Brexit

I initially avoided looking at this thread, fearing it would quickly descend into another vitriolic discussion.
Thank you luckygirl both for drawing attention to the link and your comprehensive and balanced post on 22/7. I think it demonstrates that there is indeed a need for a middle way and perhaps more of a will for it than is immediately obvious.

Petra I can see where your argument stems from but what is the solution to these desperate people seeking either physical safety or economic safety? So many conflicts, famine etc.
Do you think better economic and infrastructure support for countries, where the mixture of refugees and economic migrants are traveling from, could slow the numbers leaving? Such a dilemma!

Steve Bannon, the former chief Trump strategist travelled to Europe after he was pushed out of the White House and then departed the right-wing Breitbart media empire. His ambition now is a populist implosion across the Continent.

Everything started with the Brexit vote in June 2016, he believes. It continued with the election of President Trump the following November and returned to Europe with the success of two populist parties in Italy's election last March.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44926417

Brexit is an integral part of the rise of the ultra-right. If it goes ahead it could be the catalyst for the destruction of Western liberal democracy.

That is an interesting thought varian - but might it not be that the far right parties are latching on to people's dissatisfactions and providing and outlet for them? Hopefully this disturbing awareness might nudge the EU into recognising what is going wrong and trying to change things so that there is not this mass of disaffected people.

It is not Brexit per se that is an integral part of the rise of the ultra-right; that rise and the vote for Brexit are expressions of the things that have gone wrong with the EU (and other western democracies) that leave vast swathes of people vulnerable to far right parties.

I do not think that Brexit need be a "catalyst for the destruction of Western democracy." It is a wake-up call to governments that they can no longer continue to prioritise global capital, rich bankers, and narrow political elites. If the EU takes actions that start to be inclusive then the far right parties would have no fodder for their cannons.

Robert Peston made an interesting observation and quotes many statistics about the demographic that voted for leave, and they are people living in the poorest areas of Britain on whom the policy of austerity has impacted the most. One of the statistics indicates that low educational attainment correlates with voting to leave. But then he goes on to say:

"Now I imagine that you expect me to point out that less-educated people voted for Brexit because they are thick. But funnily enough I don't take that view. Their votes were rational, because their jobs and living standards are more at risk from immigration........"

I think it is helpful to do, as he has, and ask the question why, rather than denigrating those who voted to leave. He is rightly pointing out that they might have had good reason to see this as being in their interests, and that their votes make perfect sense.

Do you think better economic and infrastructure support for countries, where the mixture of refugees and economic migrants are traveling from, could slow the numbers leaving? Such a dilemma!
Yes, I did suggest that too PECS, on Mon 23-Jul-18 09:44:05

but might it not be that the far right parties are latching on to people's dissatisfactions and providing and outlet for them? Hopefully this disturbing awareness might nudge the EU into recognising what is going wrong and trying to change things so that there is not this mass of disaffected people.

That is a very valid point Luckygirl - opportunists of all persuasions will do this but perhaps the EU bureaucracy is such that they are too cumbersome to react to this swiftly and decisively enough.

"Now I imagine that you expect me to point out that less-educated people voted for Brexit because they are thick. But funnily enough I don't take that view. Their votes were rational, because their jobs and living standards are more at risk from immigration........"
Another interesting point Luckygirl - and, of course, it is clear from some posts on threads that others voted to remain because their pensions, their jobs, living standards, their healthcare, their children's jobs etc are threatened because they live part of the time in the EU, therefore a vote to remain is rational to them.

Very ofen it depends on life circumstances and what people perceive as best for them and their families.

I fear that you may be right about the cumbersome nature of the EU bureaucracy; this may of course be another reason why some people voted to leave.

The EU is a slow-moving behemoth that struggles to embrace and initiate change; I believe it is still a fact that the EU parliament (with all its members, officials, papers etc.) moves to Brussels once a month at vast expense. Please correct me if I am wrong. The fact that the EU can find no way of stopping this waste of money is a worry, and indicative of how they struggle to take sensible decisions when they are so large and unwieldy.

What I feel is particularly sad is that those areas where people voted to leave because ofnegative effects of austerity are likely also to suffer the most, in the sense that they were areas which received EU subsidies - good luck with having those replaced by the government....

*Luckygirl *^Wed 25-Jul-18 10:39:13^
I have heard several people give that as the reason they voted Brexit, including DH - and one of the reasons why I sat on the fence for so long before voting remain. Someone described it as a monolithic polyglot.

The rise of right wing parties in Europe is worrying, but something I would have thought we should be fighting from inside the EU, not outside.

humptydumpty
What I feel is particularly sad is that those areas where people voted to leave because of negative effects of austerity are likely also to suffer the most, in the sense that they were areas which received EU subsidies - good luck with having those replaced by the government

EU subsidies are to the UK nothing more than some of the money we pay in as contributions (with a percentage creamed off for Admin and Bureaucacy purposes), which is then re-branded and sent back as EU subsidy/grant.
No EU grant or subsidy can be delivered without first being nominated for the same by the requesting country.
The only countries to really benefit from this process are those with the minimal contribution and the higher subsidy/grant awards.

Yes, but that still doesn't mean those areas will receive the equivalent amount from the government when we leave.

humptydumpty
But why not when they are currently having to apply to EU for return of funds for initiatives alrady identified by themselves?
And, supposing it didnt happen then at least we will have the option to vote in a government that will.
You should also note that as more Eastern European countries enter the EU the lower down the begging Order UK slides in terms of regeneration grants and subsidies.

I think we simply do not know what government will spend on more economically depressed areas of the UK after Brexit. Presumably the desire will be to maintain and improve these; but how possible this will be we none of us know. We have our hopes and fears; but we do not know.

There won't be any grants and funds to apply for when we are not in EU!

If we get a deal we will still be paying the equivalent of several years' contributions to the EU by way of the 'divorce bill'. With, of course, nothing coming back to the deprived regions. The only way any government would be able to give aid to those regions (assuming that it even wants to do so) would be as an added expense on top of what would have been our EU contribution. I am sceptical about these regions getting anything extra post Brexit. Particularly if we get a right wing government.

I agree Joelsnan and I sometimes think people fondly imagine we receive oodles of EU cash for ‘nothing’.
The UK will be able to spend it’s own money on it’s own projects in the future.
And yes, if we don’t like what a government does or doesn’t do, they can be voted out, unlike the EU.

www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/european-union-uk-important-brexit.html
An interesting read
The UK is a net contributor to the EU which means everyone (excluding scotland) pays £150 approx in than it receives back. Its only recently that Scotland too became a net contributor by approx £65per person.
So those who think EU money comes from heaven, think again.
Brief research will show who the main contributors are and who the main benificiaries are and in terms of benefit, UK is sliding well down the list and this will continue as Germany strives to keep the ex Soviet eastern bloc sweet to prevent Russian alliances developing. Whether pumping money into these countries will prevent this is another matter particularily if they are asked to contribute more come Brexit. A number if countries have already said they will not.

I don't think we would have ever been able to influence anything by staying in the EU. In the forty years we've been a member, nothing that we have initiated has been even taken seriously, never mind adopted!! We've always been a lone voice, sneered at derided, 'unimportant little island off the northern coast of Europe', that is, till we wanted to leave!! We now virtually criminals, and without our money, they are in dire straits! Well, perhaps they should have thought of that and perhaps, over the years been just a little less dismissive and a bit more courteous!

PECS
Yes, I do think more could be done to help these countries.
Particularly down the west coast of Africa where ...... I don't know how many........ lives have been decimated by factory farming ships. If you and your family have had your only means of making a living taken away from you, what are you going to do?
As an aside, how many of you are aware that hundreds of migrants are left in the desert to die on their trek north.
The billions that the eu have spent on all aspects of immigration could have done so much in these countries.
I truely believe that our generation will see no change in the eu's attitude, but I do believe it will come, it will have to, or die.
I don't think it will be many more years before we see a right wing government in Sweden or Denmark. There is a lot of unrest in these countries.

In the forty years we've been a member, nothing that we have initiated has been even taken seriously, never mind adopted!!

nellie, where are you getting all this from? It is utterly untrue.

Just for a start; you know that 'Single Market' which all the Leave campaign told us we wouldn't have to leave and which turned the EU into one huge Free Trade area and which has done so much for our economy? And which May is desperately trying to keep some of the benefits of in her negotiations?

Well, whose idea was it and who made sure it was implemented?

I'll leave you to answer that one.

Then, nellie you might care to read this:

www.indy100.com/article/brexit-twitter-thread-political-analyst-european-union-united-kingdom-united-states-america-7834846

I have the impression that the UK has always had an uneasy relationship with the EU.

Luckygirl
Yes in some ways it feels like we are the unlucky girl who buys expensive gifts to curry friendships only for the friends to take the gifts and sneer behind our backs. The Eurovision song contest illustrates this perfectly as well as the 'gang' voting so evident now.
Because we have generally been a country of structure, fairness and abiding by the law, we have been scorned. Remember if France doesnt like a law, they ignore it whereas Britain (generally) abides even though it may be detrimental. The cultural mental diversity of the EU is and always will be problematic.