Part of putting the damage right is to remove the cause (Brexit).
I don't think that is likely to happen soon, but it is your right to push for it, convince sufficient of your fellow electors and vote for it when the opportunity arises.
The United States of Europe project is for the long run. Majority voting has only been around for 30 years or so, and the pace of change gradual. Before we know it (boiling frogs syndrome), we'll be similar to the position of Louisiana. Some people will be quite happy with that, of course.
It is your right to push for change, convince sufficient of your fellow electors and vote for it when the opportunity arises.
It's a series of updates which basically say they see no reason to change their previous projections. The most recent mention appears to be at https://obr.uk/box/the-effect-on-productivity-of-leaving-the-eu/
This is March 2020 so usefully pre-Covid.
The quote above mentions it being in the long run. Also we're seeing multinational businesses pulling out of the UK and UK-based businesses being less competitive internationally, with jobs and tax revenue going with them. Covid is a bit different as it won't act as a long-term drag, it affected all economies not just the UK, and we couldn't really do much to prevent it (unlike Brexit where the damage is self-inflicted).
I believe that will happen in time. Polls now show a significant majority believe Brexit was the wrong thing to do, but are not in favour of re-joining because that would be in many ways a repeat of 2019 and a future Tory government would just want to reverse it. It's unlikely for many years until the majority becomes overwhelming and all major political parties are in favour.
So rules to control rents or to prevent wages being suppressed are "bad" rules but rules to prevent immigration from the EU are "good" rules?
(Regarding many Tory politicians considering Brexit a bad idea, but one which is difficult to reverse so they "big it up" in order not to look weak)
You can't have the single market without freedom of movement.
FoM will be a political dead end , especially one that would bring all the wage anxiety back but wouldnt let boomers have their dreams of retiring in Spain back. Something like what Turkey has would still be unlikely but slightly more likely
We've been over this numerous times and any agreement is unlikely. But the fact remains that an increasing majority considers Brexit was a bad idea, much more so amongst young people reaching voting age. I'm not saying this is a majority to re-join, as many people don't want a repeat of 2019, but it could become so in time.
The whole "the warehouses only hire poles because they work for less" sentiment that existed in towns where they are big employers and voted strongly for Brexit (Think places like Boston ) , that Labour will probably soon acquire the seats for. Kier is going to be in no rush to send middle England back to the Tories
No mention of FoM on the ballot paper. How do you know how many people wanted to get rid of it specifically?
20 out of every 21 people who voted for Brexit would have had to feel that way for it to have been a majority of those voting, let alone a majority of the electorate. Since it wasn't at all clear that this would have been a consequence of voting to leave, I don't think you can claim majority public opposition to FoM in 2016 - still less today.
Do you have evidence that their is a majority behind bringing back freedom of movement?
But that's assuming that all those who voted to remain were happy with FoM. Some of them may not have been, but felt that it was worth enduring FoM to retain the rest of the package.
Anybody who voted to leave but expected FoM to be retained could not have quite gathered the mood in the room. Similarly those who believed "leaving" would see the retention of the UK's membership of the Single Market and/or the Customs Union were equally deluded (particularly with regard to the Single Market, which requires FoM). I don't believe there was any serious suggestion before the referendum that the UK would retain any of these features of EU membership. In fact, the government pamphlet published before the referendum makes it quite clear that the Single Market and FoM are inextricably linked and that leaving the EU would (at least) jeopardise membership of the Single Market and more probably see an end to it:
Or, they believed what they were being told.
I’m not sure how a universal minimum wage would work amongst different economies. If it was universal, some countries simply wouldn’t be able to afford it, and in other countries it could have been too low for workers to be able to afford to live.
I could see that perhaps barely being feasible in the Eurozone since, in theory at least, a Euro is a Euro and the countries have a common macro economic policy through the ECB. But across countries that don't share a currency I don't see any way that it could work.
This completely ignores the fact that local living costs vary across the EU. Where a minimum wage exists the ability to meet those costs is a major factor in setting its level. The conditions to allow a uniform minimum wage across the EU will almost certainly never happen.
No, and I haven't claimed to. But nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary despite asserting it.
The text you quote makes clear that remaining in the SM was likely to involve FoM, but it doesn't say that the intention would be to leave the SM. It cites non-EU members who have chosen to join the SM, which demonstrates that is it possible to do so and was in fact the preferred choice for those countries.
They did make it well known. But then Leave campaign replied that it was all part of "Project Fear".
Absolutely.
