If there was another EU referendum...

But Lemongrove it has now made life for our young people worse in regard to their freedom to study, travel & work abroad

I was thinking of those less well off younger people who are unlikely to study/ travel/work abroad, but their life would benefit from training, apprenticeship and better jobs here.
Bringing people in has been the lazy easy option to the detriment of working people of the UK.

Unfortunately many of our young people who have had a terrible start in life, will probably always have to struggle throughout their lives & probably will never get a foothold into a relatively safe & self sufficient life style that many of us take for granted.

Bridgeit
the logic of leave eludes me
In a previous post you stated that you voted to remain but if a referendum to * join the eu* came up again, you wouldn't.
You didn't explain why.

I wouldn’ join again with the same conditions, I believe a new union would have to be updated & redefined, as is with everything & anything there is always room for improvement.
I believe if heads of state came together now that they would be more realistic , open & honest, the world is a tougher place alone.

But we're not going to be alone! There are other important even friendly countries in the world apart from the countries of the EU!! In other words there's a world out there for us to take advantage of without the shackles and closed shop of the EU. Why all the doom?! Exciting times ahead not dismal ones!

"take advantage of"? Why not cooperate with?

Jalimal. From the name Poll aid h I take it that this means we are assisting in a poll of some description.
The thread title:

Would those who voted Leave still do so? And why? I am genuinely trying to look outside my Remain bubble, but the logic of Leave still continues to elude me. I am asking Gransnet because apparently older people were most likely to vote to Leave

It would seem that Pollaidh is indeed a young person for whom we are providing data. Perhaps we should ask Poll aid h for what purpose this data is being gathered and on who's behalf is the data being gathered.

David Cameron attempted to updated & redefined our relationship /membership of the EU trading organisation, however as always the so called 'four freedoms' got in the way. Cameron's attempt was largely rejected by the EU hence the Referendum.

The young people our young people who have had a terrible start in life, will probably always have to struggle throughout their lives & probably will never get a foothold into a relatively safe & self sufficient life style that many of us take for granted

These young people are living in the EU. The reason for wanting to leave the EU is to change the future for those young people, give them a better deal outside the EU in a Country that is able to trade freely with the rest of the world, have more of it's money to spend on providing a better start in life for the said young people, and offering them a better future than the one described currently being provided being in the EU.

Up to 1973 every successive generation was better off than their parents. Since then every generation has been worse off than their parents. It may be a coincidence that 1973 was a significant date in our ever closer union with the EU, on the other hand it may not.

Fake news alert!!! Since 1973 every generation has NOT been worse off than their parents. Since WWII every generation in the UK has been better off than the previous one.

There is now a very serious danger that our children will be worse off than us and there children will suffer even more.

Ok 'Co operate with'! If that makes it more user friendly!!!

It would seem that Pollaidh is indeed a young person for whom we are providing data. Perhaps we should ask Poll aid h for what purpose this data is being gathered and on who's behalf is the data being gathered


I assumed that Pollaidh was just a GN username, possibly from the Gaelic for Polly or from the mountain Stac Pollaidh in the Highlands of Scotland.

As you are a relative newcomer to GN, Allygran, perhaps you didn't realise that Pollaidh has been posting for quite some time, but not that frequently.

Perhaps Pollaidh might come back and enlighten us, but she doesn't have to, of course.

And, of course, you are right Allygran - a poster could be absolutely anyone and be posting and gathering information for all kinds of reasons.

Just signed the Independent petition for a second Brexit referendum. Well over four hundred thousand have now signed since the petition was launched two days ago

I believe I am right in stating that when it reaches five hundred thousand it means having a second referendum will have to be debated in parliament. Doubtless, someone will correct me in the foregoing if I am not correct.

Well over two years have now passed since the last referendum and many are now much more informed of all that surrounds Britain withdrawing from the EU. Therefore time to let the UK population consider where to put that cross once again I feel.

Apologies should be three hundred thousand above not four hundred.

A simple search shows that pollaidh was posting in 2014.

It's 100,000 signatures on a Government hosted petition (i.e on the official ugov website) for a debate to be held on it. But it is not by any means a full debate in the chamber of the House of Commons. It's a little incidental affair in, I believe, Westminster Hall.

The Independent petition will not give rise to any parliamentary debate.

MaizieD many thanks, but disappointing.

I could well support leave, but I feel to withdraw without a customs agreement ensuring frictionless border trade will be nothing short of "catastrophic" for Britain in many years to come

Well, hopefully we’ll have a customs agreement. Hopefully the negotiators and EU leaders won’t resort to cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Hopefully the British people will be given a final say

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-final-say-petition-vote-eu-remain-leave-theresa-may-a8467491.html

Fake news alert!!!

Well, it's not exactly fake news, varian but it is a misinterpretation of the report on which I think Ally relies.

The IFS report is: The Economic Circumstances of Cohorts Born between the 1940s and the 1970s Dec 2013

It is actually about the economic circumstances of cohorts at retirement age.

This is the Executive Summary:

The main conclusion is that individuals born in the 1960s and 1970s are likely to be reliant on inherited wealth if they are to be any better off in retirement than their predecessors. When compared with those born a decade earlier at the same age, these cohorts have no higher take-home income; have saved no more previous take-home income; are less likely to own a home; are likely to have lower private pension wealth; and will tend to find that their state pensions replace a smaller proportion of prior earnings. Many more people in younger cohorts expect to inherit wealth; but expected inheritances are distributed unequally and are higher for those who are already wealthier.

You are right about higher incomes:

In summary, individuals born in the 1960s and 1970s have saved no more past take-home income than their predecessors had by the same stage in life, despite having had considerably higher incomes from which to make such provisions. In addition, the lack of income growth over the past decade means that, when compared with the previous 10-year cohort at the same age, they no longer have higher flows of income.

There is absolutely no mention in the report of the date 1973 (when the ages of the two cohorts in question would have been no more than 13, or 3 and they would not have been earning.) The link made with the EEC/EU is entirely spurious.

The factors which the report implicates in the possibility of these cohorts being poorer at retirement age are: failure to save, changes to pensions, flattening of wage rates and rising house prices. All of which are domestic issues.

www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r89.pdf

varian Sat 28-Jul-18 12:53:07

Fake news alert!!! Since 1973 every generation has NOT been worse off than their parents. Since WWII every generation in the UK has been better off than the previous one

This is not correctly interpreted Varian. Andrew Hood, said: *Since the Second World War, successive cohorts have enjoyed higher incomes and living standards than their parents.
Yet the incomes and wealth of those born in the 1960s and 1970s look no higher than the cohorts who came before them. This means that they are no better off than their parents Varian.

There is now a very serious danger that our children will be worse off than us and there children will suffer even more. Where did you get that from please? Or is it just a statement?

Beware the FAKE News Alert! Below the report by the IFS. The link is there for those interested to read for yourself.

This is a report by the IFS, Institute of Fiscal Studies and a News report on the study.

People born in the 1960s and 1970s will only be wealthier than the previous generation in retirement if they inherit money, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.
The think tank found people in their 40s and 50s are less likely to own a home than those 10 years older.
Their incomes are also no higher and their private pensions are smaller.

"One of the author's of the study, Andrew Hood, said: Since the Second World War, successive cohorts have enjoyed higher incomes and living standards than their parents.
Yet the incomes and wealth of those born in the 1960s and 1970s look no higher than the cohorts who came before them.
"As a result, younger cohorts are likely to have to rely on inheritances to be better off in retirement than their predecessors.
"But inheritances are unequally distributed, with households that are already relatively wealthy far more likely to benefit."
www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8831

By Sam Marsden
6:10AM GMT 17 Dec 2013
"People born in the 1960s and 1970s face becoming the first generation since the Second World War who will be worse off than their parents in retirement, a new study has warned.
The children of these decades are less likely to own a property, will have smaller state and private pensions, and have no more savings or income than their predecessors.
The only way in which they are better off is that they believe they are more likely to receive an inheritance, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) economic think-tank found".
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10521587/Poorer-than-your-parents-post-war-pensions-boom-is-coming-to-an-end.html

Of course this has all been whilst we have been in the EU, and since our ever closer union in 1973. It might be a coincidence as I said in a previous post, but it might not. Sorry to have to say this again, but since my post was wrongly reported as FAKE news by one poster, and then a misinterpreted by yet another poster who was selective in only showing a summary.. I thought people should have the chance to consider the information for themselves and make up your own minds if you regard the Institute of Fiscal Studies as a reliable source of information.

Whatever some believe is wrong with the UK it is a society formed by being in the EU and 'common market' with free movement and customs union regulations, plus hugh payments going out of the UK from us the Tax Payer on an ever increasing scale, as the EU has gone from 7 to 9 and eventually 27 other member Country's since 1973. The UK has had it's sovereignty diminished, it's Laws usurped all in the name of trading in a single market.
No wonder we as a Nation have been getting ever poorer as EU 'citizens' since 1973. How can anyone be a citizen of a trading organisation, the EU is not a Nation. What a con! Now as fantastic as the EU organisation seems and the control they hold over Nation State members under the guise of being in a single trading market extraordinary, it is not Fake News!! Sad to say, it is very, very real, unbelievably.

PS: There was no mention of 1973 in the report nor did I say there was. But 1960 cohort and 1970's onward cohorts are. It's all a matter of interpretation. The poster who chose to interpret it that way did so to suit her/his cause. I interpret it thus: 1973 is in the 1970"s very early on in the 1970's, therefore there may be a connection or not as I have now said three times. I believe there is a connection, very much so.
From Varians Fake news, to MaizieD's misinterpretation claims to my interpretation which I hope I have explained and offered it with a link for you to read for yourselves if your interested in getting to your own conclusion. Just show's how one set of information can be corrupted or edited to give a completely different view of what was said. My point is that the report said that those generations since the 1970's have not been better off than the previous generation and that is what this report supports.

Up to 1973 every successive generation was better off than their parents. Since then every generation has been worse off than their parents.

So where did you get this date from, then, Ally?

I got my information from the report itself, Ally. Not from a journalist's interpretation. See the passage I quoted with highlight.

here it is again

In summary, individuals born in the 1960s and 1970s have saved no more past take-home income than their predecessors had by the same stage in life, despite having had considerably higher incomes from which to make such provisions.