the rest for the greater good.

The EU is a slow pile of rubbish. Needs re-thinking.

 

[MASSEY]

Yes my liberal hand-wringing friend, they are. Whether you agree with the EU project or not, only by bleeding the rich countries (and that includes the UK) to uplift the poor ones can the block ever reach something like parity of living standards.

The problem with that is its utter b0ll0cks. Mass migration will eventually make the richer countries even richer although paradoxically drive down living standards as we suffer the true consequences of capitalism without a social conscience. I listed some of the representations of that in my last post.

Only the naive think that the formation of a political federal block will make us all wealthier. Nothing wrong with Utopia, problem is no-one has ever returned from it with a smile on their face

Not sure it will make us richer, once they spend the money on the required infrastructure to facilitate all these people when its already inadequate and they cant afford to do anything.

It certainly drains the poorer countries of youth. Totally imbalanced. It will take decades for them to make a whole block of countries in one union work in economic harmony, maybe even more than a hundred years lol.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

UKIP did a great job of pointing out all the bad ones. Whether people were directly affected or not, all of the campaigning by UKIP pointed out all the provable stupid bad parts and most people figured it was not worth being a part of when proving the "benefit" is almost impossible to do.

From the moment UKIP started gaining momentum the conservatives and labour couldn't form any sort of argument that led people to believe it was worth being a part of. It was just the same rubbish about how the nhs is built by immigrants because the British are lazy, how it stops wars (lol) how its beneficial to lose all control of your borders and cram your land with unskilled people etc.

There are plenty of arguments. People just refused to believe them. They were dismissed as scaremongering.

What's going to be very interesting is when, post-Brexit, the economy slumps and immigration barely drops by 20-25% at a push.

Public services will be squeezed further, jobs will be lost, prices will go up, wages will shrink and, to top it all off, annual net migration will remain closer to 200,000 than 100,000.

Even the most hardline leave supporters accept that there will be a negative economic impact of some type over the next decade. But many who voted leave are expecting things to improve. They're expecting things to change for the better.

What happens when that doesn't happen?

 

[Mr D]

When the change they want does not happen? They will blame the government of course.
Cannot blame themselves.

Had a guy in the waiting room today who I have met a few times at events, he was going on about how Brexit will free up jobs in the NHS to be done by other people.
As we do not train enough ourselves we will do what we usually do, recruit from elsewhere. Outside the EU.
Oh and the guy was an Indian, came over from the US in the 80s.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

It certainly drains the poorer countries of youth. Totally imbalanced. It will take decades for them to make a whole block of countries in one union work in economic harmony, maybe even more than a hundred years lol.

So?

How long did it take the USA? They still have massive inequalities, Texas is nearly twice as prosperous as New Mexico next door, but I don't think you would get much traction saying it should be split up.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

When the change they want does not happen? They will blame the government of course.
Cannot blame themselves.

I think you're right.

The way I see this unfolding is that, when the land of milk and honey doesn't arrive, people will blame the terms of the exit and not the exit itself.

There will be cries of "if we had done this instead, everything would have worked".

Unfortunately, when it comes to what people want (considerably lower immigration and an improved economy) even one of those on its own is extremely difficult to achieve.

I have no doubt that, over time, the UK will be fine. Maybe in 30 years, it will be like this never happened and we'll continue on our merry way.

But for those already feeling the pinch, I get the impression that they aren't just doing this for their grandchildren.

As for the NHS, I don't know about you, but I've never known a newly qualified British doctor or nurse being unable to find a job.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35667939

This is a supply problem. And what's most infuriating is that the economic slump caused by Brexit will squeeze funds available for training even further, so we're heading towards a situation where foreign staff and British staff will be restricted at the same time.

But hey, at least that £350million per week for the NHS will soften the blow...

 

[quikshop]

I think you're right.

The way I see this unfolding is that, when the land of milk and honey doesn't arrive, people will blame the terms of the exit and not the exit itself.

There will be cries of "if we had done this instead, everything would have worked".

Unfortunately, when it comes to what people want (considerably lower immigration and an improved economy) even one of those on its own is extremely difficult to achieve.

I have no doubt that, over time, the UK will be fine. Maybe in 30 years, it will be like this never happened and we'll continue on our merry way.

But for those already feeling the pinch, I get the impression that they aren't just doing this for their grandchildren.

As for the NHS, I don't know about you, but I've never known a newly qualified British doctor or nurse being unable to find a job.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35667939

This is a supply problem. And what's most infuriating is that the economic slump caused by Brexit will squeeze funds available for training even further, so we're heading towards a situation where foreign staff and British staff will be restricted at the same time.

But hey, at least that £350million per week for the NHS will soften the blow...

There are no Brexit voters I know of dreaming of a land of milk and honey, none of them voted for Brexit because it would improve the economy in the short term. Most did vote to leave a quasi-communist EU structure, most did vote as a reaction to uncontrolled migration and none of them believed a word from the Remain campaign... and some myself included were waiting for an intelligent pro-EU argument to be put forward by Remain (now re-branded as Soft Brexit) but instead they opted, and still opt for Project Fear.

 

[Mr D]

My brother is a nurse, not a degree educated one merely one of the hardworking auxiliary nurses you see doing the basic stuff.
I joke with him about his time as a beach bum, since he was 16 he has never been out of work (retail then nursing) until he went to live overseas. Even now he works part of his time as a nurse, doing similar job as in UK but higher wage per hour.

Quite likely I think that millions of people will be disappointed with whatever deal is done on Brexit - bearing in mind how many hurdles it has to jump it will be not enough for some, too much for others and no one will likely get everything they want.
People voted the way they did for whatever reason, I have my reasons for voting as I'm sure many on here did (those of us who did vote).
The end result and what was promised (by both sides) in the referendum may be completely different.
Though I for one will be annoyed if we walk away only to have the same terms and conditions, higher payments to EU and no seat at the table...
An unlikely result (I hope) - possible though.

 

[The Byre]

.. and some myself included were waiting for an intelligent pro-EU argument to be put forward by Remain (now re-branded as Soft Brexit) but instead they opted, and still opt for Project Fear.

And therein lies a great truth!

The remain campaign was warned again and again that their Project Fear tactic would back-fire on them and it did so spectacularly!

The fact that a youngster today can go and live and work and create a career in any one of 28 countries without undue bureaucracy and hassle is one of the freedoms and brilliant advantages that means a great deal to many people - but at no time was this mentioned.

Great avenues of cooperation in industry, science, culture, art and learning have been opened up by the EU. But instead, all we got was "The sky will fall!" to which 26% of the population said "No it won't, don't be so silly!" and that was enough.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

There are no Brexit voters I know of dreaming of a land of milk and honey, none of them voted for Brexit because it would improve the economy in the short term. Most did vote to leave a quasi-communist EU structure, most did vote as a reaction to uncontrolled migration and none of them believed a word from the Remain campaign... and some myself included were waiting for an intelligent pro-EU argument to be put forward by Remain (now re-branded as Soft Brexit) but instead they opted, and still opt for Project Fear.

If you and fellow leavers label all the consequences as "Project Fear" and dismiss them as scaremongering, it's no wonder we're leaving.

Of course the pro-EU argument is going to be inherently negative. We are in the EU. Soon we won't be. It's an exercise in loss.

When a country loses financial passporting rights, loses over 60 EU-brokered FTAs, leaves the single market, leaves the customs union, restricts immigration (which many industries depend on), sees prices rise due to the devaluation of the pound, disrupts supply chains and loses thousands of EU-related jobs, bad things will happen.

And to top that all off, net migration will not change in any significant way. After all, non-EU net migration alone amounted to 175,000 people last year. You could stop EU migration entirely and the figure still wouldn't be anywhere near what most people are expecting.

But some things have to be learned the hard way, I suppose.

In regards to why people voted, you'll find that a large number of people (far more than enough to change the outcome) voted because they thought the economy would improve over the next 5 years.

What's done is done, of course, but many people out there will be in for a surprise in the next few years. Some who voted may be expecting that, but many others are not.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The fact that a youngster today can go and live and work and create a career in any one of 28 countries without undue bureaucracy and hassle is one of the freedoms and brilliant advantages that means a great deal to many people - but at no time was this mentioned.

I suspect that's one of the reasons why 73% of 18-24 year olds voted to remain.

I know of young people who were planning to travel and work around the EU, and their parents still voted to leave. The argument was "sorry, but other things are more important".

If some people can vote to scrap the dreams of their loved ones, I wouldn't hold out much hope of them caring about people they don't even know.

PS: All credit to those who did vote mainly with the younger generation in mind - whether that was leave or remain. Not everyone did, however.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The fact that a youngster today can go and live and work and create a career in any one of 28 countries without undue bureaucracy and hassle is one of the freedoms and brilliant advantages that means a great deal to many people - but at no time was this mentioned.

This was the same with the original referendum to go into the EU. The official leaflet went something like; "Freedom of Movement. This is nothing to worry about." That was it. No explanation of the wonderful positives of being a citizen of the whole continent.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I know of young people who were planning to travel and work around the EU, and their parents still voted to leave.

One of the craziest I heard was an elderly couple who voted leave to keep the immigrants out. When their daughter tried to explain that this would affect their granddaughter's life and their great grandchildren because she had married an immigrant the old lady replied, "Oh, Stefan is not an EU immigrant, He's a Romanian!"

 

[MASSEY]

There are plenty of arguments. People just refused to believe them. They were dismissed as scaremongering.

What's going to be very interesting is when, post-Brexit, the economy slumps and immigration barely drops by 20-25% at a push.

Public services will be squeezed further, jobs will be lost, prices will go up, wages will shrink and, to top it all off, annual net migration will remain closer to 200,000 than 100,000.

Even the most hardline leave supporters accept that there will be a negative economic impact of some type over the next decade. But many who voted leave are expecting things to improve. They're expecting things to change for the better.

What happens when that doesn't happen?

Well to be honest even if the immigration figures didn't fall id still rather have a government capable of accepting students and skilled workers from places like India etc without having to prioritise Roberta from Romania with three kids because it's eu law. Alongside the government having to try and appease voters because of how crippled the infrastructure is thanks to labour. At least the government will have control over what happens now thats all they matters. You can argue labours damage is irreversible. But staying in the eu would only have made things worse. It is not logical to grant a block of hundreds of millions free access to your already crowded country with a rubbish health care service and a shortage of affordable housing.

The scaremongering is always saying how we will be living in poverty. Who knows what the future will be, we know what it would have been if we remained, can it be any worse, I don't think it's likely. Seems to me like there's more chance things will be better,

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The scaremongering is always saying how we will be living in poverty. Who knows what the future will be, we know what it would have been if we remained, can it be any worse, I don't think it's likely. Seems to me like there's more chance things will be better,

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the time before we joined the EU? The prosperity of the UK has increased enormously since those times and much of that prosperity is because we are part of a large trading block. It is nothing but blind faith to think we will prosper to the same extent outside the block.

Boris, May and Gove are still talking up the idea that outside the EU we will have more "opportunities" for trade. We have had those opportunities for as long as I remember. There was never anything stopping me from trading with countries outside the EU like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Australia, Nigeria etc.

Leaving the EU is not going to increase the places you can trade on level terms it is going to reduce the possibilities.