For Remainers Only

Would right and centre government during eighties, nineties and noughties have anything to do with that recovery?

To any poster who thinks that I should:

a) prefer to live elsewhere
b) check my facts.

Firstly, I was born in the UK - in England, to be precise - and I have no intention of moving anywhere else. I wouldn't be able to after Brexit anyway. One silly poster seems to miss the point that I'm quite happy to live here and don't want numbskulls messing about with the country where I live.

Secondly, I do usually check my facts, which is something people supporting Brexit rarely seem to do.

Ooops! Typo "factcheck"

And here's a graph showing the growth in UK growth per capita. Being in the EU has been a good time for the UK's economy.

I’m obviously not welcome on the “Brexiters only” thread, so I thought I’d reply on here.

A certain poster claimed “Before joining the EEC we were known as the poor man of Europe”

Another poster, with pro-Brexit views, replied, “- Really? Where is your proof of this?”

Actually, there’s loads of “proof” (let Google be your friend), but here are three examples of Britain being dubbed the “sick man of Europe”:

“Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, the United Kingdom was frequently called the "sick man of Europe", first by foreign commentators, and later at home by critics of the third Wilson/Callaghan ministry, because of industrial strife and poor economic performance compared to other European countries.” (Wiki)

“IN THE 1970s, Britain was dubbed “the sick man of Europe”, a role previously played by the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century. A poor growth record since the second world war combined with terrible industrial relations to make many ask the question “Is Britain governable?”.
The reason Britain joined what was then the EEC in 1973 (at the third attempt) was, in large part, a desperate attempt to find a way of forcing the country to become more competitive. Whether Europe was the key factor, or whether it was Margaret Thatcher’s reforms, by the mid-1990s, the trick seemed to have worked. In particular, London, which lost a quarter of its population between 1939 and the early 1990s, became a global, self-confident city, attracting expats from all over the world. There was a point, a decade ago, when London started to talk of overtaking New York as the global financial centre.”
(Economist, Jul 19th 2017)

“Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain. After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the more than 40 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.”
FT March 31 2017

There are another 14 bullet points of this farcical stuff on the Brexiters' thread. If I have time today, I'll factckeck them all. Have a nice day!

I certainly agree that we should have some form of PR. But the one thing I think could be pushed after the turmoil of the last few years is an English Parliament with a restructured UK Parliament/House of Lords.

This would give a better balance of power to the countries and a focal point for Englishness that could, hopefully, give us the opportunity to grow-up and stop looking backwards.

I do agree that a revamped parliament building with a semi-circular chamber, out of London would help to break the cosy Old Boys' bubble which so many career politicians inhabit. And yes, PR would help.

I am not sure that we have the amusing eccentrics, in the sense of being endearing or whimsical, running the country, Labaik, rather they are self-serving, arrogant and unprincipled. Eccentric maybe in the sense of being capricious and having a distorted axis, but I cannot look on them with any sort of affection.

varian, you talk sense.It won't happen though. The Old Boys' Network.

I find it unbelievable that the sort of political eccentrics that used to make British politics quite good fun are now actually running the country! And I [sadly] agree that parliament needs dragging into the 21st century.

We need a new parliament building with a semi-circular chamber, possibly out of London, and more than anything else we desperately need proportional representation.

Good to see you RamblingRose. It's always good when we can chat with those who provide us with or remind us of the facts.

I'm not sure that we do need a written constitution. Remember that the Fixed-Term Parliament Act was written into law and look at the mess that has caused while, on the other hand, using precedent etc., has got us out of some scrapes along the way.

That said, I agree that Parliament needs updating. A new building wouldn't go amiss and let us use Westminster for tourists so it could pay for its upkeep, The "face-off" style of the chamber has long had its day too. I'm a great believer in an English Parliament so that we then have a UK one in which all the countries feel represented. And the language should be as it is in other assemblies and parliaments; we really don't need to go back centuries to be polite.

It’s not just Johnson to blame though, it’s Theresa May’s fault for running such a pathetic lead up to the last GE and a terrible manifesto.

Yes, I do mean any majority ? but a really good one would help.

lemongrove - when you say "a bigger majority* I think you mean any majority. The PM only has himself to blame for this. He has scuppered his ability to have a majority by withdrawing the Whip from the 21 "rebels" and pissing off the DUP over his new deal.

The PM says the Government is going to do no business other than urgent business without a GE. So what was the point of having a Queen's Speech or even voting on it? It's all hot air and empty threats with him, not to mention the lies.

Of course any party returned with a majority could form a new Government but I hope it wouldn't be one with BJ as Leader.

We probably need a written constitution to protect us from all the machinations we have already seen and that BJ is able to take advantage of - including not having to resign if he loses the next GE because a coalition forms that has more seats than his party.

We need to bring politics into the 21st century and stop acting as though all MPs are "honourable" and as though we still have an empire.

Going for a GE is not only to resolve the inertia/paralysis in Westminster on Brexit, but if the government was returned with a bigger majority it would make a huge difference to getting any Commons business done.
As it is, the government can be stymied by anything at all.

So glad to have found the Remainers thread!

Sorry if this has already been pointed out but even if a motion to have have a confirmatory second referendum is passed in Parliament it needs a money resolution as well and this can only be proposed by the Government of the day.

The media should not report the PM's slogan "Let's get Brexit done" without pointing out that agreeing the latest deal is only the end of chapter one of a very long process.

But I don't think the PM wants a deal at all. He can still orchestrate a No Deal at the end of the transition period by simply saying the UK couldn't reach agreement on a trade deal with the EU after all.

As for telling Corbyn to "man up" and agree to an election, it is the PM who is acting like a petulant child pausing his legislation. He was the same over the claim that he'd never send a letter seeking an extension. He's obviously not used to not getting his own way.

He also hates scrutiny. Only a few days for MPs to scrutinise the WA Bill in exchange for an election? It's hardly an irresistible bargain - just another desperate stunt to avoid scrutiny.

Would you buy a used car from this man?

Exactly, Bossyrossy, the claim that Leavers knew what they voted for is nonsense. No plan was presented to voters, no impact assessment. Unbelievable. But since exiting the EU was going to be a walk in the park you could argue that a plan wasn't necessary. The more one thinks about the referendum and how it was conducted the more foolish it all seems.

bossy you and millions of others.

Brexit will never be seen as legitimate unless ther3 is a confirmatory vote..

But those set to make vast quantities of money won’t give a toss. They are laughing all the way to the off-shore bank.

I get so cross with leavers saying “We knew what we were voting for in the 2016 referendum.” Were they fortune tellers? Did they know and understand the Irish border issues? Did they know that EU workers who work on our farms would return home leaving crops to rot on trees and fields? That car factories such as Nissan would shut down if we leave? That new trade contracts with the rest of the world to replace the EU market that we now have free trade with will take years to set up? That buying medicines direct from the USA instead of having buying power as part of the EU will cost our NHS dearly? That our scientists will no longer have the benefit of EU funding for research projects? That cheap chlorinated chicken from the USA will ruin our poultry industry? I could go on, but you get the idea. I certainly wasn’t aware of any of this when I voted in 2016 and I, for one, would like the opportunity to vote again now that I am better informed.

I'm not sure I would call going off for a far better paid job is usually seen as "sulking". When did the language of political discussion become quite so infantile? I suppose the answer to that is about three and a half years ago.

Yes, as I recall David was the golden boy who lost out to his less blessed but union backed brother ......and then he sulked and went off to the states for pots of money! Just like Clegg at the last election! The old joke about turning socialists into capitalists by giving them money springs to mind!

Well put Varian. I have not always been in favour of a confirmatory referendum but that was when I still had hope that the parties would stop putting themselves before the country on this.

Sadly I think the madness will just continue.

Petra David Milliband left because the Labour Party selected his brother. Rather difficult to work together, although BJ's brother just about manages it.

Exactly GG

Because of our appalling first past the post system of electing MPs, people vote mostly against the party they hate the most, which has very little if anything to do with brexit. The result is often very unfair and parties interpret their support any way they like.

For instance, if you live in a Tory held seat and you want to remain in the EU, then you will look for the candidate best placed to oust the Tory. That means that although you would actually like to vote Liberal Democrat or Labour of Green, you could decide to vote SNP because they came second last time. The SNP may then interpret your vote as endorsement for breaking up the UK and there is little you can do to say "No, that is not what I want".

I don't think we should even contemplate an election until this is out of the way, Bridgeit. There really is nothing more democratic than a confirmatory referendum on actual the proposal and it takes it away from the general politics which, as we know, is not split on the usual party lines.

GE's are meant to be about how the country is run in a "general" way and electing a government by your views on Brexit could leave us in exactly the same position we are in now.

You are right, of course, petra. We are getting what we pay for.