EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Tetchytyke]

On the other hand house prices are at a record high and must be about to collapse (although the weak pound will help them remain aloft for a while)

We've been forecasting a collapse for a decade. It won't happen whilst we spread our legs for every dodgy Russian and Chinese "businessman" who wants to hide his money offshore.

Of course the people who vowed we'd "take back control" are the ones most actively encouraging the dodgy and the criminal into the British property market.

Still no sign of clamping down on estate agent thievery either, I can't help but notice...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Okay, so an open question to Remainers:

If you were offered the opportunity to live on the continent (France/Germany/Italy etc.) once Brexit takes place, would you sell up here and move?

I mean, if the UK is going to become a tiny and insignificant country now it's no longer in the EU, why bother staying? Surely as a protest (and maybe causing a bank run) you could sell up here, take your money out of the bank and go and live in the EU again.

Our lass qualified as a psychologist in Dublin, and would earn more in Ireland than she does in the NHS

I'd move tomorrow.

The scariest thing is that my Australian passsport is from a more sane and forward-thinking country than my UK one right now.

 

[Johnuk123]

I'd move tomorrow.

The scariest thing is that my Australian passsport is from a more sane and forward-thinking country than my UK one right now.

Yes this country really is rubbish isn't it, what a horrible place to have to live.
When you leave don't forget to come on here and say bye.

 

[yorksrob]

We've been forecasting a collapse for a decade. It won't happen whilst we spread our legs for every dodgy Russian and Chinese "businessman" who wants to hide his money offshore.

Of course the people who vowed we'd "take back control" are the ones most actively encouraging the dodgy and the criminal into the British property market.

Still no sign of clamping down on estate agent thievery either, I can't help but notice...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Our lass qualified as a psychologist in Dublin, and would earn more in Ireland than she does in the NHS

I'd move tomorrow.

The scariest thing is that my Australian passsport is from a more sane and forward-thinking country than my UK one right now.

I notice that Australia hasn't seen fit to enter into a full political union with it's neighbours. It and NZ seem perfectly happy to remain as good neighbours, encouraging greater trade with their wider neighbourhood in Asia. And why shouldn't they - although this is somewhat more hands off than the situation most of us would prefer with our European neighbours.

Your entire sense of lofty superiority is borne of nothing more then the geographical accident that Britain happens to be situated next door to a group of countries whose chosen path is fairly divergent from anything the majority of the British public would have chosen for themselves.

 

[furnessvale]

The scariest thing is that my Australian passsport is from a more sane and forward-thinking country than my UK one right now.

Would that include their immigration policy?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The information you want is on the various eu websites, as for "signed off as accurate"

Takes about 10 months after year end. I haven't done my tax return for y/e apr 2016 yet either.

http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/annualreports-2015/annualreports-2015-EN.pdf#page=13

Alternatively, we could go for a fuller picture:
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

Claim
The EU’s accounts haven’t been signed off for years.

Conclusion
Auditors say the accounts are accurate and have been since 2007. But they record significant errors in how money is paid, and this has been the case since 1995.

It’s often argued that the EU’s budget both has and hasn’t been signed off by auditors for years.

Both sides have a point. The EU’s Court of Auditors regularly “signs off”—in its own words—the reliability of the accounts themselves, and has given them a clean bill of health for the last eight years.

But it has consistently found significant errors in how the money is paid out since it began giving opinions in 1995.

Ultimately, it depends on what you think the term “signed off” implies about the accounts.

Two opinions, not one
The European Court of Auditors checks the EU’s accounts and delivers verdicts on them annually. It actually gives two different opinions on them: whether they’re accurate and reliable, and to what extent there’s evidence that money is being received or paid in error.

The auditors give a on the accuracy and reliability of the accounts when they present a “of the EU’s finances and follow the rules of financial reporting. This has been the case since 2007.

If they’re mostly fine, but have some problems, the auditors give a “qualified” opinion. This was the case before 2007. If they have extensive problems, they give an “adverse” opinion on the reliability of the accounts. This has never happened.

The same opinions are delivered on the ‘regularity’ of the accounts—whether they’re free from significant errors. The Court of Auditors has always given an adverse opinion on this ever since it started giving opinions in 1995.

So what does all this say about the EU’s accounts? The numbers accurately reflect what’s actually happened, it’s just that some of it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

(article continues)

© Copyright 2010 - 2016 Full Fact.

A registered charity (no. 1158683) and a non-profit company (no. 6975984) limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes this country really is rubbish isn't it, what a horrible place to have to live.
When you leave don't forget to come on here and say bye.

You're the one that's constantly complaining about how much worse it's got.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would that include their immigration policy?

I think you misunderstand my sarcasm.

Any country that elects Tony Abbott as PM is neither sane nor forward-thinking, although it's got a bit better since Abbott's own party shoved him out.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Ignoring the trade benefits and just looking at the "membership fee", it's about £120m a week.

So that's £120m per week which could go to the NHS rather than £350m. I don't recall the remainers trumpeting this figure in response, it certainly wasn't on the remain leaflets, although post referendum I did see a similar figure on BBC web news article. I suspect most people would regards £120m per week (or £2 per person) as quite a large sum of money. But I agree a) small beer in national accounts terms and b) unlikely to be transferred directly into genuinely additional NHS (or other public) spending. Smoke and mirrors, re-announcing previous commitments, balanced by cuts elsewhere etc.

Our exports to the EU is somewhere in the region of £3000m a week, so if Brexit and the WTO tarrifs we'll get upon leaving, reduces this by just 5% we'll have lost out.

Our imports are the order of £4000m a week, and the pound's drop since brexit has already increased this by about £800m a week.

Trade rises and falls, share prices rise and fall, currency values rise and fall. It all depends where you draw the boundaries of your analysis. Did you know that, statistically speaking and easily evidenced, there was no house price crash in and just after 2008?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I notice that Australia hasn't seen fit to enter into a full political union with it's neighbours. It and NZ seem perfectly happy to remain as good neighbours, encouraging greater trade with their wider neighbourhood in Asia.

The Trans-Tasman agreement means NZ citizens have pretty much unrestricted access to live and work in Australia, and vice versa. That sounds awfully similar to what caused so much consternation amongst Brexiters.

The relationship between the two countries is a lot closer than merely getting along with your neighbour.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Brexit-grade tinfoilery.

The conscription bit or the European army bit? There has certainly been serious talk of a European army, the question is does it replace the existing national armies (and presumably other armed forces) or is it additional to these?

 

[Tetchytyke]

So that's £120m per week which could go to the NHS rather than £350m. I don't recall the remainers trumpeting this figure in response, it certainly wasn't on the remain leaflets

Remainers did mention this- I know I did, repeatedly- but it was ignored. The cost of the EU was never £350m a week, but Leave said it was, and Leave won. So where's our £350m a week Boris?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Still no sign of clamping down on estate agent thievery either, I can't help but notice...

Have the police been making investigations into what you say? What part of the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978 do you allude to?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The Treasury published that information before the vote. Did you not search it out yourself (google) and read it to inform your vote?

On the headline figure, the 'rebate' is a misnomer. It's actually an abatement i.e. we aren't invoiced for the gross then have a rebate sent back to us. We are invoiced/pay over the figure once the 'rebate' has already been deducted.

How much time should I have spent to inform myself (and other voters likewise to inform themselves) before voting. The postman did his dump through my letterbox of propaganda leaflets from both sides. Plenty of media time was given to the issue. If neither side was capable of presenting a coherent argument, is it any wonder that the result is so contested?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Have the police been making investigations into what you say? What part of the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978 do you allude to?

Have you checked all the case law, Paul?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Yes this country really is rubbish isn't it, what a horrible place to have to live.
When you leave don't forget to come on here and say bye.

I believe Mark Thomas was offering to fund taxi rides (or take them himself?) to Heathrow for bankers wishing to leave.

Is the EU going to offer free single tickets on Eurostar for those wishing to leave, or are UKIP as part of their drive to ethnically cleanse England?

 

[Howardh]

The Trans-Tasman agreement means NZ citizens have pretty much unrestricted access to live and work in Australia, and vice versa. That sounds awfully similar to what caused so much consternation amongst Brexiters.

The relationship between the two countries is a lot closer than merely getting along with your neighbour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Category_Visa so they still have to go through a few hoops to qualify. Is that what will happen here with us and the EU? Will we have to submit on a form if we have cancer, or have ever thrown an egg at Farage?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How much time should I have spent to inform myself (and other voters likewise to inform themselves) before voting. The postman did his dump through my letterbox of propaganda leaflets from both sides. Plenty of media time was given to the issue. If neither side was capable of presenting a coherent argument, is it any wonder that the result is so contested?

Well how much time you spend is a decision only you can make. But it really wasn't hard to find out that the £350M figure that the Leave camp had made such a big part of their campaign was an outright lie. If my memory from the time is correct, less than minute's Googling would have revealed that the figure was at best questionable, and a few minutes reading would have shown up why the figure was wrong.

I would somewhat dispute your claim that neither side was capable of presenting a coherent argument. The Remain side's argument - that leaving the EU would harm our economy - was perfectly coherent, was supported by most mainstream economists who studied the issue, and appears to be being confirmed by what's happened since the referendum. Personally I somewhat regret that the Remain camp didn't particularly highlight any of the other arguments for remaining in the EU - and I think they weakened their case by not doing so (and to be fair, although their core argument was broadly correct, they did exaggerate it somewhat). But the argument they did present was coherent. The problem was, many voters, goaded by the lies of the leave campaign, chose not to believe that argument.

 

[WelshBluebird]

How much time should I have spent to inform myself (and other voters likewise to inform themselves) before voting. The postman did his dump through my letterbox of propaganda leaflets from both sides. Plenty of media time was given to the issue. If neither side was capable of presenting a coherent argument, is it any wonder that the result is so contested?

Personally, I take that very fact (that you couldn't have found out about the fact we don't send £350m a week to the EU) as yet another reason why we should not have had the referendum to begin with, and that many people were simply not informed enough to vote on the issue. It was not a "hidden fact" or anything. Many of us on the remain side did say it, but were ignored or brushed off as "project fear". Pretty much everything the remain campaign said was just treated with a "that's a lie" response from the leave voters, so I really don't see what else they could have done!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Well how much time you spend is a decision only you can make. But it really wasn't hard to find out that the £350M figure that the Leave camp had made such a big part of their campaign was an outright lie. If my memory from the time is correct, less than minute's Googling would have revealed that the figure was at best questionable, and a few minutes reading would have shown up why the figure was wrong.

I would somewhat dispute your claim that neither side was capable of presenting a coherent argument. The Remain side's argument - that leaving the EU would harm our economy - was perfectly coherent, was supported by most mainstream economists who studied the issue, and appears to be being confirmed by what's happened since the referendum. Personally I somewhat regret that the Remain camp didn't particularly highlight any of the other arguments for remaining in the EU - and I think they weakened their case by not doing so (and to be fair, although their core argument was broadly correct, they did exaggerate it somewhat). But the argument they did present was coherent. The problem was, many voters, goaded by the lies of the leave campaign, chose not to believe that argument.

Project Fear was never going to be a winner in my humble opinion. You don't change peoples minds by frightening them. Listen to me or you will get battered! Although, obviously, far many more well paid and highly educated people with access to focus groups, opinion polls, statistical analysis of target demographics, nudge unit skills etc know better than me.

I didn't make my decision based upon the £350m figure anyway, so it was background noise. But I do like to know the facts. I do believe in honesty, openness and transparency in public life. Especially if a decision is (potentially) monumental to all our futures - inner, outer, ambivalent or simply not bothered.

 

[furnessvale]

I think you misunderstand my sarcasm.

Any country that elects Tony Abbott as PM is neither sane nor forward-thinking, although it's got a bit better since Abbott's own party shoved him out.

Sorry, I totally missed the sarcasm. I thought it was strange having read your posts over the months.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Personally, I take that very fact (that you couldn't have found out about the fact we don't send £350m a week to the EU) as yet another reason why we should not have had the referendum to begin with, and that many people were simply not informed enough to vote on the issue. It was not a "hidden fact" or anything. Many of us on the remain side did say it, but were ignored or brushed off as "project fear". Pretty much everything the remain campaign said was just treated with a "that's a lie" response from the leave voters, so I really don't see what else they could have done!

Pretty much everything the (remain) leave campaign said was just treated with a "that's a lie" response from the (leave) remain voters, so I really don't see what else they could have done.

(Can't find a strikethrough button to reverse your point, so I've swapped it round with brackets)

That's modern politics. Squabbles, spats, childish name calling and insults. Why do people seem to have so little time for politics and feel that 'they are all the same, what's the point in voting'. If the political types genuinely want to be taken seriously, by a large proportion of the population, as I said a few post ago, they need to ask themselves some serious questions, do some serious self-analysis and then ACT ON THE RESULTS.

Some posters have said they fear for the country or similar. I rather tend to agree, there is a nasty rise in (generally thought of as right wing) extremism al la National Socialist Germany pre WWII. I do not want that, but I do not see much appealing by the political class to the 'working class white', (or underclass, or excluded, or disenfranchised or however you wish to categorise that rather large chunk of the population), rather I see a dismissive arrogance a la Gordon Brown and 'that awful woman' in Oldham (?). She may (or may not) have been awful, but she has a vote and knows (or not) how to use it. Either take the vote off her or reach out to her and educate her on the issues and how important it is to vote and wisely.

 

[furnessvale]

Remainers did mention this- I know I did, repeatedly- but it was ignored. The cost of the EU was never £350m a week, but Leave said it was, and Leave won. So where's our £350m a week Boris?

Whatever the figure is, it is still going to Brussels at present and will for some time to come.

 

[yorksrob]

The Trans-Tasman agreement means NZ citizens have pretty much unrestricted access to live and work in Australia, and vice versa. That sounds awfully similar to what caused so much consternation amongst Brexiters.

The relationship between the two countries is a lot closer than merely getting along with your neighbour.

I look forward to reading about the Australasian Commission passing directives in support of ever closer union, not to mention the Australasian parliament passing legislation which is enforcable through the Australasian court of justice.

Not going to happen, is it.

BTW, your Trans-Tasman agreement sounds remarkably similar in scale to the Common Travel area which we've had with the Irish Republic since long before the EU existed.

 

[Howardh]

I didn't make my decision based upon the £350m figure anyway, so it was background noise. But I do like to know the facts. I do believe in honesty, openness and transparency in public life. Especially if a decision is (potentially) monumental to all our futures - inner, outer, ambivalent or simply not bothered.

That's the UK out then. Wonder if Brexit might help that - or hinder as without the European Courts a lot more stuff They Don't Want Us To Know gets hidden?

Especially if that UKIP woman gets her "control of judges"?

Anyhow, the very first thing that will happen after Brexit will be the massaging of the immigration figures. Students = won't count. People sneaking in over the Irish border and not returning = won't count (as they can't be counted). Immigrants hidden in the back of lorries and beating security = won't count. Migrants already here bringing in their extended family = count? Won't count??

 

[Baxenden Bank]

That's the UK out then. Wonder if Brexit might help that - or hinder as without the European Courts a lot more stuff They Don't Want Us To Know gets hidden?

Especially if that UKIP woman gets her "control of judges"?

Anyhow, the very first thing that will happen after Brexit will be the massaging of the immigration figures. Students = won't count. People sneaking in over the Irish border and not returning = won't count (as they can't be counted). Immigrants hidden in the back of lorries and beating security = won't count. Migrants already here bringing in their extended family = count? Won't count??

Like many in/out arguments. Membership of Europe is not necessarily relevant. We could have a future government which supports human rights / workers rights / freedom of information over and above European (or American, East African Community, or wherever we align ourselves to in future) standards, or we could have one which doesn't and wishes to remove workers rights etc well below the same standards.

Membership of Europe, as of today, prevents our present government from doing so below that European threshold. But it also prevents us enhancing upon that threshold. Leaving Europe gives us the freedom to decide for ourselves. That, of course, is a double edged sword and could go either way at each subsequent general election.

I already assumed that the migration figures were relatively meaningless. Be they actively massaged or simply inaccurate due to the difficulty / cost of keeping track of people - or an unwillingness to do so because of the answers it would reveal.

 

[Howardh]

Like many in/out arguments. Membership of Europe is not necessarily relevant. We could have a future government which supports human rights / workers rights / freedom of information over and above European (or American, East African Community, or wherever we align ourselves to in future) standards, or we could have one which doesn't and wishes to remove workers rights etc well below the same standards.

Membership of Europe, as of today, prevents our present government from doing so below that European threshold. But it also prevents us enhancing upon that threshold. Leaving Europe gives us the freedom to decide for ourselves. That, of course, is a double edged sword and could go either way at each subsequent general election.

I already assumed that the migration figures were relatively meaningless. Be they actively massaged or simply inaccurate due to the difficulty / cost of keeping track of people - or an unwillingness to do so because of the answers it would reveal.

Can't disagree with any of that.
The worry for me is removing ourselves from the European Courts takes away a level of protection, if the government wants to take back "power" that means, by default, it wants more power.
That power will be to protect itself, and at what point are supreme courts going to be under the control of governments? Murdoch et al...??!
I've never known any government want less power!

 

[Tetchytyke]

On the subject of European courts, I feel it necessary to point out- yet again- that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.

My worry is that Leave are deliberately conflating the two, whereas the truth is we were never asked for our opinion on membership of the ECHR, of which we were a founding member in response to Nazi atrocities.

 

[Howardh]

On the subject of European courts, I feel it necessary to point out- yet again- that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.
.

That's true, but there is an European Court for EU matters alone. Based in Luxembourg (I think - anyone) but I know they had a new building built at vast expense. Think it's the court the TV Landlady appealed to??

 

[NSEFAN]

Like many in/out arguments. Membership of Europe is not necessarily relevant. We could have a future government which supports human rights / workers rights / freedom of information over and above European (or American, East African Community, or wherever we align ourselves to in future) standards, or we could have one which doesn't and wishes to remove workers rights etc well below the same standards.

Membership of Europe, as of today, prevents our present government from doing so below that European threshold. But it also prevents us enhancing upon that threshold. Leaving Europe gives us the freedom to decide for ourselves. That, of course, is a double edged sword and could go either way at each subsequent general election.

I agree that it is a double-edged sword, though what do you mean about the UK not being able to exceed European standards?

One of my reasons for voting remain was precisely because of our current established Conservative government...

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's true, but there is an European Court for EU matters alone. Based in Luxembourg (I think - anyone) but I know they had a new building built at vast expense. Think it's the court the TV Landlady appealed to??

Yep, there's the European Court of Justice too, which does deal with EU matters. But human rights law comes from Strasbourg.