So many dreams for our youngsters dashed.

Maizie That was the problem. Valid arguments were put forward by Leave campaigners, but those campaigning to remain didn't counter them.

There's a persistent narrative amongst some people that rules/laws/regulations are imposed without any input. It happens with Westminster - and there's much truth in that too. Concepts such as "democracy" and "will of the people" aren't nearly so simple as they might seem to those only used to soundbites. The majority of people don't have any meaningful say in how they're governed and that idea was transferred to the EU. Very often it takes more than rational argument to counter ingrained beliefs. Dominic Cummings knew that very well. I think it's been removed from YouTube now, but he gave a speech not long after the result, explaining how Leave used visceral rather than intellectual arguments. He was right.

Another valid argument was about EU workers undercutting tradespeople and taking unskilled jobs. Agencies were employing EU workers and bypassing UK workplace laws. The UK government could have stamped on that but it didn't. The counter-argument should have been that few people want to do the unskilled jobs anyway - which is what we're now seeing. Generally, the UK has a comparatively highly educated workforce and people aren't prepared to do backbreaking work for peanuts. It makes economic sense for the UK to concentrate on "intellectual" work, but of course that means that there is still "menial" work to be done. For too long, policy makers have ignored those destined to be at the bottom of the pile. They had an opportunity to make their voices heard - and they did.

The Leave campaign was very clever at uniting diverse groups of people with grievances.

Another concern I heard was that decisions were held up because ratification by all member states was required before trade deals etc could go ahead.

That just illustrates how very weird it all was because most Leave voters were insistent that everything happened with no input from the member states; it was just imposed on them.

I've heard that argument too and I suspect there's some truth in it. It should have been addressed rather than swept under the carpet.
yes, growstuff, it did seem to be a major concern for many and never properly addressed.
Another concern I heard was that decisions were held up because ratification by all member states was required before trade deals etc could go ahead.

Lucca

*KateF*. “ we all were required to have visas, ”. Really ? Visas for Europe ? Or do you mean work permits ?

I worked in Italy early 70’s. For four years. No visa. Just passport plus a couple of local permits done at the
Police station

I moved to France in 1987 and a Visa
Was necessary to live here, had to go through a costly procedure to get one

Callistemon

M0nica

I have often wondered whether many of those voting leave were people, who apart from an occasional package holiday had never travelled abroad, never worked in industries where people moved between here and overseas and, until the influx of Eastern Europeans into the country, who they generally saw as coming in and taking their jobs, knew very few Europeans and generally couldn't see what the EU had done for them.

While remainers were more likely to have travelled more, mixed with European immigrants in professional jobs, been grateful to their Dutch GP or French dentist and were very aware of the advantages of seamless travel around Europe, whether on business or pleasure.

Sometime back I asked whether anyone on this thread could give an example of a positive advantage we immediately got from Brexit comparable with the negative effect the shortage of lorry drivers has caused. So far no one has listed anything.

Not in my experience around here - I was astonished when we discussed this with many neighbours post-referendum; all well-educated, varied career paths including MDs in industry and well-travelled.
I think the most discussed point was the bureaucracy and the waste of money.

I've heard that argument too and I suspect there's some truth in it. It should have been addressed rather than swept under the carpet.

We all gathered for a summer get-together, we remainers were huddled together while the others celebrated!

Yes Callistemon I agree, the lumbering bureaucracy is expensive and unwieldy, nothing is 100% perfect, I too have friends who are educated, professional, well travelled, even owning second properties within EU countries who then voted to leave, I can't quite work out why. I suspect they are wondering the same .

M0nica

I have often wondered whether many of those voting leave were people, who apart from an occasional package holiday had never travelled abroad, never worked in industries where people moved between here and overseas and, until the influx of Eastern Europeans into the country, who they generally saw as coming in and taking their jobs, knew very few Europeans and generally couldn't see what the EU had done for them.

While remainers were more likely to have travelled more, mixed with European immigrants in professional jobs, been grateful to their Dutch GP or French dentist and were very aware of the advantages of seamless travel around Europe, whether on business or pleasure.

Sometime back I asked whether anyone on this thread could give an example of a positive advantage we immediately got from Brexit comparable with the negative effect the shortage of lorry drivers has caused. So far no one has listed anything.

Not in my experience around here - I was astonished when we discussed this with many neighbours post-referendum; all well-educated, varied career paths including MDs in industry and well-travelled.
I think the most discussed point was the bureaucracy and the waste of money.

MOnica In the first two paragraphs of your last post, you have (perhaps inadvertently) described the kind of "metropolitan elite" whom those who voted to leave despise. Your description of those who voted to leave implies that they have an inferior experience of the world. That could very well be true, but people don't like being told. Dominic Cummings and those who "won" the referendum by using psychology knew this and partially explains the result.

Katie59

Let’s be clear in the context of the EU and Brexit, 3rd country status in the past was any nation not an EU member.
Now there is no 1st and 2nd country, just EU and non EU we no longer have any special relationship unless specific agreement has been made, some have

I thought I was clear.

It is a valid question though M0nica
There must be something, surely?

I know there were some things posted on another thread ages ago which were apparently benefits but some just were wrong - and a couple of them were EU things we had adopted slightly ahead of the EU.

Nobody will list the positives MOnica but many will pop up to tell you they are fed up with you asking them to tell you. Happens to me frequently. My fault apparently for not accepting the situation.

I have often wondered whether many of those voting leave were people, who apart from an occasional package holiday had never travelled abroad, never worked in industries where people moved between here and overseas and, until the influx of Eastern Europeans into the country, who they generally saw as coming in and taking their jobs, knew very few Europeans and generally couldn't see what the EU had done for them.

While remainers were more likely to have travelled more, mixed with European immigrants in professional jobs, been grateful to their Dutch GP or French dentist and were very aware of the advantages of seamless travel around Europe, whether on business or pleasure.

Sometime back I asked whether anyone on this thread could give an example of a positive advantage we immediately got from Brexit comparable with the negative effect the shortage of lorry drivers has caused. So far no one has listed anything.

The sad thing is leavers were hoodwinked, nothing that was promised has occurred, despite 'remoaners' trying to explain it. I am gutted for my gc and how much harder they have it, and how torn this country is under the Tories.

Let’s be clear in the context of the EU and Brexit, 3rd country status in the past was any nation not an EU member.
Now there is no 1st and 2nd country, just EU and non EU we no longer have any special relationship unless specific agreement has been made, some have

Secondly, I think there is an element of British exceptionalism and some people are more inclined to think that the EU is out to get us, just because we're British

if you are gullible enough to read The Daily Express, this is what you read most days.

I think there are some who just do not realise that by chosing to be completely outside the EU we are completely outside the EU and the EU is treating us as we have been asked to be treated. Heaven knows why they didn't realise this is what would happen.

I think its a combination of 2 things PippaZ.

First, so much of what we took for granted we actually had because we were members of the EU and despite what they were told before the referendum, many people just didn't think that much would change.

Secondly, I think there is an element of British exceptionalism and some people are more inclined to think that the EU is out to get us, just because we're British.

I completely agree beanpole Any government in the 21st century has an enormous task because the world is changing far faster in this new millennium, so surely cutting itself off economically from its nearest neighbours, isolating from geographically close markets is irresponsible? How does a responsible country hold a summit about climate change at the same time as exchanging easy trade, by a quick ferry in many cases, for everything coming thousands of miles by air or sea freight?

Any government in the 21st century has an enormous task because the world is changing far faster in this new millennium. Due mainly to advances in technology. Any government wanting to go back to how things were a decade or two ago will be viewed as a real dinosaur.

Moving on from what has happened, what is needed is not a govt. who will defend us from the challenges or a govt. sitting on its laurels, but a govt. which will embrace the inevitable changes.
At the moment this isn't on the cards, other than the struggling Green Party vision in certain areas.

No one knows at this moment in time whether things will be better or worse for them. It could go either way for them.

Of course, it could. We could also be burnt to a crisp, drowned or wiped out in a pandemic. But we chose to leave the EU. The government are supposed to prepare and defend us from these challenges. They are supposed to use what is known and the resources of this country. They didn't; they are still not doing so.

This whole thing seems to have affected young adults right up to their 30s worst of all. That's a big chunk of the workforce having to unnecessarily reassess their lives. This transition time is unsettling for them in particular.

On the upside the youngsters not yet adults still at school will have had time to adjust to the new situation, to review their plans and to make their choices around it. From what is presently seen of adolescents and the greater challenges they face like climate change, the evils of social media, property prices and so on, this group may well be unconcerned about new Brexit regulations and 2016 will be a good decade past.

No one knows at this moment in time whether things will be better or worse for them. It could go either way for them.

NotSpaghetti

The third country situation has been discussed on lots of threads. I mentioned it on this thread. It was on lots of Brexit threads, it was on a fishing thread (talking about shellfish I think), and elsewhere including Ireland discussions if I remember correctly.

It's what some of us (who wanted to retain some EU rights and responsibilities post Brexit) were afraid of.
Now our government has chosen it.

I think there are some who just do not realise that by chosing to be completely outside the EU we are completely outside the EU and the EU is treating us as we have been asked to be treated. Heaven knows why they didn't realise this is what would happen.

EFTA pay EFTA which pay

MawBe

^This is not a sudden discrimination- it has been the same for 3rd country nationals for the EU^

Can you explain this concept of third country nationals please?
What are first country and second country nationals?

There is no such thing as a "first country". However, that describes the 27 counties that are members of the EU. The EU countries pay full membership and agree to keep the rules all the members agree.

The next level would be those countries in the EEA or EFTA pay the EU to be in this looser arrangement. They also have to agree to some rules to be in these intergovernmental organisations.

Third countries do not pay for any form of membership. They do not agree to any of the rules except on an ad hoc basis.

I have tried to keep this simple but am happy to be corrected on this.

The third country situation has been discussed on lots of threads. I mentioned it on this thread. It was on lots of Brexit threads, it was on a fishing thread (talking about shellfish I think), and elsewhere including Ireland discussions if I remember correctly.

It's what some of us (who wanted to retain some EU rights and responsibilities post Brexit) were afraid of.
Now our government has chosen it.