BREXIT RULES! The Consequences

For those interested in the issues involved in the Brexit process, this site is essential reading.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/eu-referendum/

www.parlaiment.uk the web portal for the House of Commons and Lords Library.

Last week this short guide to the current situation in a range of policy areas considered what impact Brexit might have.
This will depend, among other things, on the Brexit negotiations, whether the UK stays in the European Economic Area
and how the Government fills any policy gaps left by withdrawal.

Brexit: the next steps for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7213

Hi Cliff, the reason I wrote my message, is because of your line about the stability of western democracy.

I don't know if you are more upset by the fall out of a democratic vote or the fall out of the deliberate banking crisis or the deliberate illegal wars, the destruction of countries, the training of ISIL, funding of ISIS by the US. It is bad enough the gov takes more than half your earnings with threat of imprisonment but look at what they spend it on. The pentagon can't account for 6.5 trillion dollars - trillion. We are told the planet will or has passed the warming tipping point but nothing meaningful happens to stop it. I am sure most people can add many things to these injustices, the war on drugs, how much damage has that done. There are people in the US in prison for life for a few pot plants, while the president has smoked pot and he daughter got caught recently too, what percentage of the US population are in private - for profit - prisons, although changing re private prisons. The middle classes are getting squeezed, a small group of people make a massive amount of money from lots of suffering.

You seem to be taking the position of, don't rock the boat, this is the only way it can be, e.g. "ALL systems are diseased". When you see the effect of those causes, i.e.. brexit, Trump, etc. instead of looking at the causes you seem to blame the Little Englander. Look at the link you sent for Little Englander: "Little Englander" is an epithet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithet) applied in criticisms of British nationalists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationalists), English nationalists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_nationalists), or English people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people) who are regarded as xenophobic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia) and/or overly nationalistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalistic) and are often accused of being "ignorant" and "boorish". It is sometimes applied to opponents of globalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism), multilateralism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateralism) and internationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)), such as those who are against membership in the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union). Originally it applied to a wing of the Liberal Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(UK)) opposed to expansion of the British Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-imperialism) in the 19th century, who wanted "England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England)" to extend no farther than the borders of the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom). In the late 18th and 19th Centuries the term was used for those Englishmen who looked upon the colonies of the British Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) as economically burdensome and wished the granting of self-government as quickly as possible,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander#cite_note-1)

Using this term you seem to be implying that there is some thing wrong with British Nationals or/and English Nationalists or British people who are regarded as xenophobic, REGARDED, no facts just a feeling. There are things I regard but I do not spout them as truth, I think you mean nativists, is that correct? because the nativist group is marginal at best. That is why it is a pejorative because it is a broad brush stroke that labels many people incorrectly and there is a feeling of smug superiority in the users of this term recently. Interesting that in that quote, the Little Englanders of their time might be considered on the right side of history, against colonialism, against further expansion and give the colonies their sovereignty back. So two out of two on the right side of history, perhaps, and on the final use of Little Englander (the way you use it) the jury is still out.

Yes Minister, funny how it was the civil servant trying to destroy the EU, whereas in reality the civil servants are trying to stall and stop the democratic vote, not exactly a bellwether from the 80s. I think The Thick of It, is a good Yes Minister companion.

Why should I contact YouGov for their vague poll, besides it says in the last paragraph "However public understanding of what human rights actually look like, and what it means to violate them, is complicated." I am criticising your use of it to make a point that actually invalidated itself. Then you say "Because for me it did. I never realised that such views had widespread acceptance in the UK electorate or that the were so focused on certain political groups." Well if it did for you Cliff, it must be true but then you go back to using the vague poll, later in the sentence with "I never realised that such views had widespread acceptance", what views exactly are being expressed. It is a binary question to an extremely thorny subject and I don't see how you can use it to form an opinion other than different political groups have different opinions - who would have thought that, unless it is for confirmation bias.

During your many years in business I am sure that you have made forecasts. It seems that you have a strong opinion that Brexit is a terrible thing, perhaps you can give us your forecast based on this opinion, no numbers and no dates. Do you think EU growth will continue the way it has or will there be an uptick if they can wrestle away some businesses?



Who knows, maybe the British could have stayed in and waited for the EU to collapse under its own weight then got out without all the pouty faces.

As silly, simplistic and inaccurate as this maybe, I think we are on a spaceship traveling through the universe, with the resources on the inside and the living quarters on the outside. As a consequence of evolution a group of psychopaths have taken control of the ship and are wreaking havoc, and we as a people are divided into identity groups pointing our holy fingers at the the other meat puppets rather than the puppet masters.

You say "his narcissistic posturing represents a serious problem for the stability of western democracy", if you really think that is where the problem starts, I don't know what to say. You come across as a decent intelligent guy but I think you are focusing on the symptom not the cause.

I think this 1961 quote from an Eisenhower speech is relevant, more so that the Pentagon can't account for $6.5 trillion, yes trillion.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

Haha, free society, good one.

Wow! thank you for your thoughtful post.
You touch on so many issues that it is hard to single out one to respond on.

ITS IMMIGRATION, STUPID. ***

The immigration issue is tearing Europe and the UK apart.
It was and is the prime mover of electoral support that led to Brexit, And it threatens stability and democracy throughout the continent.

The irony of Brexit as a solution for the UK, is that it wont deliver significant FoM restrictions without considerable economic risk, and certainly wont be legally effective for 3 to 5 years. It is also important to realize that its abuse is much greater threat within the Shengen area (continental EU Nations) than to the UK/Ireland who already have passport controlled borders.

The problem with Immigration is that there is nothing wrong with the idea, (indeed healthy societies benefit hugely from in inflow of migrants).
What is going wrong is
1. the SCALE. And
2. the INTEGRATION of migrants.
The two are dynamically related, higher scale possible with higher integrability and viceaversa.
There are no set answers to a societies tolerance to either or to simple bench marking.
But quite clearly in both UK and Europe tolerance levels are being overun, beyond host country social and cultural capacity..

Much has been written about the SCALE part of the sum. And in the UKs case its is clearly too high.
And we see that the unlimited FoM requirement of the EU has effectively provoked the British people to Brexit.

In the British case less has been written/discussed about INTEGRATION./( integrability)
Partly because even its discussion raises uncomfortable racial discrimination issues.
Nevertheless it is a key component in successful immigration policy.

The reality is that NOT all migrants are equally INTIGRABLE in any society.
The easiest are those with a profile that share a common language, a common religious base, a common cultural origin & social/educational standards, and most controversially a common racial origin. with the MAJORITY of the Host country's existing population.

Migrants whose profile differs significantly from that of the Host Nation, will have significant difficulty integrating and tax and provoke the tolerance of the Host Nations indigenous population. Historical prejudice may also play a part in this.

Thus as an example the integration process in for example the UK creates more strain, and poses more significant challenges for a Somali Muslim than for the typical Danish Italian or Portuguese EU migrant.

UK immigration policy seems to have ignored this, and created a strange situation where migrants of Non-EU origin, in general the more difficult to integrate, (despite UK Govs complete control over this sector), remains the largest component of the UK total migration intake.
In this context, I find the priority given to the hugely disruptive process of leaving the EU to choke FoM migration, (the smaller component with the least integration challenges), while failing manifestly to cut in a stroke, as already empowered without such a disruptive consequence, the Non-Eu element seems oddly myopic.

Can anyone explain this?
What am I missing?
***Parody of James Carvills famous catchphrase (Its the Economy, Stupid) written for the Clinton campaign in 90s. , to highlight the pivotal issue concerning the US electorate. He proved right, and Clintons refocus on the Economy won him the Presidency.

Note I posted this previously in a news thread but it may have been missed. Hence the re-post here.

[quote=cliffedwards;9122667]ITS IMMIGRATION, STUPID. ***
Great Article but will have to re read it a couple of times to take it all.
One thing Ive been thinking about the immigration issue is that you will find the "older" generation of British people are so against the open border is that when Britain was the "Commonwealth". They did the same as Merkel and opened up the borders to all the Commonwealth. The older generation remember how many problems that caused when they got flooded by immigrants from other commonwealth nations. Just a thought.

100% spot on, it's bizarre the way the issue's been handled in this country. I hope Teresa May is just blustering when she's talking about clamping down on EU immigration (which is the lifeblood of the economy) when by and large the serious problems arise from non-eu, unskilled immigration, especially from war-torn countries. What doesn't help is the whole issue has been polarised by people shouting racist at one another when trying to bring up legitimate points.

If I could dump the political EU integration and keep the free flow of EU people, I would.

[quote=Sniper2000;9122795] Absolutely because older people have been around this block before. This generation remember Enoc Powell. and the "Rivers of Blood" speech 1968*** which got him fired by Edward Heath then in opposition. At that time the influx of commonwealth migrants from the Caribbean, Africa and Indian subcontinent, was the issue.
As I noted in post 404 above , on Integrability, like it or not, racial difference is one of the things that make integration more difficult.
(as distinct from others like culture language education religion etc) and this was clearly the major part of the integration tipping point in that situation.
And in a world in which most civilized opinion, was fighting South African Apartheid and its American Southern State version, (finally broken by Mandella and Martin L King) that was a moral no win.

What bemuses me is the evidence of the overwhelming role Immigration played in voters pro Brexit decision.
Remembering that it was specific in targeting the less than 50% of UKs immigration intake .. European.Citizens (FoM). whos profiles are racially,
educationally, culturally and religiously closest to the Host Nation,(UK). In effect targeting the 50% with least integration problems?.
It appears to be a perverse answer.. : choking off the most productive, most culturally, religiously and racially compatible, best educated and skilled, highest taxpaying, least service demanding half of the problem, and an answer in its consequences involving significant economic and political risk.

And again perversely ignoring the their Governments doing nothing effective about the more problematic other half where common sense would have suggested was where sharp should be focused? I say this because Non-EU migrant profiles are generally very different from that of the average indigenous UK citizens. And at ALL levels create larger challenges and potential cultural disruption, not just racially but at all levels. For example in the obvious conflict between radical Islam (sharia) and the UKs Christian secular culture, and legal model of society.

Interesting stuff.

*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

I guess you are missing the infographic that you posted earlier that highlighted that people from all parties, that voted to leave, voted that way because, "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK".



Your post about immigration is correct, however, the immigration issue just highlighted the main issue that people voted out for. It is political union stupid, to coin a phrase.

Under Junker the EU has lost the UK and maybe much more but he is still in charge. If the EU was a business with shareholders the CEO would be out with such poor leadership, leaving aside the self inflicted migrant crisis. How does one get rid of Junker?

Now Junker has said "I have forbidden Commissioners from holding discussions with representatives from the British Government by Presidential order, which is not my style. I have told all the Directors-General that there cannot be any prior discussions with British representatives. No notification, no negotiation."

There is no such thing as a presidential order, he just made it up.

You are an expat aren't you Cliff? You may want to donate to this cause. https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/brexit-challenge-junker/

I stand corrected... in the detail... Both Ashcroft & Pew polls show Sovereignty No 1.
However Id make the observation that Sovereignty as "choice"is a proxy for Immigration.
(no Phd. required to figure that..LoL)
Proxy answers are a big problem in interpreting poll research with kind of question structures used in both. ***
The important point is that a very sizable proportion of the vote did so because they believed it a vote to quickly and decisively cut immigration.
Which of course it is CATEGORICALLY NOT. Another discredited Brexit promise.
Without that element there would have been no Brexit majority, (which you may remember was less than 2%) Hardly OVERWHELMING.. LoL.


Hombre.. I part company with you entirely at this point.

1. A Political Union?, (Wonderfully vague but inflammatory phrase.. i congratulate you..Lol )

1. Its patently not. It hybrid, but basically a Confederation of Independent Sovereign States.
   HTF could WE (UK) be in a Political Union when we control of our own Currency, Treasury, Taxation, Border Controls, Security and Defense etc..

2. On your JunkerPhobia. I make 2 points..

1. a) When Mrs May refused to provide a unilateral unqualified guarantee to existing EU migrants in the UK, SHE (aka the UK Gov.) not Junker or the Commission failed us, and shifted OUR security as expats on to the larger Brexit bargaining table. I personally think that was a rationally justifiable move in a micro-analytic context, but a big mistake in the big picture.
   My strategy would have been to petition/lobby the UK government to initiate immediate highly publicized and transparent, direct negotiations on the matter with all individual 27 states. That doesnt nor would have involved or clashed with the legal obligations within which the Commission is required to work and IMHO would have aachieved a 100% "mission Accomplished" rating really fast. Give all these diplomats in all these embassy's in all these Fkucing countries something to do.
2. 
   
3. (b) IMHO Junker was entirely right and indeed legally obliged to issue such an order. On your link.. well thank you.. I read it thoroughly,
   But on balance, I believe the legal case against Junker well meaning but misdirected.
   In fact I believe it to be a UKipper play to create anti-EU sentiment among the Overwhelmingly Europhile Expat community.See Point a) above. ( Message:-the EU let you down not the good old dependible UK Government." )
   Smoke and Mirrors my friend.....
   NEVER KID A KID.... LoL

​
*** Personally have had extensive professional responsibility for buying and using Commercial Market Research and can claim a reasonable professional expertise in the technical issues involved in design, execution and interpretation of that sort of stuff. No big deal.. but I do know what Im chatting about in this area, and wouldn't raise it if not a serious potential distortion.

[quote=cliffedwards;9127364]{quote} I stand corrected... Both Ashcroft & Pew polls show Sovereignty No 1. However Id make the observation that Sovereignty is a proxy for Immigration.

your guessing what people think instead of just listening to them the reason why people go to immigration on the debate about the EU is because it's not to complicated a subject and impossible to lose most people who wanted to leave had more than one reason and in most poll Sovereignty was the number one reason look at the recent migrant crisis or Greece. the people can vote for X but there prime minister cannot guarantee it if the EU does not like it a example of this is hungary and migrant quotas the people vote for no migrants and the EU fines them for not toeing the line when angela merkel was the one who invited them with out asking the people of hungary and them fines them of saying no it's just crazy and people can see it

1. ALL your references to Greece, Hungry Germany have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE.
NONE - ZERO - NADA ... They are STRICTLY SCHENGEN ISSUES... Apples and Pears.
NOTHING TO DO WITH UK/EU relationship and so have no relevance to supporting your point. ?
UK has complete control of its Borders..UNLIKE Schengen countries, by every known practical measure.
What UK has had is an obligation to treat EU Citizens on an equal basis to UK Citizens.

Still dont understand? OK.
Go thru any UK airport immigration gates, You have two streams.
!.. UK and EU Citizens
2. Everyone else.
Capiche? If Germany accepts 1mio refugees on a humanitarian grounds.. NONE of those people can EVER come to UK.
Unless and until they become German Citizens.. And hey.. check out how long THAT takes.. LoL
It NP to UK. UK controls it borders. Those people cannot come in. BUT its a problem to Schengen countries because they have open borders between EACH OTHER. So these people can easily spread out and move other Schengen states bcs they have no Border Control. like UK.


2. As to your advice that "(Im) guessing what people think instead of just listening to them" Im speaking from professional experience in exactly that.
If my point is incomprehensible to you .. too bad. It would be to anyone with professional experience in "Listening to People" LoL
Ive no intention of doing a 101 in Market Research here.

it dose have relevance if people in Greece/hungry are not being listen by the EU the people here will think they will not be listen to when what they want contradicts what the EU wants it does have relevance and you are most definitely not accepting what is being said by poll's and people. calm down you seem emotionally invested in the UK ​​being in the EU the people have spoken and they are telling you the main reason was sovereignty accept it and move on

What are you trying to prove here? Hombre?
Tell me that you give a Fkuc about the EU?
Im not as clever as you.
I just focused on dealing with what directly effects MY COUNTRY.
Maybe best you do too.
Otherwise looks like you have an "AGENDA" ???


BTW.. is English your first language?

C'mmon Cliff, you know as well as I do, it IS a political union. The fact that the UK is half in/half out is by the by. As you know, the problems with the euro prompted EU official to *speed up* political integration plans, not slow them down. And the superstate agenda? It's not that I even oppose the plans for union, I oppose union with a power structure that appears to favour a very small minority.

The EU's track record in countries that have ceded control by taking the Euro - Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy - is frankly abysmal, and so why anyone would want to get into bed with a union that promises autocratic and patently unfair economic pain on vast swathes of the population is beyond me.

You said the electorate based their decision on immigration. Most remainers I've spoken to also want to believe that the half that voted out are somewhere on the racist scale between Alf Garnet and Adolf Hitler but it's not based on facts, it's purely justification for the way you vote. There still - still even now - seems to be no appetite to accept that the EU's mismanagement throughout this recession is causing its own downfall. The UK is just the first to point it out.

Q.What are you trying to do? Hombre?
get rich or die trying

Q.Tell me that you give a Fkuc about the EU
I do care about the EU because I live in the uk and the EU will have a direct impact on my life for better or worse particular if we had stayed in

Q.Im not as clever as you
my IQ is super high

Q.I just focused on dealing with what directly effects MY COUNTRY Maybe best you do too
is your country part of the UK/EU? I live in the UK so i am also this is a place for discussion is it not do you have to live in the EU/UK to take part

Q.Otherwise looks like you have an "AGENDA
I can see they are pros and cons to membership but feel the cons out weigh the pros

Q.is English your first language
no but how dose it effect this conversation

I have answered your questions but they seem like a angry rant I have not meant to offend you do you think you may be a bigot on this topic because your emotion invested will it have a direct impact on your personal life? if so am sorry if it will have a negative impact on you

Thank you for your clarity. (BTW, never consider a career in politics because such clarity will be your undoing..LoL
However as you may concede your arrogance is astonishing. (And interesting LoL)
Your ad hominem attack.(Always a sign of loosing the case) is also interesting.. LoL
The record shows, I have given you a well mannered, civilized robust reasoned and rational response to your posts.
No more or less.

I suggest the "Emotional" element you seek to project on me, is sorely yours.. mon ami, since it is completely alien to my professional profile.
Perhaps such focused response is not acceptable in your "Luvvie" culture.
Your suggestions of bigotry are not only personally offensive but do your case no service.

Your going to have to "Try Harder" as no doubt your school reports at some stage suggested. to shake this tree. LoL

PS I asked the English as 1st Language question not as scoring point but to assure myself that small errors made in grammar and written expression by a "2nd language speaker are entirely excusable, but in a person claiming English as their first language is an indication of one educationally challenged..
My congratulations and respect to you on you otherwise excellent command of English.

thanks always nice to start compliment

Q.However as you may concede your arrogance is astonishing. (And interesting LoL) Your ad hominem attack.(Always a sign of loosing the case) is also interesting.. LoL

sorry if I have come across as arrogant but if you feel under attack. maybe it's about you not me I have not attack you

Q.The record shows, I have given you a well mannered, civilized robust reasoned and rational response to your posts.
No more or less.

well post 411/413 did not come across as well mannered to me with the bold writing and also (Tell me that you give a Fkuc about the EU?)why the weird granddad swearing is that well mannered am just not sure about you some time's. but as Thunderheart said today on a different thread (As far as Millennials are concerned, I like to call them the butt hurt generation) and it look's like he's on to something maybe am butt hurt or is that you?

Q.I suggest the "Emotional" element you seek to project on me, is sorely yours

ok than am emotional and you as calm as a cucumber the more you talk the less am sure about you I don't know your reputation in this town but be assured i'll be looking into you.

Q.Perhaps such focused response is not acceptable in your "Luvvie" culture

can you please explain this to me was this a personal attack? in a weird granddad way

Q.Your suggestions of bigotry are not only personally offensive but do your case no service.

you are right on this time but the case still stands you react poorly to pro leave views

Q. I asked the English as 1st Language question not as scoring point but to assure myself that small errors made in grammar

sorry am British I did not realise I said yes I was typing in a hurry and for the most part that explains the (small errors made in grammar)

this has gone to far of the point which I think may be your diversion tactic my post on 410/412 are true remember post 408 (the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK) was the main reason people voting leave. and to finished with a compliment 2.4% in a day very nice

I would just like to say in case you kick me this all started because you said (However Id make the observation that Sovereignty as "choice"is a proxy for Immigration. (no Phd. required to figure that..LoL) and you accused me of being arrogant for saying (your guessing what people think instead of just listening to them) you are being very one sided how can you say (no Phd. required to figure that..LoL) but if I correctly say your guessing what people think when they just told you what they think am arrogant how is it on you high horse and you claim to be unbiased do you really believe that??

No Problem @Ross88.. All Good.
But Hey.. Time to call it a day in this exchange? Too much heat.. and no light.

Good Trading Mate and Have a good weekend.

your right to much heat all the best mate