Likely consequenses of brexit

Thanks MaizieD for your link to the study of the coverage of the EU referendum campaign in the UK press, which confirms that-

"When it comes to the positions adopted by each newspaper scrutinized, 6 out of the 9 newspapers adopted positions consistent with the pro-Leave dominance, with the strongest positions in the Daily Express, followed by the Daily Mail and the Sun. The Daily Mirror had the highest share of pro-Remain articles, followed by the Guardian and the Financial Times.

Regarding the differences in tone between the Leave and Remain arguments in the press, the report highlights that the pro-Remain articles were marked by a focus on the single issue of the economy, adopting a generally very negative tone. In contrast to this, pro-Leave articles adopted a more positive tone, balancing criticism of the status quo with hopeful messages for a pro-Brexit future. Pro-Leave articles did play to fears, notably around migration and sovereignty, but their future-oriented messages were more optimistic."

This is the worry about any future vote. Newspaper readership was such an influential factor and those who use emotional manipulation rather than facts are unlikely to change. The owners of these newspapers are foriegn or tax-exile billionaires who have their own agendas.

Michael Gove has admitted that the official leave campaign should not have stoked fears about Turkish immigration during the 2016 Brexit referendum.

In an interview included in a political book published on Thursday, the environment secretary, who was a key figure in the winning Vote Leave campaign, said that if it had been left entirely to him the leave campaign “would have [had] a slightly different feel”.

During the campaign Gove claimed that Turkey and four other countries could join the EU as soon as 2020, and their accession could lead to 5.2 million extra people moving to the UK by 2030 under free movement.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/michael-gove-admits-leave-was-wrong-to-fuel-immigration-fears

Based on the timing of Joelsnan message, I presume rightly or wrongly my comments had been consider.
, when writing the latest comments.

I had in fact accepted the referendum even though the majority of the electorate believed it to be flawed based on recent polls.

My comments are based on the obvious situation we have in the Commons today and that so many of our politicians are unable to get away from tribal prejudicial politics in defying their vision of Brexit, which is creating instability. Therefore I simply asked what is the best way forward?
We all need to accept that the referendum has not defined Brexit, but instead todate created the most distructive mess of recent time. What we have created is one of greatest issues facing any nation, Brexit plans as we know so far have not generated constructive policies that will reduce the risk of leaving or define if staying in the eu is really the best for or nation. We have had lies upon lies.
What we do know is that the unnecessary referendum has caused so much pain, uncertainty and loss of jobs for many, it has created problems for the NHS and the agriculture industry and uncertainty for the City and the CBI,. Some may believe that is good , many will differ. What ever, let’s now come up with a realistic solution where we provide future generations with greater opportunities and stability than the Brexit result created. Let leavers prove to me and so many others that the risks of leaving are well worthwhile and future generations will thank us. I have not as yet seen any realistic impact assessment or business plan to give me that confidence that the risk of leaving is sensible.

Who can we believe ? Politicians, media? all with their own agenda!!

Personally, nellie I'd not believe either. I go for the people who have experience of the EU, trade negotiations, international relations etc. or who have made a thorough academic study of the topics under discussion.

One thing that was quite clear during the referendum campaign, and was confirmed by later analysis, was that experts had very little input into the 'debate'

From: UK press coverage of the EU referendum

Of the 2378 articles analysed, 41% were pro-leave and 27% pro-remain. Press coverage focused heavily on politicians and campaign spokespeople with relatively little few analysts/experts, academics and foreign politicians cited. Analysts/experts made up 11% of spokespeople cited, and academics just 2%. Foreign politicians made up 5% of spokespeople cited.

www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Publications/Reports/UK-press-coverage-of-the-EU-referendum

Added to that, of course, was the scorn of at least one leading Brexiter for 'experts'.

At some point one has to make a decision on something; I prefer to make choices that are reasonably well informed. You, it seems to me, think that reading tea leaves is a perfectly fine way to make decisions because you can't trust anything anyone says.

For 40 years while we were in the EU people who didn’t like it protested and those such as Farage made a career out of it.

Why should those who feel just as passionately that tha U.K. would be better remaining in for a host of reasons not have the right to protest? Is that a democratic society?

I am of the opinion like so many others that this vote was taken on a wave of discontent,half truths, prejudices,patriotism etc & it is still a guessing game as to how it will all end.
Nobody knows how could they, for each speaker who was certain that they knew we would be better off out , there were an equal amount who were just as sure we wouldn’t be.
Even now it’s still a game of pin the tail on the donkey ! I much prefer to hear anyone & everyone to say we don’t know, we won’t know,it will not be instantly obvious,only future generations will be able to analyse the folly or success of what has occurred, to pretend that it is otherwise is as foolish as the referendum was in the first place . We shall just have to grit our teeth,get on with it in good old British Bulldog fashion ! But let’s not pretend that either side knows what was best , because they don’t!

For those who will not accept a democratically held referendum result.
What kind of world do you want to lve in, one where the inmates rule the jail? One where the bullies dictate the rules,
Because all of the 'no likey' protestations show you have little or no regard for the democratic state that other countries would give their high teeth for. Losing our democracy will be far worse than Brexit...is this what you want?

The Remain camp simply want to re-run the referendum until they get the result they want.
No, there shouldn't be a second referendum, or a third!
Nor should there be a ....’here are three scenarios, Joe Public, ways to leave the EU, so you choose ( so that us politicians can’t be held accountable!)’
All politicians should stop bickering, stop their own feelings mucking things up ( whether extreme Brexiters or extreme Remainers) and do the job they are paid by us to do.
Both main parties voted to honour the results of the referendum and are all now acting selfishly and playing games.

Lord Kerr, author of Article 50, says EU treaty allows UK to change mind up to moment of leaving.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date-is-not-irreversible-says-man-who-wrote-article-50-lord-kerr

Yes, but what do we know today? Who can we believe ? Politicians, media? all with their own agenda!! How on earth can we sift the truth from biased rubbish? How can we believe grains of truth that are slanted for whatever purpose? I personally take everything I read or hear with an enormous pinch of salt to the point that I wouldn't know what or who to base any true information on. I simply wouldn't vote either in another referendum or indeed in any future general elections as the 'truth' even if it does exist is hidden or twisted in the agenda of the messenger!

Maisie, Jura, we triggered Article 50. That’s when the leaving process started. Interviewer on the radio this morning tried to get Ms Greening to talk about it but she avoided it most cleverly. I’m just going by what he said and what Mr Juncker has intimated in the past. Sorry I don’t do links and quotes, I have enough trouble remembering names.

It is a long time since I contributed to debates in these columns, mainly because of snide unpleasant comments some individuals just cannot restrain from making when they disagree with others view.
However, I also need to accept that was possibly an equally childish attitude on my part ?

What I would like to put to my own generation today, is my own personal views on helping us all to try to reach a sensible solution on Brexit that will achieve a wider consensus for supporting future generations, improving quality of life for all, greater fairness and improving equality expectations.
Presently, we can all see our politicians cannot as yet, provide a satisfactory answer as to what Brexit really means and the risks. Will it make life better or worse for future generations, yes or no?

If that question cannot be truefully answered, have we reached the time when it is right for the politician to admit they cannot take a decision on Brexit based on so much uncertainty and high risk of getting it right or wrong?Particularly, without hearing also the electorate views?

The true democratic answer which needs to be offered to the Country would need to be based upon what we know today, rather than the distorted information provided at the referendum. We are all aware we were duped by both sides as to the true facts at the time of the referendum. If we are all prepare to accept that fact, then should we now let the Nation decide instead of relying upon the narrowing tribal type views of so many politicians?
We perhaps need a once & for all final decision from us all based on the full truth, if the Government is prepared to provide the Nation with an accurate scenario of risk of what for or against Brexit on the Gov proposals really will mean.

At present it would seem that our politician just cannot provide a satisfactory answer to what Brexit will really mean. I believe we need to know the full risks around Brexit, for example will it make life better or worse for future generations?
Is the time right for the politician to admit they alone cannot take the risk based on so much uncertainty?

The only democratic answer for the UK, should be based upon what we know today, rather than at the time of the referendum, when we were not aware of the information we have today. therefore it seems logical to let the whole Nation decide once and for all if we desire to be in the eu or not.

Will prejudicial views and tribal dogma win the argument or a decision from the whole Nation based on concise facts of what Brexit will really mean?

We all need to contribute our view and try to be realistic as possible and not prejudicial. Let’s ensure for the sake of today and especially future generations we get it right.

Of course it does Luckylegs and regardless of personal feelings , I believe we would have accepted the outcome if it had been carried out in a reasonable, legal and proper manner (as I understand the Scottish Independence referendum was)Many of us have hated GE results over the years but accepted that that is the system.
However this time it has been less well planned than a penalty shoot out and (worst of all) nobody had prepared an exit strategy
Remember “fail to prepare, prepare to fail” from your schooldays?

I don't think they would tell us to Bog Off but I agree with your second paragraph MawBroon.

They would probably heave a sigh of relief but, having the upper hand, would turn us into a laughing stock.

If there is a another referendum because remainers didn't get their way,

We're not children fighting in a playground. That is such a childish way to look at this overwhelmingly important constitutional issue..

If there is another referendum it will be because it has become even more clear since June 2016 how damaging leaving the EU will be for the UK and because the current government have made such a pigs ear of attempting it that we really should consider more carefully why we want to leave or stay and, if it's still leave' how would be the sensible way to approach it.

Because what is happening now sure as hell isn't sensible...

et moi aussi.

MaizieD Mon 16-Jul-18 12:06:40

"I absolutely agree with you, MawBroon"
Me too.

If there is a another referendum because remainers didn't get their way, I will do all I can to have that blocked at every turn and start the campaign for yet another referendum. It works both ways. Then Democracy will be no more and perhaps the objectors will be happy.

I absolutely agree with you, MawBroon

But we might retrieve some of it by coming to our senses....

Most of us realise that the consequences of a "no deal" brexit are just too horrendous to contemplate, but how could you persuade the "believers" who are not interested in facts, will not listen to experts and will dismiss warnings as "project fear"?

But seriously, what if a second referendum resulted in a decision to remain and the EU said the equivalent of Bog Off?

I fear we have weakened our image and status - whatever the outcome - by the brexishambles of the last two years.

As I understand it our membership stays as it is until 29th March 2019. We haven't left. If we decide to stay and the EU accept the decision would it require negotiations to change our current terms and conditions? I've seen no indication that this is necessary or even proposed. If you have anything that says this would have to happen if we decided to stay I'd be grateful if you could share it with us, Nfk

Whatever happens it's going to be a mess. I'd prefer a mess where we stay in the Single Market and our lives would be relatively unchanged. I have no desire to live in a mess with food shortages, disruption of energy supplies, planes grounded, loss of trade, job losses etc. etc...

I realise that there is a threat of civil disobedience if we stay but unless the police force and the army were to completely rebel we have the means to contain it. (Ultimate power resides with those who control the means to physically enforce law and order, remember) And, to be honest, I don't think the 'pro-Brexiters' have made much of a physical showing on our streets despite the fact that it looks as though their dreams might be fading.

Why have we passed the point of no return- we have not.

We are in a big mess, right now.

Apparently, IF we did have this referendum and the remainers won, since we’ve past the point of no return on coming out we’d have to re-apply and although Mr Juncker has said we would be welcome, he didn’t say on what terms. And thoughts are it’s unlikely they’ll be the same or as good as we have now.

So, before we have a referendum - which obviously has to be before the leave date - we really need to know what exactly the terms would be.

I can just see the majority of the population pouring over all the details of this, after of course they’ve managed to peruse and understand the compromise deal in order to make an informed choice. More likely they’ll listen to whoevers propaganda/lies are most persuasive. And we’ll be in just as big a mess.

About automation and the future.

www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/15/global-workforce-will-be-decimated-by-fourth-revolution-says-siemens-boss

THAT, more anything else, will be the massive challenge ahead, Brexit or no Brexit.