EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Doppelganger]

Isn't Ireland missing from that cartoon as well? Does the Polish cartoonist know something we don't?

That has been pointed out. It's obviously a mistake, but I think the sentiment is clear nonetheless.

 

[Doppelganger]

In other news it seems Scotland has had a bit of a reality check from the EU, being told a re-joining Scotland would need to abide by all treaty obligations, which presumably would include joining the single currency. One wonders how well that will go down.

We'll see how that pans out.

The Euro requirement is that new member agree to joining it in principle. I know that doesn't suit your narrative, but countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic do not use the Euro and currently have no plans to adopt it. So it is entirely feasible for an Independent Scotland to join, but of course it is not really clear what currency they would use, as this was one of the debating points in the last Scottish referendum.

 

[nidave]

If that’s the case, why so much in the media and elsewhere about people living in sub-standard conditions

what has that got to do with Grenfell. You are making a massive jump to a conclusion that is false with no facts.
Correlation is not causation.
Some Flats are built pooly
Grenfell is a block of flats
therefore Grenfell was built poorly


Or your example.
people living in sub-standard conditions
Peoplle live in Grenfell flats
Therefore Grenfell is sub standard.
Its a common problem if you don't actually do any research into a topic

 

[Grimsby town]

Has the remain side demonstrated any real acknowledgement of some of the negatives associated with EU membership?

For example concerns regarding wages being depressed by freedom of movement, housing shortages particularly for younger people, the high level of our financial contribution to the EU (as highlighted by the extortionately high divorce bill), constant domestic political wrangling over European issues which has been going on for most of my lifetime, or the lack of direct accountability of EU politicians to domestic voters? What about the high unemployment in other EU countries which seems to be at least partially regarded as consequential to loss of monetary policy as a result of the single currency? We have one person alleging that a relative has lost their job as a result of Brexit, however we also have people moaning because it won't be quite so easy to go on a shopping jolly to Lille.

I honestly can't think of many downsides to being in the EU. A good majority of people who voted leave did so on a gut feeling or because they felt life was better 30 years ago than it is now. The BBC showed this the other night by painfully interviewing people who obviously didn't understand the EU. The interviewees blamed the EU for the loss of industry in this country which was created by the Thatcher Tory government. One said their life was better in the 90s but now they are unemployed. There is no tangible link but a lot of people have sh*t lives in this country so when change was offered they grabbed it.

I'll agree with you that freedom of movement may have had a small affect on wages in some sector and has definitely strained infrastructure in certain areas such as Boston but if the government has simply invested in places like Lincolnshire, this wouldn't have been an issue. Anyway EU migration would decline as the last 15 years has seen many new countries join. Once these countries allowed freedom of movement a significant number moved here for a better lifestyle. But these countries aren't populated enough to sustain the numbers that came here initially and there citizens begin moving back as these countries develop further. Consequently, EU migration would have continued to fall.

Your other points are wrong. Southern European countries had high unemployment levels long before the Euro and house prices are likely to stay high as immigration is still significant from the rest of the world, house building is low and international ownership in UK housing is high.

 

[edwin_m]

Has the remain side demonstrated any real acknowledgement of some of the negatives associated with EU membership?

For example concerns regarding wages being depressed by freedom of movement

Addressable by increasing the minimum wage, as Osborne started to do (too little too late) and Javid is continuing.

housing shortages particularly for younger people

Could have been dealt with by measures to check the increase in house prices, which would also have stopped people buying properties as an investment and leaving them empty. But that would have upset the rich Tory voters who were sitting on notional wealth from higher prices.

constant domestic political wrangling over European issues which has been going on for most of my lifetime

A combination of Brexit supporters agitating to get out, and domestic politicians of all colours treating the EU as a convenient scapegoat.

All these could have been dealt with by the Westminster government if it had thought to, and can't really be blamed on the EU.

What about the high unemployment in other EU countries which seems to be at least partially regarded as consequential to loss of monetary policy as a result of the single currency?

We had an opt-out of the single currency and largely escaped that. Britain could have pushed for reform allowing other countries to opt out and indeed suggesting that weaker economies like Greece shouldn't have been pushed into joining.

​

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Oh come on, do you honestly believe even for a minute that 17.4 million people voted because after taking all factors into account, they did not feel that the financial benefits of being an EU member outweighed leaving? Given the complexity of that debate, along with the fact that the leave campaign rarely got into that kind of detail, or indeed any kind of detail, makes this very, very unlikely. What the leave campaign succeeded in was to convince 17.4 million people that if we left the EU everything would be fine, honest gov, this Brexit is a beauty, she'll not let you down.....

I wasn’t “convinced” as you say. I’ve been highly sceptical of the project since the EEC morphed into the EU in November 1993 and watched them evolving ever since. The second Cameron announced his intention to hold a referendum in 2013, I knew where my cross was going with no hesitation.

 

[Doppelganger]

I wasn’t “convinced” as you say. I’ve been highly sceptical of the project since the EEC morphed into the EU in November 1993 and watched them evolving ever since. The second Cameron announced his intention to hold a referendum in 2013, I knew where my cross was going with no hesitation.

Great, so you'll be in a position to tell us all what is going to improve now.

 

[Bantamzen]

I wasn’t “convinced” as you say. I’ve been highly sceptical of the project since the EEC morphed into the EU in November 1993 and watched them evolving ever since. The second Cameron announced his intention to hold a referendum in 2013, I knew where my cross was going with no hesitation.

Great, so you'll be in a position to tell us all what is going to improve now.

Indeed, I await with baited breath....

 

[TrafficEng]

How about sticking with actual fact, rather than your reality. Grenfell (and other similar blocks) had been refurbished recently and (other than the cladding, obviously) met all the applicable standards.

Facts are a good thing. So we really ought to talk about the plastic windows that didn't have intumescent sealing around the frames - or apparently any sealing in some cases, leading to residents complaining about the draught.

Or we could talk about the fire doors that weren't really fire doors - especially the ones with big gaps at the bottom that just let smoke flow straight through. Not to mention holes made through walls and floors that also weren't properly sealed.

Then with the cladding, are you talking about the rainscreen, or do you mean the whole cladding system? The one with insulation material that burns, the missing firestopping, the one with rainscreen not fitted in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, and the use of other materials that are still under investigation?

Also there's the question about the design standards that permit a refurbished building of that size and height to have only a single stairway as a means of escape. A stairway protected by firedoors that let smoke into the stairwell when they are opened, and which is only accessible from the flats by passing through a lobby containing liftshafts connecting to all floors providing a convenient means for toxic smoke to pass from lobby to lobby.

If Grenfell had been refurbished properly, not just meeting minimum requirements, it should have had new replacement liftshafts provided in new protected lobbies and a second protected stairway. Unfortunately to do that would have involved the loss of one flat per floor, which was never going to happen as one objective of the refurbishment was to increase the number of flats, not reduce the number to make it safer.

The reasons why buildings like Grenfell (it isn't the only one) were refurbished that way are complex. But bramling is not wrong to suggest that pressure on London's housing stock has led to the adoption of policies and standards that place quality and safety as a secondary to numbers.

If not for the cladding a fire in any flat would have been contained for at least 30 minutes (as demonstrated by previous fires in other blocks).

No. The cladding system facilitated the spread of the fire across the outside of the building, but there were a number of other defects that compromised the compartmentalisation. Previous fires in other blocks had already demonstrated that the compartmentalisation strategy was flawed. In the case of Lakanal House firestopping was missing and the single point of egress quickly became choked with black smoke. The inquest ruled that sub-standard renovation was largely to blame.

As far as I've been able to understand following the investigation and inquiry closely, even if the rainscreen had been totally fireproof, the voids and gaps and issues with firestopping would have allowed smoke and flame to spread from flat to flat quite rapidly. Quite probably faster than firefighters would have been able to catch up with it. In which case evacuation would have become essential.

All the interviews I saw with residents said that, other than minor antisocial issues, they were more than happy with the flats, which were larger than is common these days.

Wrong. Superficially the flats were nice. But there was a long list of issues the residents had been complaining about before the fire. That included concerns the electrical system was faulty (people thought the fire might have been started by a power surge). There were complaints the new gas boilers had been installed in hallways near the exit door. There were complaints the ground floor lobby of the single exit route was frequently used to dump rubbish (anti-social and a fire risk). There were concerns that parking around the block restricted access for the emergency services.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/fire-safety-concerns-raised-by-grenfell-tower-residents-in-2012
Survivors of the disaster said on Wednesday they had raised fears about the fact that there was only one escape route. They also told the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) of their concerns over the placement of boilers and gas pipes, the absence of a building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system, and piles of rubbish being dumped and causing a fire risk.

 

[TrafficEng]

It's nothing to do with racism, honest

The thing that surprises me about this story is how 17,410,742 people managed to fit inside one block of flats.

 

[Esker-pades]

The thing that surprises me about this story is how 17,410,742 people managed to fit inside one block of flats.

And where did @GusB suggest that all leaver voters/supporters were racist?

 

[TrafficEng]

The Euro requirement is that new member agree to joining it in principle. I know that doesn't suit your narrative, but countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic do not use the Euro and currently have no plans to adopt it. So it is entirely feasible for an Independent Scotland to join, but of course it is not really clear what currency they would use, as this was one of the debating points in the last Scottish referendum.

You've highlighted one of my pet hates about the EU project.

We'll make some rules. Some rules can be ignored as and when convenient. Other rules must be complied with absolutely.

I live in the real world. I understand that sometimes one-size rules don't work and you have to be pragmatic about these things. In which case, why bother making the rule in the first place?

If we accept that some countries cannot join the Euro (either for political or economic reasons) then why have a rule that says they must agree to it in principle? With a nudge and a wink saying there's no need to worry because it will never happen.

 

[Doppelganger]

You've highlighted one of my pet hates about the EU project.

We'll make some rules. Some rules can be ignored as and when convenient. Other rules must be complied with absolutely.

I live in the real world. I understand that sometimes one-size rules don't work and you have to be pragmatic about these things. In which case, why bother making the rule in the first place?

If we accept that some countries cannot join the Euro (either for political or economic reasons) then why have a rule that says they must agree to it in principle? With a nudge and a wink saying there's no need to worry because it will never happen.

And the UK took the most advantage of this, with so many opt outs. That was the trouble, it always wanted more!

The EU will be a much better place without the UK so they are now both masters of their own destiny

 

[TrafficEng]

And the UK took the most advantage of this, with so many opt outs. That was the trouble, it always wanted more!

Which is why people questioning our continued membership were sensible people, not the mad swivel eyed loons they were portrayed as by certain sections of the media and establishment.

If you don't like the rules of a club (and they don't want to change them) then leave. If you can't leave then embrace the club rules and quit complaining.

The worst situation is to insist on remaining but oppose everything anyone else wants to do.

The EU will be a much better place with out the UK so they are now both masters of their own destiny

Completely agree. de Gaulle was right and eveybody should have ignored Heath.

 

[najaB]

If we accept that some countries cannot join the Euro (either for political or economic reasons) then why have a rule that says they must agree to it in principle?

Because it is a target that all countries sign up to. While acknowledging that for some it will take longer than others.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Great, so you'll be in a position to tell us all what is going to improve now.

I’m not debating Brexit any more as it’s done and dusted.

EDIT: YouTube video of Dominic Frisby explaining 10 reasons why the EU and UK don’t mix very well removed as it did not conform to the forums format requirements and I’ve neither the time or inclination to change it

 

[VauxhallandI]

Utter twaddle - you've just found someone with a posh voice to deliver as much reason as that idiot in a Kettering pub.

 

[Doppelganger]

I’m not debating Brexit any more as it’s done and dusted. This hopefully will explain why most people voted leave...

Hahaha

Done and dusted? So you did believe Johnson's jackanory about getting Brexit done.

This is now going to be the most prolonged and complex phase as the UK attempts to negotiate a trading relationship with the rest of the world, effectively starting from zero.

It will take years. Johnson has already said no to any extension to the transition period and Javid and Raab have said no to following EU standards, basically making a trade deal by the end of the year impossible.

 

[Struner]

Oh dear. Lot of support for an independent Scotland there!

 

[TrafficEng]

Because it is a target that all countries sign up to. While acknowledging that for some it will take longer than others.

It makes no sense though.

Let's pretend Brexit is not a success. In 10 years time there is a referendum on rejoining the EU.

The 'Keep out' side campaign on the basis rejoining the EU means adopting the Euro, the majority of the UK population (now that Scotland has left) is still skeptical about the EU and firmly opposed to giving up the Pound.

The 'Rejoin' side campaign with the promise that although we have to agree in principle to the target of joining the Euro, in truth there is absolutely no intention to do so. "Don't worry, trust us, you can keep the Pound".

It isn't difficult to imagine how the task for the Rejoiners will very difficult.

But if there wasn't a requirement to sign up to a target to join the Euro - because the differing needs of countries was genuinely recognised - then the proposition of (re)joining would be more palatable.

This is where the political purpose of the EU conflicts with practicality. The Europhiles want statements of intent and promises to participate - almost as an act of faith. They don't realise how off-putting it can be to people who don't have quite the same zeal.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Hahaha

Done and dusted? So you did believe Johnson's jackanory about getting Brexit done.

This is now going to be the most prolonged and complex phase as the UK attempts to negotiate a trading relationship with the rest of the world, effectively starting from zero.

It will take years. Johnson has already said no to any extension to the transition period and Javid and Raab have said no to following EU standards, basically making a trade deal by the end of the year impossible.

Oh my days...

Brexit is done! The process of ending our EU membership is complete. “British Exit” - get it?

The transition period is the negotiating phase, nothing to do with Brexit, no matter how the left-wing media try to spin it. Now we have left, we negotiate our new relationship not only with the EU, but other countries around the world.

Notice how worried the EU are about having no time to negotiate a trade deal with us, but are not going to start talks until 3rd March.... they should be starting tomorrow.

 

[TrafficEng]

Utter twaddle - you've just found someone with a posh voice to deliver as much reason as that idiot in a Kettering pub.

Which of course is exactly the kind of dismissive response that led more-or-less directly to 17 million ****-offs in 2016. (in case you didn't recognise the guy with the posh voice)

 

[Doppelganger]

Oh my days...

Brexit is done! The process of ending our EU membership is complete. “British Exit” - get it?

The transition period is the negotiating phase, nothing to do with Brexit, no matter how the left-wing media try to spin it. Now we have left, we negotiate our new relationship not only with the EU, but other countries around the world.

Notice how worried the EU are about having no time to negotiate a trade deal with us, but are not going to start talks until 3rd March.... they should be starting tomorrow.

Brexit is only just begining.

The fact you don't understand this, says it all.

The leave campaign have done their job well and it might well be a fait accompli, but don't be deluded that Brexit is done.

If it makes it easier for you then you can tell yourself it's over and the rest of us will try and salvage the situation.

 

[DerekC]

Brexit is only just begining.

The fact you don't understand this, says it all.

The leave campaign have done their job well and it might well be a fait accompli, but don't be deluded that Brexit is done.

If it makes it easier for you then you can tell yourself it's over and the rest of us will try and salvage the situation.

You are having a pointless argument because "Brexit" doesn't have a legal meaning. Those who want to say it's "done" take it as just being the legal process of ceasing to be a member state, which is indeed complete. Those who want to say it is only just beginning take it as the whole process of negotiating new relationships, tidying up legislation etc. Perhaps we should just ban the word and move on. Both sides have to get over it.

 

[Struner]

The BoJo already banned it, didn’t he?

 

[Doppelganger]

You are having a pointless argument because "Brexit" doesn't have a legal meaning. Those who want to say it's "done" take it as just being the legal process of ceasing to be a member state, which is indeed complete. Those who want to say it is only just beginning take it as the whole process of negotiating new relationships, tidying up legislation etc. Perhaps we should just ban the word and move on. Both sides have to get over it.

Phew, it's done, that's a relief.

Nothing to worry about then.

Let's just defer to our overlords who clearly have the situation in hand.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

You are having a pointless argument because "Brexit" doesn't have a legal meaning. Those who want to say it's "done" take it as just being the legal process of ceasing to be a member state, which is indeed complete. Those who want to say it is only just beginning take it as the whole process of negotiating new relationships, tidying up legislation etc. Perhaps we should just ban the word and move on. Both sides have to get over it.

Indeed. I’d be happy with that. I’ve got nothing to get “over”.

 

[dgl]

I think half the problem now is the Brexiteers think it's all over, done and dusted nothing for us to do now we've left, nothing went bang so everything is OK.
Unfortunately we've sold the house but haven't brought another one yet so we are still out in the cold.

And as for not aligning to EU rules, that will help us greatly when we try to sell something to the EU and find out that are products aren't allowed to be sold as they don't meet the required regulations.

Plus remember we have got one prime minister that expects that he will be the one calling the shots in respect to the EU when not only does the EU have it's leader but the leaders of all it's members, yes one against many, that's going to work out well for us isn't it?

 

[bramling]

Which of course is exactly the kind of dismissive response that led more-or-less directly to 17 million ****-offs in 2016. (in case you didn't recognise the guy with the posh voice)

Absolutely. Who needed a leave campaign, remain did and continue to do a fine job of alienating people!

It’s certain people of the remain persuasion that “don’t get” public opinion on the EU. This was misjudged not just once, but twice - perhaps symbolised most brutally by the fate of a certain Liberal Democrat leader just a few weeks ago.

 

[najaB]

It’s certain people of the remain persuasion that “don’t get” public opinion on the EU.

There is any such singular thing.