25 Brexit need to knows ( Martin Lewis)

Spot on ads, but there is nothing new being said. It’s just another BREXIT thread flogging the horse to death with the same old arguments, opinions and insults. It’s all a bad image for EOS. A deterrent to new members joining and certainly not what the paid advertisers want to see.  

Interesting observation with regard to paid advertisers , as if not careful there could be a conflict of interests in so much as transparency and educative posts that to many users are the backbone to EOS, do not always sit comfortably with those who don’t want to hear uncomfortable truths! But the positive slant to this is that facing up to realities and finding solutions through civilised debate ( emphasis on civilised, ha!) can frequently work to the benefit of all....

The same applies to Brexit, which is why seeking compromises and workable solutions ( which requires balanced reform from both sides, UK and the EU to be honest) is so essential going forward. How else do we ever learn from our mistakes if we refuse to face up to realities and adjust accordingly.

But equally here lies the difficulty... economic realities have to be formulated effectively and honestly. There’s little to be gained in manipulating falsehoods. Personally this is why I think that forecasting and modelling methods need to be seriously reviewed...likewise with the way that countries economies are compared when it comes to policy making decisions.

For instance following the economic crash, which hit some countries far worse than others, why was country debt and timely measures required to control debt ( austerity measures), not realistically factored in when considering the timeframe of a country’s ability to accommodate free movement of people? It proved unrealistic to expect countries that were struggling to deal with debt with all the subsequent pressures on infrastructure, social systems etc, to be expected to accommodate an influx of people which was inevitably going to place a massive further strain on the economy.

So one solution perhaps would be greater flexibility and willingness to review such factors so as to prevent an inevitable increase in citizen disillusionment that has led to where we are today.

Anyway for what it’s worth that’s my personal take on this.

Here’s some food for thought , an article from 2011, which may indirectly apply to Brexit..... small is beautiful economic idea and the “ deadening consensus of globalisation”. The economist Schumacher  believed large scale leads to a dehumanisation of people and the economic systems that ordered lives. “We yearn for economic systems within our control, within our comprehension and that once again provide space for human interaction – and yet we are constantly overwhelmed by finding ourselves trapped into vast global economic systems that are corrupting and corrupt.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/10/small-is-beautiful-economic-idea

I think there's some truth in that article ads. I enjoyed reading and largely agree with Shumacher.  If a tv comedian with no political experience can get elected as president of Ukraine with over 70% of the vote something is seriously wrong in the world. I say world because that phernonomem is happening globally. Trump is another example. Brexit too is a reaction to the same political processes sweeping the planet. In short dissatisfaction with globalism and protest by populations who believe rightly or wrongly they being ignored, left behind and have an uncertain future. 

It matters not if that is true or not. If an electore feel and believe it they will respond accordingly. If expectations are out of sync with the actuality, discontent with the status quo results. If the solution is back to arts, crafts and small economies maybe human beings can recover their sense of worth and belief.  It would certainly help the planet.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

But Mickeyfinn the euro system is NOT small....it is focused on enlarging and now stipulates that new members must be in the eurozone, so appears quite the opposite to what this article is highlighting. Plus some disillusionment has come from control being taken away I.e. feeling trapped in a system over which citizens have less control and less ability to enforce accountability.

Best we leave it there.

'A new referendum after so much information debate and education that is now out there allows for a more rational decision to be made.'

A perfectly rational decision was made.

Are you now calling the electorate irrational as well as foolish and ill informed?

Among many voters in the referendum, their logical basis (rationale) for voting leave was founded upon the fear of being swamped by immigration. When in fact most illegal immigration arrives from outside the EU. Legal immigration from within the block usually brings a nation positive results from people with ambition and a mindset to work, contribute and play by the rules. The UK government reduced services with the austerity programme at a time of increasing demand. The electorate blamed the EU and free movement when in fact  Cameron's government was responsible. 

In addition, it is not really rational for a nation that depends on trade for its survival to vote to leave a successful single market and customs union and revert to trading on high tariffs and restrictive practices of the WTO.

ads. Small may be beautiful but to compete in the globalised world nations have to trade in a block on an equal basis with the likes of China and the USA. Alone smaller nations trading on WTO tariffs will be over-whelmed, become uncompetitive and be left behind. Maybe if you follow Schumacher's philosophy and belief that's no bad thing. However, I doubt the British electorate is really yearning for it.

Mickeyfinn you observed, “ The UK government reduced services with the austerity programme at a time of increasing demand. The electorate blamed the EU and free movement when in fact  Cameron's government was responsible. “

The difference being however, that the UK has the power to increase the intake of people from outside the EU depending on UK need, but not so with citizens from the EU, so when there was a need to control the massive debt resulting from the effects of the global crash and we were just about recovering, the sudden and sharp increase of people from the EU ( looking for work) over which we had NO CONTROL, left the UK struggling to provide the infrastructure, and the social systems were put under massive stress, and before you know it the British electorate were crying out for recovery of control over this sudden influx. To repeat, the UK Govts request for the EU to reconsider the timeframe for entry of EU citizens AT THAT CRITICAL TIME was dismissed out of hand, which left us at that point unable to deal with the sudden increase in demand that you refer to. 

Sorry ads but you are making a lot of that up. When new states were allowed into the EU in 2004, only UK, Ireland and Sweden allowed migrants from the Eastern EU immediate access. All other EU states put a block on them coming in for up to seven years which countries like German and France did. So blaming the EU, who put in the restrictions, on UK failing to implement the blocks is rather rubbish. If anyone is to blame it was the Labour government at the time. They forecast around 5,000 would enter and this rapidly turned into 130,000 in the first couple of years.

Blaming the EU for decisions made by the UK government seems to be the norm. 

In December 2018 a survey by the government Office for National Statistics found 2.27 million EU nationals working in the UK, 61,000 fewer than for a year earlier. That is out of a total figure of 29.10 million UK nationals employed.

There were also an estimated 1.29 million non-EU nationals working in the UK, 130,000 more than for a year earlier.

The Brexiteers contention that free movement of people from the EU is negative for Britain has no justification. In truth, the austerity programme implemented by Osbourne and Cameron provoked deep unhappiness in Britain among the electorate. The referendum stupidly called at the worse possible time with the Syrian crisis and full on cuts to services simply gave people backsides to kick.

Source ONS December 2018

** EDITED - Against forum rules **

'Among many voters in the referendum, their logical basis (rationale) for voting leave was founded upon the fear of being swamped by immigration.'

Micky. I live in the UK. That is an ugly lie and you should applologise.

But, even if were true.it would not make their vote invalid. Defending ones own culture is not racist and a perfectly valid position.

I was not surprised by the result of the referendum as all those I spoke to prior the the referendum were either voting leave or not voting at all, bar one. It was either dislike of the EU or our loss of democracy that drove those who said they intended to vote leave. I suspect many who said they would not vote in fact voted leave and would not admit it due the negative comments (impuning motives) such as yours in some of the press.

Small may be beautiful

The British economy is by no means small.

But as a part of a European superstate we would eventually become an insignificant ofshore island, probably living off tourisim.

tteedd- I wrote the word MANY in my post. That just not suggest everyone.

Defending one's culture does not in my view involve or justify discrimination or racism or using the fear of immigration as a tool to influence electorates.

The British economy depends on trade. Without free trade the costs of importing and exporting that trade rises. How can that economy then expand under such conditions? It makes little economic sense. The reference of "small is beautiful" was actually about Schumacher's book which if you had read the link ads posted you would understand the point much better. 

** EDITED - inciting **

Mariedav,

This appears quite complex and not as black and white as suggested. Again the devil appears in the detail.....

Back In January 2014, Nigel Mills, a Conservative MP who led an unsuccessful campaign to extend migrant restrictions, said Britain should have the right to opt-out of EU agreements, particularly ones made prior to the recent economic crisis.

"We have to have the right to say 'look we accept those are the rules of the club, but we were allowed to suspend free movement of Romanians and Bulgarians for seven years, let's make that a bit longer while we sort our economy out.'

"The hallmark of a sovereign economy is we can change our mind."

(Bulgarian and Romanian citizens were free to live and work in the UK after controls in place since 2007 expired.)

Then in February 2016 prior to the referendum Cameron tried to gain an emergency brake mechanism from the EU.

 “Cameron demands 13-year ban on EU migrant benefits at summit” 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/cameron-demands-13-year-ban-on-eu-migrant-benefits-at-summit/

But this was denied.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/cameron-fails-to-get-european-parliament-assurances-over-emergency-brake/

This appears to have confirmed that the legal dispute between the UK Government and the European Commission over the UK’s ‘right to reside’ test on EU nationals’ access to benefits is only likely to fuel public distrust of free movement and therefore seems a public relations own goal for the European Commission.

The problem is that EU law on the access to different kinds of benefits is based on two competing concepts – ‘right of residence’ and ‘habitual residence’ – creating a confusing and logically inconsistent system. This is a complicated legal question, but one that essentially means that, while, under one set of rules, EU nationals can be entitled to some UK benefits because they are ‘habitually resident’ in the UK, access to another set of UK benefits is dependent on EU nationals’ right to reside in the UK. Therefore, in principle, EU law states that some UK benefits should be paid out to EU nationals even if they do not have the ‘right to reside’ in the UK.

Reforms to improve the political management of free movement were examined and even back in March 2012 Open Europe’s preferred option was as follows:

• The UK should work with other EU member states and the European Commission for a reformed, more transparent system that gives member states more discretion in enacting safeguards against undue strains on public finances and welfare systems. The Commission should drop its challenge against the UK’s ‘right to reside test’ and instead pursue reform of the current EU system on access to benefits which is both confusing and illogical.

A more effective system of statistics and planning should be put in place in order to avoid sudden strains on public services and improve public debate on immigration. With better and timelier data, the central Government could respond quicker to the problems created by sudden flows evident in places such as Slough, Peterborough and Hammersmith and allow local services to respond quicker.

For future EU enlargements, tighter transitional controls might be necessary, based on more objective criteria such as relative GDP per capita rather than the arbitrary time-limited controls used up to now.

Leavers were not irrational, foolish or ill informed, niether were 'MANY' racist.

Most thought long, hard and sincerly before casting thier vote. Some were ardent supporters of a United Europe in the past but have had thier eyes opened by events since the seventies.

Taking it on trust or as read that something is by definition good (or bad) is a feature of remainers rather than leavers. Leavers do not usually find a need to demean others to explain the result of the referendum.

'The Brexiteers contention that free movement of people from the EU is negative for Britain has no justification'

How about:

The UK can only feed just over half the population from the UK's resources?

or The health service and infrastructure cannot cope with the current population?

or The UK is one of the most heavily populated parts of Europe and does not have room for more infrastructure or housing?

tteedd - Although I agree that the UK population for its size and geographical density is high. I do not accept that free movement of people from the EU has made the differences you list. I have already written about those causes which are largely due to austerity.

In truth, just over 3 million EU citizens live and work in the UK out of a total population of over 66 million. Exaggerating the impact of EU migration is one of the principle untruths of the leave campaign. The NHS would struggle without migration from Europe and agriculture and the construction industries are already finding it difficult to employ workers.

In any case, net migration from elsewhere has always exceeded migration from the EU. "Taking back control" was misleading because the government has little control over higher migration from the rest of the world.

I did not say all leave voters were racists. You twist my words to suit your own narrative. What I did say was leavers felt an irrational fear of being swamped by immigration. That is not in itself racist. What is racist is to stoke that fear of immigration and use it as a political tool to demonise migrants and refugees who are simply human beings in search of a better life.