Brexit - Post Match Reaction

it only remains to be seen when we have a another referendum in three or four years time to rejoin the European Union. Following the disastrous negotiations of David Davis and Liam Fox to secure other deals. Being forced to agreeing to the Euro, accepting free movement of people ,Schengen etc, losing the rebates Margaret Thatcher won for us. All tossed away by the brexiteers.

Far more likely that in that sort of time scale, there will have been referenda from other member states following us out and the collapse of the Euro. The negotiations with trade within the Single Market will undoubtedly be difficult, but there is no evidence to suggest that we will be unsuccessful in concluding major trade deals with the growth economies of the World. It is far too early to make a reasoned judgement on that anyway, but the earliest indications are that we would get a very positive response to our negotiations with several of the big players.

Believing that the electorate would vote to rejoin the EU conditional on us joining the Eurozone, signing the Schengen agreement and paying through our noses for our membership is just plain barmy. If it came to the whole European project being on the verge of collapse and consequently being forced away from the federal entity it has evolved into and back towards something more akin to the Common Market we originally joined, then we might well consider rejoining that.

I always wondered what you looked like, but I'm happy that you have given my post the big thumbs-up, mate.

I always wondered what you looked like, but I'm happy that you have given my post the big thumbs-up, mate.

Les - we're like peas in a pod.

There was plenty of stuff on the TV about the implications either way in the months before the clamp-down in the comparatively short time before the actual polling day. The BBC in particular had their remain propaganda going full tilt up until then, the News programme salivating over every report from some economist or business group about the financial Armageddon that would ensue if we left.

Got any evidence for this kipper T? How does a news programme "salivate"? Or is this just evidence for your paranoid delusions about meejah beaming directly into people's brains?

Only a conpiracist schmuck would say that the Beeb was propagandising for remain, rather than reporting both sides of the story. You just want your want your paranoia confirmed, and search for it in the tiniest example of expert reports being covered that might hint at a downside to Brexit.

As with your steadfast defence of a Jew-hating libel - and your hilarious suggestion that these ideas were no more antisemitic than those of virulently Jew-hating Corbynistas now fronting the Labour party - you really seem to have departed from sane political debate.

Got any evidence for this kipper T? How does a news programme "salivate"? Or is this just evidence for your paranoid delusions about meejah beaming directly into people's brains?

 

Only a conpiracist schmuck would say that the Beeb was propagandising for remain, rather than reporting both sides of the story. You just want your want your paranoia confirmed, and search for it in the tiniest example of expert reports being covered that might hint at a downside to Brexit.

 

As with your steadfast defence of a Jew-hating libel - and your hilarious suggestion that these ideas were no more antisemitic than those of virulently Jew-hating Corbynistas now fronting the Labour party - you really seem to have departed from sane political debate.

Im still waiting for the Billions added to the vaue of British companies headline.... in the interest of balance of course

There was plenty of stuff on the TV about the implications either way in the months before the clamp-down in the comparatively short time before the actual polling day. The BBC in particular had their remain propaganda going full tilt up until then, the News programme salivating over every report from some economist or business group about the financial Armageddon that would ensue if we left. Besides, if anybody wished to educate themselves about the arguments either way, they could easily have read a plethora of information on the internet, discounted the bias factor favouring the group publishing those views and then arrived at their own conclusions. The electorate had months to do this and it is really weak of the remain side to push this agenda that they did not have enough information available to make a reasoned judgement.

 

There has also been post-Brexit analysis of why the Remain campaign failed, despite having arguably the stronger position and the backing of the PM and Chancellor, and £9 million pounds of Government propaganda paid for by us. One of the main conclusions was not that Remain had been unsuccessful in putting out enough information about the implications of leaving the EU, but that its campaign had been so negative and seemingly exaggerated.

I think you overestimate the effectiveness of the Internet, especially amongst the elderly.

I lost count of the number of people that I spoke to who said that they were confused about the options and that they didn't have enough information to make a decision.

I don't consider the BBC to have been biased in any shape or form. Also by giving air time to buffoons like Farage they gave credibility to his arguments.

Im still waiting for the Billions added to the vaue of British companies headline.... in the interest of balance of course

What does that mean?

When the FTSE 100 plummeted after the result, "billions wiped off the value of companies" was the headline. When those billions were added back, no headline just a switch to the 250 after being told that the 100 doesnt matter. Still no mention of billions added to the value of of 250 companies. Quite simple really, me ol pedigree chump.

When the FTSE 100 plummeted after the result, "billions wiped off the value of companies" was the headline. When those billions were added back, no headline just a switch to the 250 after being told that the 100 doesnt matter. Still no mention of billions up added to the value of of 250 companies. Quite simple really, me ol pedigree chump.

That'll be because they are still worth billions less. Not tricky. International companies have international investors, over 90% in some cases. For investors in every country in the world bar Britain the value of their investment has slumped.

When the FTSE 100 plummeted after the result, "billions wiped off the value of companies" was the headline. When those billions were added back, no headline just a switch to the 250 after being told that the 100 doesnt matter. Still no mention of billions added to the value of of 250 companies. Quite simple really, me ol pedigree chump.

Verbal provides a better diagnosis of your predicament than me pal, if you want to seek assistance. Anyhow not sure I saw that particular headline from the BBC - or at least it wasn't any more or less dramatic than the media coverage elsewhere.

There has been plenty of BBC coverage on the FTSE 100's recovery

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36864532

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36772309

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36802646

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36648630

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36681794

No real mention that the FTSE 100's rise has been helped by currency adjustments which, of course, you would expect from a lefty, propagandising beeb keen to take the shine off things.

Even at the height of troubles, the BBC was reporting other voices to ensure balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36636853

Even with yesterday's PMI results, the BBC correspondent's assessment seems more sanguine and upbeat than others:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36864273

Baldrick, given that the FTSE 250 is still trading below its pre-referendum level, its not surprise that the BBC, a producer of news, not make-believe, isn't reporting that companies are adding billions just yet.

For what its worth the FTSE 100 is trading below major US and European indices since June 23. While there have been reactions to 'good' news such as May's appointment, strong June jobs data in the US etc, markets have been moving very unpredictable ways, confirming the old truism that bad news in economic fundamentals is good news for markets as they bet on more central bank largesse and chivalry.

Got any evidence for this kipper T? How does a news programme "salivate"? Or is this just evidence for your paranoid delusions about meejah beaming directly into people's brains?

 

Only a conpiracist schmuck would say that the Beeb was propagandising for remain, rather than reporting both sides of the story. You just want your want your paranoia confirmed, and search for it in the tiniest example of expert reports being covered that might hint at a downside to Brexit.

 

As with your steadfast defence of a Jew-hating libel - and your hilarious suggestion that these ideas were no more antisemitic than those of virulently Jew-hating Corbynistas now fronting the Labour party - you really seem to have departed from sane political debate.

Evidence? A simple bit of Googling will bring you up much opinion as to where the Beeb was biased in favour of remain. It should not be too difficult for somebody of your super intellect to do a simple bit of research like this. Here are a few to be going on with:-

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=bbc+biased+towards+remain

Now, I accept that of course you will dismiss much of this comment because some of it is produced by bodies or organisations that you consider beneath contempt in your opinion, but naturally you will therefore point out where these reports were not justified, and produce your counter evidence of the complaints of BBC bias towards the Leave campaign, in the interests of balance.

Regarding the salivate comment, of course I referred to the programme editors, producers or commentators, but of course you knew that.

Regarding your assertion that I must be anti-Semitic, time to set that straight before you continue ad nauseam with the accusation in the same way that you label me as a UKIP supporter when I have been a life long Conservative. I have been pro-Israeli since the 6 day War and rather lukewarm when it comes to finding much to like or admire about the Arabs. Not that I expect you to grow up and cease this playground name-calling.

Evidence? A simple bit of Googling will bring you up much opinion as to where the Beeb was biased in favour of remain. It should not be too difficult for somebody of your super intellect to do a simple bit of research like this. Here are a few to be going on with:-

 

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=bbc+biased+towards+remain

 

Now, I accept that of course you will dismiss much of this comment because some of it is produced by bodies or organisations that you consider beneath contempt in your opinion, but naturally you will therefore point out where these reports were not justified, and produce your counter evidence of the complaints of BBC bias towards the Leave campaign, in the interests of balance.

 

Regarding the salivate comment, of course I referred to the programme editors, producers or commentators, but of course you knew that.

 

Regarding your assertion that I must be anti-Semitic, time to set that straight before you continue ad nauseam with the accusation in the same way that you label me as a UKIP supporter when I have been a life long Conservative. I have been pro-Israeli since the 6 day War and rather lukewarm when it comes to finding much to like or admire about the Arabs. Not that I expect you to grow up and cease this playground name-calling.

Les, thanks for opening my eyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/27/bbc-brexit-case-lord-patten-john-whittingdale

You have to be a total fu cking moron to believe the BBC was biased towards remain. Oh, it's Les.

The BBC in its desperation for balance massively swung their reports to leave who were disproportionately served.

Time and time again they'd speak to an independent analyst/expert, who by default became the remain representative then for "balance" speak to a political Leave representative for the opposing view. Equivalent remain political voices got squeezed out of these binary exchanges on the beeb day after day.

This clearly wasn't balanced - balanced would have been three voices - independent expert, then a leave political voice then and a remain political voice.

It's not a new phenomenon for the EU ref - they do a similar thing with homeopathy and climate change and various other topics where two sides are given "equal" billing when frankly it isn't deserved. Not all opinions are equal. Ben Goldacre writes well about this particular issue.

Dins like Les can pretend Leave won despite the BBC but they won because of it. The establishment delivered for Leave.

Les, thanks for opening my eyes:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/27/bbc-brexit-case-lord-patten-john-whittingdale

No, thank you, mate for posting that link. It has produced no end of amusement for the ironies contained within.

Patten of course, was one of those failed MPs who enjoyed 5 years on the EU gravy train as a Commissioner, as well as being Trust Chairman of the Beeb. No doubt he declared these interests in order that his comments would be taken not to be impartial.

Speaking on Radio Four's Today programme about the need for the Beeb to be seen as impartial about the Referendum because its charter was coming up for renewal, he managed in his interview to press the case for the UK remaining in the EU by several remarks.

His position is immediately identified as pro-Remain.

He added weight to the statements made for Remain by the Governor of the Bank of England and the IMF and suggested that anybody who stated a counter argument should only be allotted equal air time if they were as prominent in a professional capacity.

He then predicted a Remain win and called on the Conservative Party to unite afterwards. He urged the Leave camp “not to go down the Alex Salmond route” of refusing to accept that a constitutional question has been settled by a referendum."

This is all delicious stuff.

You have to be a total fu cking moron to believe the BBC was biased towards remain. Oh, it's Les.

 

The BBC in its desperation for balance massively swung their reports to leave who were disproportionately served.

 

Time and time again they'd speak to an independent analyst/expert, who by default became the remain representative then for "balance" speak to a political Leave representative for the opposing view. Equivalent remain political voices got squeezed out of these binary exchanges on the beeb day after day.

 

This clearly wasn't balanced - balanced would have been three voices - independent expert, then a leave political voice then and a remain political voice.

 

It's not a new phenomenon for the EU ref - they do a similar thing with homeopathy and climate change and various other topics where two sides are given "equal" billing when frankly it isn't deserved. Not all opinions are equal. Ben Goldacre writes well about this particular issue.

 

Dins like Les can pretend Leave won despite the BBC but they won because of it. The establishment delivered for Leave.

You believe what you want to and as per normal, assume the position of supercilious arrogance that no doubt helps makes you feel superior.

The problem with your argument about having one for Remain and one for Leave and an independent analyst/expert, comes when that independent analyst / expert was too often for Remain, but this seems to have escaped your notice. Balance would have an independent expert/analyst championing each side.

But thanks for putting me right that my gratitude for the result to Leave the EU should be directed towards the BBC

During the purdah period the bbc were remarkably balanced . Since the vote, like the remoaners on here they still seem in shock and unable to comprehend what we've done . God knows what they'll be like if Trump wins .

You believe what you want to and as per normal, assume the position of supercilious arrogance that no doubt helps makes you feel superior.

 

The problem with your argument about having one for Remain and one for Leave and an independent analyst/expert, comes when that independent analyst / expert was too often for Remain, but this seems to have escaped your notice. Balance would have an independent expert/analyst championing each side.

 

But thanks for putting me right that my gratitude for the result to Leave the EU should be directed towards the BBC [emoji38]

It didn't "escape my notice", it was central to the point I was making. I didn't expect you to understand it.

During the purdah period the bbc were remarkably balanced . Since the vote, like the remoaners on here they still seem in shock and unable to comprehend what we've done . God knows what they'll be like if Trump wins .

Like Les, for someone who parades himseld as an old-school, no-nonsense type of a fella, you're a bit of a dippy hippy. There can't possibly be anything such as the truth, expertise and fact. It's just all perception, subjectivity and opinion, man.

You have to be a total fu cking moron to believe the BBC was biased towards remain. Oh, it's Les.

 

The BBC in its desperation for balance massively swung their reports to leave who were disproportionately served.

 

Time and time again they'd speak to an independent analyst/expert, who by default became the remain representative then for "balance" speak to a political Leave representative for the opposing view. Equivalent remain political voices got squeezed out of these binary exchanges on the beeb day after day.

 

This clearly wasn't balanced - balanced would have been three voices - independent expert, then a leave political voice then and a remain political voice.

 

It's not a new phenomenon for the EU ref - they do a similar thing with homeopathy and climate change and various other topics where two sides are given "equal" billing when frankly it isn't deserved. Not all opinions are equal. Ben Goldacre writes well about this particular issue.

 

Dins like Les can pretend Leave won despite the BBC but they won because of it. The establishment delivered for Leave.

That's nonsense, the 'experts' we're not independent they were all wheeled out by remain. I listened to and watched the BBC a lot and thought it was biased towards remain.

That's nonsense, the 'experts' we're not independent they were all wheeled out by remain. I listened to and watched the BBC a lot and thought it was biased towards remain.

The failure of the BBC was to make dinlows believe independent experts expressing a view as being "wheeled out" by remain. They weren't but the BBC's drive for balance made it look like they were.

A lot of that is true but it is a bit pathetic to say the death of the MP was in the Remain favour and used. Also I read the Government leaflet and felt it was fair. To say about lying is an absolute joke as the bus with the 350m to the NHS was the worst piece of deception since Blair and the WMD

both sides lied. pretty badly

add vast parts of the media to the remain side too

A lot of that is true but it is a bit pathetic to say the death of the MP was in the Remain favour and used. Also I read the Government leaflet and felt it was fair. To say about lying is an absolute joke as the bus with the 350m to the NHS was the worst piece of deception since Blair and the WMD

Not sure what "complain it wasn't an even vote" even means but I'm certainly not doing that. Accepted the result by 4am on that Friday morning and have done since. Still things to discuss.

But your list proves my point - broadcast media didn't really reflect that opinion because they balanced it all 50:50.

For example there was that survey of medium/large businesses leaders which was massively for remain was illustrated by broadcast media by "here's one businessman for and here's one against", ie that balance was in itself biased towards leave.

Anyway, it's an arcane point about broadcast balance I don't expect anyone here to care about so that'll do me.

Regarding your assertion that I must be anti-Semitic, time to set that straight before you continue ad nauseam with the accusation in the same way that you label me as a UKIP supporter when I have been a life long Conservative. I have been pro-Israeli since the 6 day War and rather lukewarm when it comes to finding much to like or admire about the Arabs. Not that I expect you to grow up and cease this playground name-calling.

Then there are only two possibilities. Either what you've written here is a straight-out lie designed to cover up your Jew-hating sentiment expressed when defending another Jew hating comment. Or you were too stupid to realise that the original remarks were Jew-hating.

Either way, I'm surprised you've not found yourself in a spot of trouble with the mods on this - or double-trouble.

One, because Jacob Rothschild is still alive, and therefore to make or defend the anti-semitic remark about his (your words "A Jew") manipulating the conspiracist's wet dream of a "New World Order" is a slam-dunk libel. (Of course, "NWO" conspiracy theories, like yours, all resolve with the blame being laid at the door of those damn filthy Jews, singular or plural.)

And two, because anti-semitism - including the defence of anti-semitic ideas - is commonly classified as racism, and that's against the rules of this forum.

I'd rather focus on the post-Brexit debate, but so long as you post here I'll keep hoping you do the decent thing and retract.

The failure of the BBC was to make dinlows believe independent experts expressing a view as being "wheeled out" by remain. They weren't but the BBC's drive for balance made it look like they were.

That's the fundimental problem with the BBC . Because it's paid for by a poll tax it has to be " balanced" . Therefore both sides of the debate had to come under exactly the same scrutiny . This means that every bodies views are taken apart equally and every interviewer now thinks they're Paxman . This leads to an erosion of trust on both sides and this loss of trust will clearly favour the outsiders . My mum and dads generation would believe the PM because he was the PM , this reverence has now gone and part of the reason is the media , and particularly the bnc"s obsession with rubbishing politicians opinions . They think they're holding politicians to account , but when you set out to prove they're all liars and cheats it's no wonder the public think they are . The bbc couldn't say that a particular remain expert was right , even if he was , because that wouldn't be balanced . It's not leaves fault it's the 1950's state broadcast set up we have .

That's the fundimental problem with the BBC . Because it's paid for by a poll tax it has to be " balanced" . Therefore both sides of the debate had to come under exactly the same scrutiny . This means that every bodies views are taken apart equally and every interviewer now thinks they're Paxman . This leads to an erosion of trust on both sides and this loss of trust will clearly favour the outsiders . My mum and dads generation would believe the PM because he was the PM , this reverence has now gone and part of the reason is the media , and particularly the bnc"s obsession with rubbishing politicians opinions . They think they're holding politicians to account , but when you set out to prove they're all liars and cheats it's no wonder the public think they are . The bbc couldn't say that a particular remain expert was right , even if he was , because that wouldn't be balanced . It's not leaves fault it's the 1950's state broadcast set up we have .

Agree with some of that, though setting out to 'prove politicians are liars and cheats' has little to do with the BBC's funding status or attempt to be balanced.

Agree with some of that, though setting out to 'prove politicians are liars and cheats' has little to do with the BBC's funding status or attempt to be balanced.

It has to do with it having to be balanced . If they have to interview 2 people with opposite arguements , one could be a complete half bake and the other with a serious coherent point . In order to expose the half bale their charter makes them treat the " normal " person exactly the same

It has to do with it having to be balanced . If they have to interview 2 people with opposite arguements , one could be a complete half bake and the other with a serious coherent point . In order to expose the half bale their charter makes them treat the " normal " person exactly the same

And there are completely unbalanced media outlets that will spout partisan s**t and savage politicians just because they're not on the same side. Is that anymore likely to create trust in politics and public life?

Sensationalisation, conflict and scandal sell - that's a major reason why politicians are routinely lynched and the context in which they make decisions -ones that involve difficult, unpopular tradeoffs- is rarely reported. On paper, the BBC with its licence fee should be better able to resist these pressures as it doesn't operate to the same commercial logic as other media providers.

Then there are only two possibilities. Either what you've written here is a straight-out lie designed to cover up your Jew-hating sentiment expressed when defending another Jew hating comment. Or you were too stupid to realise that the original remarks were Jew-hating.

 

Either way, I'm surprised you've not found yourself in a spot of trouble with the mods on this - or double-trouble.

 

One, because Jacob Rothschild is still alive, and therefore to make or defend the anti-semitic remark about his (your words "A Jew") manipulating the conspiracist's wet dream of a "New World Order" is a slam-dunk libel. (Of course, "NWO" conspiracy theories, like yours, all resolve with the blame being laid at the door of those damn filthy Jews, singular or plural.)

 

And two, because anti-semitism - including the defence of anti-semitic ideas - is commonly classified as racism, and that's against the rules of this forum.

 

I'd rather focus on the post-Brexit debate, but so long as you post here I'll keep hoping you do the decent thing and retract.

What you've done is either twisted something I wrote, or deliberately read something into it that wasn't intended, to discredit me. You're like a dog with a bone. I don't believe that you would prefer to concentrate on the post-Brexit debate when you would much prefer to indulge in your snide attempts to belittle anybody who doesn't share your opinions. What the mods ought to be doing is to stop the puerile name-calling by you, Fry and Shurlock.

Interesting article in the Guardian about a 7 year emergency brake on EU immigration and free market access...

Seems like there is a deal to be done

Interesting article in the Guardian about a 7 year emergency brake on EU immigration and free market access...

 

Seems like there is a deal to be done

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I'd expect the commission to pull out every stop to keep us in, if we leave others will follow and the eu project will effectively be finished. I see it as a similar situation to the economic crisis, they bailed out greece, spain and the others with enormous sums of money in order to keep them in the eurozone because if one left it would have been the end of the currency.

Interesting article in the Guardian about a 7 year emergency brake on EU immigration and free market access...

 

Seems like there is a deal to be done

Don't hold your breath on that one:

"Britain cannot expect to “keep the privileges” of ties with the EU without any of the obligations, Angela Merkel has said, as the EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker said he had imposed a ban on EU officials from holding secret Brexit talks with the UK.

In a clear rebuttal to Boris Johnson’s claim that the country could retain access to single market – seen as vital to the economy and jobs market – the German Chancellor told her parliament that free access to the single market was only for countries that accepted the free movement of people, capital and goods. "

It ain't gonna happen. I'm afraid that those who voted to leave the EU to reduce immigration will be sorely disappointed.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I'd expect the commission to pull out every stop to keep us in, if we leave others will follow and the eu project will effectively be finished. I see it as a similar situation to the economic crisis, they bailed out greece, spain and the others with enormous sums of money in order to keep them in the eurozone because if one left it would have been the end of the currency.

Not sure why free movement of people is so vital to the EU thing. Surely it makes sense for overcrowded countries to have restrictions?

I think a system of free movement of Labour would be best. So if you have a permanent decent paid job offer you can live and work anywhere in the EU. Not just turn up somewhere with your family in the hope of picking cabbages.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I'd expect the commission to pull out every stop to keep us in, if we leave others will follow and the eu project will effectively be finished. I see it as a similar situation to the economic crisis, they bailed out greece, spain and the others with enormous sums of money in order to keep them in the eurozone because if one left it would have been the end of the currency.

Pulling out every stop? Either you didn't read the article or don't understand how the EEA works.

ive eluded to this type of deal before... now the media are talking about it...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

its called compromise. We wont get everything we want, but i still believe there is deal to be done.

We are the second largest net contributor to the EU budget, so i believe that with continued or even lower contributions we can get free market access. We might not get full control of our borders, but more than we have currently.

The challenge is to get 27 countries to agree. That is the EUs achilles heel.... hence the reason why there isnt a deal with any of the worlds major economies..

Not sure why free movement of people is so vital to the EU thing. Surely it makes sense for overcrowded countries to have restrictions?

 

I think a system of free movement of Labour would be best. So if you have a permanent decent paid job offer you can live and work anywhere in the EU. Not just turn up somewhere with your family in the hope of picking cabbages.

I agree, especially for an overcrowded country such as the UK. It is actually free movement of 'workers' at the moment. Free movement of people is different in Schengen and non-Schengen countries (as I understand it). An EU citizen can can come to the UK for three months and then must be either economically active, studying or self-sufficient or they can be made to leave, although I don't think it has happened to more than a handful. They are also supposed to have sickness insurance and those studying must be able to support themselves. The right to social security varies by individual country: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=858&langId=en We seem to be quite generous on this aspect.

In short, it seems that we can control EU immigration but choose not to. It seems to me that we don't control immigration from the rest of the world either.

the traffic jams at Dover, is it the French showing us what is to come?

We are the second largest net contributor to the EU budget

Or with another slant on it, we already pay the lowest proportion of national income of any of the 28 countries in the EU. Im sure they'll be queuing up to give us an even better deal.

What the politicians don't get yet is that most of the people who voted out, voted out of the EU not a cobbled up arrangement. If Theresa May doesn't want to be leader of the opposition she'd better get that sooner rather than later. We can trade at whatever terms are negotiated but the rest is a red line. Out means out. The Leave voters are watching carefully and any attempt at a fudge will end in tears for the Conservatives. A majority of Conservatives voted to leave and will desert them.

Or with another slant on it, we already pay the lowest proportion of national income of any of the 28 countries in the EU. Im sure they'll be queuing up to give us an even better deal.

then again if you compare the proportion of income that Britons spend in the EU and the proportion of income that all other EU residents spend in Britain I think you might find that it's significantly greater. Already you have a lot of retired people (maybe 700/880K?) who's only income comes from UK retirement funds living in France, Spain, Portugal etc, how many retired Spanish live in the UK ? Britain contributes to the economy of other member nations in more ways than just EU contribution, or I'd think so anyway..

What the politicians don't get yet is that most of the people who voted out, voted out of the EU not a cobbled up arrangement. If Theresa May doesn't want to be leader of the opposition she'd better get that sooner rather than later. We can trade at whatever terms are negotiated but the rest is a red line. Out means out. The Leave voters are watching carefully and any attempt at a fudge will end in tears for the Conservatives. A majority of Conservatives voted to leave and will desert them.

And what you don't get is that most of the country does not agree with you, by a long way. The country just cannot afford to get completely out of the Single Market and there just aren't enough of you die-hard leavers to have any political influence, nowhere near as many as you'd like to think. If we don't end up with an acceptable mid-ground accommodation then there will be plenty of tears all round. That's how democracy works.

if you compare the proportion of income that Britons spend in the EU and the proportion of income that all other EU residents spend in Britain I think you might find that it's significantly greater. Already you have a lot of retired people (maybe 700/880K?) who's only income comes from UK retirement funds living in France, Spain, Portugal etc, how many retired Spanish live in the UK ? Britain contributes to the economy of other member nations in more ways than just EU contribution, or I'd think so anyway..

France and Spain certainly benefit from tourism more than the UK does - but that isnt really related to being in the EU or not. Retired Brits living in the EU probably do overall benefit the host country, but that doesn't necessarily mean Britain loses. The UK would have to pay the pensions anyway and if they had remained here we would also be liable for healthcare, social services and housing benefit.

What the politicians don't get yet is that most of the people who voted out, voted out of the EU not a cobbled up arrangement. If Theresa May doesn't want to be leader of the opposition she'd better get that sooner rather than later. We can trade at whatever terms are negotiated but the rest is a red line. Out means out. The Leave voters are watching carefully and any attempt at a fudge will end in tears for the Conservatives. A majority of Conservatives voted to leave and will desert them.

What is sweet is your belief you have better political instincts than the PM. Leavers voted for all kinds off reasons - sovereignty, immigration, cost etc. If you cobbled together a deal which contained some modest compromise on any of one of those three issues you'd persuade more than 2% to switch sides and Brexit would no longer have a majority.

And what you don't get is that most of the country does not agree with you, by a long way. The country just cannot afford to get completely out of the Single Market and there just aren't enough of you die-hard leavers to have any political influence, nowhere near as many as you'd like to think. If we don't end up with an acceptable mid-ground accommodation then there will be plenty of tears all round. That's how democracy works.

Basically, democracy has already worked. A fairly clear decision on a single issue with a high voter turnout was made.

France and Spain certainly benefit from tourism more than the UK does - but that isnt really related to being in the EU or not. Retired Brits living in the EU probably do overall benefit the host country, but that doesn't necessarily mean Britain loses. The UK would have to pay the pensions anyway and if they had remained here we would also be liable for healthcare, social services and housing benefit.

Well I think the UK is still liable for healthcare anyway. I'm not quite sure how the system works though, I know that here in France if you've not contributed to the system and have your SS Number you have an absolute minimum cover. So for British people living here without ever having contributed to the French SS system I'd think it's more likely to be private health schemes that pick up the bill for any major treatment. When you visit a GP here you pay and get reimbursed within a few days, if you don't have A Carte Vitale because you've not contributed then I doubt if the SS gives you your money (or part of it back). The system doesn't work like the GPs in the UK, where the state pays the GP and anyone registered with them consults for free (or I presume it's still like that). Here you pay and get back a proportion which depends on what it is and who you saw. For instance, my wife had a tooth replaced recently, the whole jobby cost 1600£ (for one tooth). We've got good mutuelle coverage and still ended up with over 900 out of our pocket. The state's contribution to that was about 120£.

So if you're a UK pensioner living in the Dordogne or something all would come out of your pocket or any private insurance you'd take out, either in the UK or here.

Basically, democracy has already worked. A fairly clear decision on a single issue with a high voter turnout was made.

Nothing clear about it, it was a knife-edge. So close that if there were a re-run (not going to happen) then the result could very easily go the other way but close enough that there is a very large lump of almost half those who voted who will not accept a total withdrawal from the economic aspects of Europe. So when I say 'that's democracy' I don't mean the vote itself, rather the process of determining its implementation. We know the result of the vote but not its outcome.

Apart from that what was the actual 'decision'? The only question on the ballot paper was 'should the UK leave the EU?' Nothing about stopping immigration or leaving the a Single Market. Too many people are interpreting the result to suit their own ends.

Well I think the UK is still liable for healthcare anyway. I'm not quite sure how the system works though, I know that here in France if you've not contributed to the system and have your SS Number you have an absolute minimum cover. So for British people living here without ever having contributed to the French SS system I'd think it's more likely to be private health schemes that pick up the bill for any major treatment. When you visit a GP here you pay and get reimbursed within a few days, if you don't have A Carte Vitale because you've not contributed then I doubt if the SS gives you your money (or part of it back). The system doesn't work like the GPs in the UK, where the state pays the GP and anyone registered with them consults for free (or I presume it's still like that). Here you pay and get back a proportion which depends on what it is and who you saw. For instance, my wife had a tooth replaced recently, the whole jobby cost 1600£ (for one tooth). We've got good mutuelle coverage and still ended up with over 900 out of our pocket. The state's contribution to that was about 120£.

So if you're a UK pensioner living in the Dordogne or something all would come out of your pocket or any private insurance you'd take out, either in the UK or here.

As you say many factors involved. Ive never seern any stats on what the costs and benefits are for the host and originating country of migrants within the EU. It would be an interesting read.

I voted Conservative. The Conservative majority grass roots is Eurosceptic or more to the point don't want the EU at any price. The Politicians got it wrong over the referendum and many lost their jobs including the PM, make the same mistake again and ignoring the grassroots Conservative vote will lead to a mass defection to UKIP to really get out. Liberal and Labour voters don't get the ill feeling that there is amongst Conservatives towards the politicians and the EU. The Express, Sun and Mail will reinforce that feeling if there is any left wing attempt to subvert the referendum decision.