Should there be a second referendum?

History has indeed taught us that Empires will not last as long as they once did.

Technology, communication, social media and world trade will see to that, there will always be competition from lower cost producers or manufacturers.

Also true about companies and organisations, financial hypermarkets failed miserably and healthy, profit related, not greed related, competition allows for keeping prices under control and consumer choice.

Perhaps even government run organisations such as our beloved NHS become unwieldy and inefficient.

This has been true of many nationalised industries and is still true all over the EU.

The EU structure itself serves to aid German exports by keeping their currency lower due to propping up inefficient countries who felt joining the EU would give them exactly the same lifestyle whilst they forgot they they have NO control over their currency and competitiveness.

Mickyfinn.. you keep going on about that big red bus ..and how we had been lied too. personally I think if they did have another Referendum...it would get very dirty even to a point that  ..what they would put on that big red bus is that EU citizens are claiming benefits to the tune of 4 Billon per year in the UK...this is official government figures that was hidden from the public at the the time of the Referendum .

Hugh- man. - History has indeed taught us that Empires will not last as long as they once did.

The EU is as far from an empire as you can possibly get. The EU is a club of sovereign democratic nations allied by treaty agreements for the purpose of working together for a common good. ie: Peace, prosperity and political stability. To lable it an empire is just plain wrong.

It genuinely surprises me reading these posts of the level of misinformation and misguided beliefs that exist in Britain about the EU. It’s very sad

ads - it's not my model I was quoting the OBR. A trusted independent government organisation. Even Johnston and Co have since sheepishly confessed the red bus was cobblers. The intent was to deceive net or gross it hardly matters. It succeeded in its purpose.

Windtalker is probably right. A further referendum could be quite nasty and cause more trouble than what it would be worth. Of course the original selfish losers would never agree with that thought. They are certainly not the sort of mate you would want watching your back in the trenches.

Mickyfinn, the EU is a club run by selfish arrogant people who have lost touch with its members and its purpose in life. The French riots are an example of its future and the start of its demise.

It will soon be all over for the EU, but as usual the arrogant fat cats will do a runner with all the money and leave the safe bare. The new kids on the block will be the AU. The Central African Republic, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Liberia, Niger, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda, Tanzania.

Mickyfinn

You really do like talking down to Brits, as if they have NO valid reasoning or ideas for them selves.

Many of us have worked, lived and spent time in EU nations, we have good friends and colleagues, all of whom can be just as Nationalistic as Brits. The EU has become a Political & Trading Empire that benefits, big business, bureaucrats and a political elite. It is NOT liked by many European workers and voters.

Utter arrogance on your behalf.

Sorry Mickeyfin but I never suggested it was your forecast and knew it was the OBR forecast. That’s my point that the forecasting has been in error and the modelling requires reassessment. 

I think it worth including the following, issued on  Dec 4th this year, which hopefully will go some way to explain the problem and trust that you will recognise the uncomfortable realities, and believe me I take no pleasure in this as it begs many questions of what else has been wrongly forecast..... hence my suggestion that this needs reviewing going forward for all our sakes.

https://www.ft.com/content/d140f26e-f7b9-11e8-af46-2022a0b02a6c    

OBR explains errors in forecasting impact of Brexit

    Chris Giles, Economics Editor DECEMBER 4, 2018 

“The government’s fiscal watchdog admitted on Tuesday that the deterioration it forecast in the public finances after the EU referendum has not materialised, but laid the blame for the error on data revisions and other factors beyond its control.

In its annual evaluation of its forecasts, the Office for Budget Responsibility gave a clean bill of health to its models, although it did say that it expected a more rapid economic slowdown than materialised.

The findings of its forecast evaluation report are unlikely to mute Brexiter critics who say that almost all economists were much too pessimistic about the effects of the referendum on the UK economy.

The OBR acknowledged that its forecasts for the deficit from March 2016 had proved more accurate than those in November 2016 and March 2017 after the referendum, suggesting that it had been too pessimistic immediately after the Brexit vote.

In November 2016, it forecast an economic slowdown and a deceleration in the improvement of government borrowing to reflect slower growth.

Looking at its forecasts for growth first, the watchdog said that these had proved to be very accurate in the Autumn of 2016, although the economic effects had been delayed, with the OBR expecting cumulative growth since the referendum of 3.6 per cent and the latest figures showing growth of 3.8 per cent.

Overall, the slowing in growth took a little longer to emerge than we expected as households and businesses took time to adjust their spending,” the OBR said.

“The errors in the public finance forecasts stemmed from miscalculations in the initial year of 2016-17, it added, because the official data were revised to show a stronger position and its assessment that the pace of borrowing improvement would slow had been accurate.

It said that the lessons learnt from the exercise were to expect shocks not necessarily to hit the economy as quickly as it previously thought and that households might not respond at all quickly to big political events with changes to their spending. It added that its public finance forecasts continue to outperform for accuracy those previously provided by the Treasury.”

BUT Mickeyfinn this is exactly what the Brexit economists, that I made mention of previously, identified in their alternative forecasts, but were berated and dismissed at the time for being overly optimistic!

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Alternative-Brexit-Economic-Analysis-Final-2-Mar-18.pdf

Hugh-man

There is no arrogance from me, it was you who named the EU an empire. That is wrong and needed correcting. Whatever your view of the EU and I do respect the opposite argument. However when something is written that's plainly just wrong I feel justified in suggesting people are greatly misinformed.

ads. I can accept forecasting by both side in this debate can be wrong or overly optimistic. Forecasting of anything is not an exact science particularly financial prediction. Lies and dam lies are another matter.

I believe the British consumer after the referendum result did not fully grasp the implications of the country leaving the EU. Nor did they understand fully how it was going to be done. The only institutions that responded to the result was the ForeX markets with heavy selling of Sterling. So they continued to spend their money keeping the economy afloat

Since June 2016 the UK has continued to enjoy the benefits of EU membership. In short nothing changed especially in the psyche of the consumer. Britain is now seeing the start of long predicted slowdown. As the public grasp the implications of the vote. I believe that slowdown will gather momentum into 2019 and beyond.

If there is a deal that gets through parliament the impact will be less. The economy may even recover to a point. However the inevitable downturn will still impact all sectors of the economy if Britain leaves without a deal. Sterling will be badly hit, inflation rocket and bankruptcies proliferate. It’s the worst of all the options. The most dire predictions are likely to be manifest.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Article 50 can be easily rescinded and a second vote held as early as next May. If the result is still leave the country will come together and accept Brexit. Myself included. If the result is to remain the second vote cancels out the first and the status quo is resumed. Britain can enjoy its membership of the EU with all its options, opt-outs and advantages.

The alternatives simply bring uncertainty, collapse of foreign investment and enormous difficulties to Britain for a generation or more.

.

History has indeed taught us that Empires will not last as long as they once did.

The EU is as far from an empire as you can possibly get. The EU is a club of sovereign democratic nations allied by treaty agreements for the purpose of working together for a common good. ie: Peace, prosperity and political stability. To lable it an empire is just plain wrong.

Mickey,     

I remember what we were sold in 1975 when UK  voted to stay in the EU. 

Unfortunately since then we have been drawn into a closer and closer alignment heading,  I believe, to the goal of one country status.  

The Euro Zone already have lost control of their finances in that they cannot affect the exchange rates of their currency.    

ECJ Rulings have changed many laws passed by individual governments, rendering one’s national vote across the EU less and less effective.

The evidence of the past 45 years is that promises are unlike to be kept. So expect the worst, but hope for the best

PS I have  UK and Irish nationality. Brexit or no Brexit I am permanently resident in Spain. I had no vote in the 2016 referendum, although I still have the ’privilege’ of  paying the bulk of my income tax in UK.    Therefore,  I  more or less have an open view on Brexit

Whether it’s a deal or no deal or another referendum many leave voters are hoping ‘in fact expecting’ that the UK will cease to be benefits paradise and the free health service of the world that it is perceived to be by some.

It has been posted and not challenged ‘’is stop the (390,000 )EU citizens claiming dole money in the UK  ..this is official government figures that was hidden from the public by the government at the time of the IN / OUT referendum’’.

Also ‘’ A report - based on 2013 figures - estimates that treating all visitors and migrants in England (not only in hospitals) costs the NHS about £2bn’’ who’s report and if true I am not sure without further research.

The question is ‘will all this end after BREXIT?’ Will it be a case of proof of funds before entry? Will it be no job no entry? Will it be pay into the system for 5 years before you can draw welfare? Will it be a case of proof of health insurance or no visa and entry?

Or will it be business as usual and the referendum was just a waste of time?

I do not believe who gets treated without charge by NHS has any connection with the EU, so Brexit it would appear will not have any affect on that.  It would appear that anyone who lives there automatically qualifies. 

http://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/hr-services/relocating-uk/living-uk/healthcare/eligibility-nhs-treatment

Who will not be charged for accessing the NHS?

You will not be charged for any NHS treatment if you are ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK, or if an exemption to charging applies.

‘Ordinarily Resident’

The full definition of ordinarily resident for the purposes of accessing NHS services can be found here and is summarized as follows:

“A person will be “ordinarily resident…” in the UK when that residence is lawful, adopted, voluntary, and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being, whether of short or long duration.”

 In practice, you are normally ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK if you are living and working in the UK and are:

• A British citizen

• Naturalised within the UK

• Settled within the UK (commonly referred to as holding Indefinite Leave to Remain)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_leave_to_remain

Indefinite leave to remain (ILR) or permanent residency (PR) is an immigration status granted to a person who does not hold the right of abode in the United Kingdom (UK), but who has been admitted to the UK without any time limit on his or her stay and who is free to take up employment or study. When indefinite leave is granted to persons outside the United Kingdom it is known as indefinite leave to enter (ILE).

In a country of 66.5 million people, an economy whose net worth is £8.8 trillion. Ask yourself please is as suggested 390,000 EU citizens claiming welfare payments such an issue?

An issue so strong it should force the country to self-harm and leave the principal source of most of that wealth entirely?

EU migrants are currently required to satisfy a residency test before they can claim welfare if they are unemployed.

It is not the fault of the EU that the NHS don’t have a rigorous compliance policy on entitlement to health care. In France and now Spain you cannot get past the gate keepers to receive treatment to which you’re not entitled.

There are an estimated 3.8 million EU citizens living and working in the UK. That’s 6% of the entire population. Many of they who claim welfare are also working and claim in-work benefits due to very low incomes. All are contributing to the economy.

Most will remain in the UK and make their lives in the country after Brexit. So to answer your last sentence Kavanagh; Yes little will change after Brexit in these terms at least unless the political will changes.

John you are only quoting the rulebook and totally ignoring health tourism from poor EU countries and also non EU countries who continue to abuse our NHS. We keep hearing ‘’taking back control of our borders’’ I am sceptical anything will ever change IN or OUT. We have never attempted to stop the Nigerian free healthcare gravy train despite having so called border control. There are advertisements in Nigerian national newspapers offering UK healthcare and maternity excursions including visas and Heathrow shuttle bus to the hospital of your choice. What does your rulebook say about that?.

When did we have any problems from the French or Spanish etc wanting health care, had massive problems from Africans having babies here and not paying, have massive problems from immigrants saying they come from the EU when they haven't just because they crossed from France, who love to chuck them out to the UK which is against EU rules, and again the UK don't stop it, why? because the EU moans at the UK and we do everything it says.

Makes you laugh at the amount of people who left England for a better life yet know whats going on here because  friends told them, they read the papers, or worse still visit for a week.

It is misinformation to suggest EU law prevents deportation both from Africa EU states or anywhere else.

According to official UK government figures in the year ending June 2017, 5,301 EU citizens were deported from the UK, a 20% rise compared to the previous year.

EU rules do not prevent some EU migrants from being deported.

Post Brexit these rules will still apply since the government has adopted all EU laws into UK law. If an EU free trade trade is going to take place the negotiations will insist most of these rules will still apply. Brexit will change nothing.

EU law on deportation

The law surrounding deportation in the EU comes from Article 28 of Citizens’ Directive 2004/38 which states that EU citizens can only be deported from another member state for reasons of public policy or public security. There are only three situations in which deportation is allowed.

The first requires that alongside the public policy or public security reasons, deportation can only be allowed if adequate consideration of various factors are taken into account. These include how long the person has been living in the country, their age, health, family and financial situation, and how well they’ve integrated into society.

The second situation concerns permanent residents, those who have have lived in a member state for five years or more (you are not required to have documents proving this, though it is necessary for British citizenship applications).

For permanent residents, only serious grounds under public policy or public security will justify expulsion. What a “serious” ground is must be justified by the member states, but there is no guidance in the directive as to what constitutes “serious”. It must relate to a fundamental interest of society. These include preventing unlawful immigration, maintaining public order, preventing tax evasion, countering terrorism and preventing repeat criminal offences.

The third situation is for those who have been in a member state for the last ten years – or minors. In these cases, only imperative grounds of public policy or public security will be accepted. Again, “imperative” grounds are up to the member states to justify and the directive offers no definition. However, it is clear that they are stricter than “serious” grounds. Therefore, the longer you have been in a country, the more difficult it becomes to deport you. Case law has accepted being involved in a drug dealing organisation as an imperative ground of public security, but the general meaning of “imperative” remains unclear.

Despite the fairly high level of protection under these provisions, the UK has been known to interpret the public policy and public security reasons for deportation quite broadly, in some cases arguing that rough sleeping counts. This decision is now being challenged before the High Court. 

Source: The Conversation.

(An on line academic discussion)

‘’It is misinformation to suggest EU law prevents deportation both from Africa EU states or anywhere else.’’ 

But Mr Finn, no one has said any such thing.

baz wrote:  have massive problems from immigrants saying they come from the EU when they haven't just because they crossed from France, who love to chuck them out to the UK which is against EU rules, and again the UK don't stop it, why? because the EU moans at the UK and we do everything it says.

The French law enforcement agency Maritime Prefecture said that 65 boats carrying more than 500 migrants had been detected in the Channel this year, and stopped from entering the UK compared with 13 boats last year.

Source: The Times Newspaper.

The current problems of migrants coming from Iran and crossing The Channel are because Serbia (a none EU state) changed its visa requirements hoping to attract tourists from there. It worked. Migrants then streamed into Serbia from Iran and then made their way to the French coast intent on coming to UK. It would be impossible to prevent every boat intent on travelling to UK. The traffickers have it well organised. The UK border force is hopelessly underfunded and equipped. A failure of UK government not the EU. I will conceed that Schengen makes it easier to cross frontiers but that must be balanced by the advantages.

Mickyfinn

Do yourself a favour and re read my original post which stated no such thing as the EU being an Empire.

I agreed with others about Empires and indeed companies failing as they overstretched themselves.

I then added a note on the EU model, that is factually NOT supported by ALL voters in Europe.

Once again, you suggest that I, like many others of a differing view on here are ill informed.

Arrogance 🤨

Hugh-man

There is no arrogance from me, it was you who named the EU an empire. That is wrong and needed correcting. Whatever your view of the EU and I do respect the opposite argument. However when something is written that's plainly just wrong I feel justified in suggesting people are greatly misinformed.

Why do all these illegal immigrants want to come to the UK ... What's wrong with the EU.

This message was last edited by windtalker on 28/12/2018.

Why did man walk out of Africa? Why did Europeans risk life and limb to develop the west of America?. Why did the Windrush generation respond to an invitation to migrate to the UK.

The human condition is to seek a better life for themselves and their children than the one they actually have. It's called ambition.