Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[parkthebuslads]

No need to apologise.

Money was a major argument. EU migration that it turns out is both profitable and needed was another. Being ruled by faceless EU bureaucrats was another that is a total straw man. There isn't much left after that.

The leave faction did take advantage of the less educated and lower socioeconomic groups by appealing to their quite justified dissatisfaction with how they are treated by politicians of all sides. Although like Trump and the Tories getting in it is part of the greatest con job ever pulled - getting the people with the most to lose t vote against their own interests.

Few things:
The effect of migration extends beyond the issue of profit/business etc. The areas of the country that have the higher rates of migration tend to have the more negative view of it. Why do you think that is? Who are you to ignore those who say it has negatively effected their towns? Or those who want to have the power to elect people who ultimately are in a position to make a decision on it on their behalf? I'm certainly not against immigration but to simply state it's "needed" and thus opposition to it equals bigotry is absurd.

Our system is less democratic living within the EU than outside of it. You can quibble over the extent to which that is true and you can correctly point out that our own system is imperfect in that respect too but the bottom line is that this is true. Democracy used to matter to people, I remember being taught about it at a school where it was spoken of as this monumental achievement. Now? Dosn't seem to be the case.

As for the ever present accusations of "con job" and "lies", you realise both "sides" lied right? Are people equally angry about talk of triggering a nuclear war by leaving as they are about promises for the NHS? Because had I been undecided on the issue, my PM comming out with that warning could have been fairly persuasive.

Regarding "taking advantage of less educated and lower socioeconomic groups", could it be that such individuals simply had more to gain by leaving and less second homes in France to loose? Regardless (and this I feel this is important) don't kid yourself, neither "side" were remotely "informed" or "educated" on any of the issues at play.

By design our education system seems a little...light on issues of local, national or continental politics. Likewise I don't recall the monetary system or economy being required reading either. And how many people even knew we were in the EU prior to the referendum? Because it wasn't spoken of to me in school. Not once.

It's important to remember news coverage can be selective. I would have loved for all the interviews with people actually protesting the decision to leave who couldn't answer simple questions about it's leader or our our role within it to have been repeated ad nauseam in the same way they role out interviews with...a certain type of leaver. Maybe then it would be clearer just how many people also voted to stay without knowing an awful lot about it.

Lastly, the vote (at least for me) was a vote for the long term, not 12 months or even 12 years. Any judgement on how it has effected us should remember this.

 

[Wibble]

Few things:
The effect of migration extends beyond the issue of profit/business etc. The areas of the country that have the higher rates of migration tend to have the more negative view of it. Why do you think that is? Who are you to ignore those who say it has negatively effected their towns? Or those who want to have the power to elect people who ultimately are in a position to make a decision on it on their behalf? I'm certainly not against immigration but to simply state it's "needed" and thus opposition to it equals bigotry is absurd.

I didn't actually say it was bigoted. Even though it probably is albeit usually indirectly. The places that tend to have the highest migration are those it is cheapest to settle in and/or most affected adversely by economic change so it is easy to point at the increase in brown/foreign people as the cause rather than merely a correlation. The Heil and the redtops shouting such opinions from the treetops reinforces such views. As do the Tories. When you feel left behind and ignored it is very easy to fall for the "I know your life isn't perfect and I can show you who is to blame" trick the right often pull.

Our system is less democratic living within the EU than outside of it. You can quibble over the extent to which that is true and you can correctly point out that our own system is imperfect in that respect too but the bottom line is that this is true. Democracy used to matter to people, I remember being taught about it at a school where it was spoken of as this monumental achievement. Now? Dosn't seem to be the case.

We are just as democratic as we used to be. We have elected EU MPs and both EU and UK systems have bureaucrats to get the work done. In the end the EU only has the power our democracy decided was appropriate. So zero loss of democracy. And it isn't like the UK has that great democracy anyway. An unelected upper house, a monarchy at the peak of everything, first the post voting with no proportional representation or even transferable preference voting or compulsory voting.

As for the ever present accusations of "con job" and "lies", you realise both "sides" lied right? Are people equally angry about talk of triggering a nuclear war by leaving as they are about promises for the NHS? Because had I been undecided on the issue, my PM comming out with that warning could have been fairly persuasive.

Comparing the leave and stay campaign is like comparing Trump and Clinton. In both cases one side lies almost every single time they opened their mouths.

Regarding "taking advantage of less educated and lower socioeconomic groups", could it be that such individuals simply had more to gain by leaving and less second homes in France to loose? Regardless (and this I feel this is important) don't kid yourself, neither "side" were remotely "informed" or "educated" on any of the issues at play.

No. The remain campaign was rubbish but the leave voters were far better informed as almost every aspect of the leave campaign was utter bullshit. Huge sections of the leave vote will be those who lose out the most and soonest. Many of the areas that were the most fervent leave voters will be up to a thousand quid a year worse off per person per year in EU grant money alone, even if there aren't other economic knock on effects, which there will be - almost must be.

By design our education system seems a little...light on issues of local, national or continental politics. Likewise I don't recall the monetary system or economy being required reading either. And how many people even knew we were in the EU prior to the referendum? Because it wasn't spoken of to me in school. Not once.

Lose religion and replace it with civics is a great idea. I'm not sure that anyone was actually unaware that we were in the EU. I remember us voting to go in so I sure was. That said I think you have a very valid point since people in general seemed very uninformed about how everything worked and interacted and this may well be why so many fell for the lies.

It's important to remember news coverage can be selective. I would have loved for all the interviews with people actually protesting the decision to leave who couldn't answer simple questions about it's leader or our our role within it to have been repeated ad nauseam in the same way they role out interviews with...a certain type of leaver. Maybe then it would be clearer just how many people also voted to stay without knowing an awful lot about it.

I can't answer that for sure but I do know that of my extended group those who want to remain are very well informed and would have no problem answering such questions. But that could be a correlation as the few I know who voted leave have a much lower educational level than those who voted to remain. Smallish sample size of course. And it also correlated with those who vote Tory. So obviously not a cut and dried issue.

Lastly, the vote (at least for me) was a vote for the long term, not 12 months or even 12 years. Any judgement on how it has effected us should remember this.

I agree. Which is why it seems odd that there s so much crowing by leavers that the economy has only suffered a bit to date. It is going to get far far worse.

 

[Brwned]

Few things:
The effect of migration extends beyond the issue of profit/business etc. The areas of the country that have the higher rates of migration tend to have the more negative view of it. Why do you think that is? Who are you to ignore those who say it has negatively effected their towns? Or those who want to have the power to elect people who ultimately are in a position to make a decision on it on their behalf? I'm certainly not against immigration but to simply state it's "needed" and thus opposition to it equals bigotry is absurd.

Our system is less democratic living within the EU than outside of it. You can quibble over the extent to which that is true and you can correctly point out that our own system is imperfect in that respect too but the bottom line is that this is true. Democracy used to matter to people, I remember being taught about it at a school where it was spoken of as this monumental achievement. Now? Dosn't seem to be the case.

As for the ever present accusations of "con job" and "lies", you realise both "sides" lied right? Are people equally angry about talk of triggering a nuclear war by leaving as they are about promises for the NHS? Because had I been undecided on the issue, my PM comming out with that warning could have been fairly persuasive.

Regarding "taking advantage of less educated and lower socioeconomic groups", could it be that such individuals simply had more to gain by leaving and less second homes in France to loose? Regardless (and this I feel this is important) don't kid yourself, neither "side" were remotely "informed" or "educated" on any of the issues at play.

By design our education system seems a little...light on issues of local, national or continental politics. Likewise I don't recall the monetary system or economy being required reading either. And how many people even knew we were in the EU prior to the referendum? Because it wasn't spoken of to me in school. Not once.

It's important to remember news coverage can be selective. I would have loved for all the interviews with people actually protesting the decision to leave who couldn't answer simple questions about it's leader or our our role within it to have been repeated ad nauseam in the same way they role out interviews with...a certain type of leaver. Maybe then it would be clearer just how many people also voted to stay without knowing an awful lot about it.

Lastly, the vote (at least for me) was a vote for the long term, not 12 months or even 12 years. Any judgement on how it has effected us should remember this.

For the vast majority of that group, the answer is a resounding no. What more did they have to gain? Beyond feeling like they had their voice heard, which in theory is a very powerful benefit but in reality is an unmistakably transient perception, the list of tangible benefits is extremely small and cost-benefit analysis paints a pretty clear picture.

 

[parkthebuslads]

I must say I have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss this, the willingness to listen to others and treat them with civility is not entirely lost it seems, which is refreshing to see.

Having said that I feel we have reached something of an impasse. It seems Wibble you have a fundamental bias against those who wish to leave as you constantly revert to assumptions that ignorance, bigotry and deception caused the result. I disagree. After exchanging arguments we remain divided on this issue, so we must agree to disagree.

You also continue to maintain the EU doesn't effect our democracy, that it has "only the power we agreed to give them". Again I disagree. Democratically the country voted to join a trade alliance. Over the years as the EU expanded beyond this (generally without any transparency that this was happening) at no point did the country vote on remaining in what it had become. Until now. It's also worth noting that during the original referendum to join the EU trading block, the EU "influenced the election" by striking deals with the British press to push propaganda for us joining. This is what democracy means to the EU. Now each country is able to vote on policies allowed by those above them. This is against politicians outside of the control of British people. It does not compare.

Also consider this comment:

I am asking EU leaders to stop with adventures like the British and Italian referendums . . . on domestic issues which pose a threat to the EU.

THIS is how they view democracy, as a threat. But like I said, I agree we have our own problems and should we ever have the chance to vote to stop the house of lords or monarchy for example, I will be there to do so.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Few things:
The effect of migration extends beyond the issue of profit/business etc. The areas of the country that have the higher rates of migration tend to have the more negative view of it. Why do you think that is? Who are you to ignore those who say it has negatively effected their towns? Or those who want to have the power to elect people who ultimately are in a position to make a decision on it on their behalf? I'm certainly not against immigration but to simply state it's "needed" and thus opposition to it equals bigotry is absurd.

Well that's hardly clear cut for a start:

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Few things:
The effect of migration extends beyond the issue of profit/business etc. The areas of the country that have the higher rates of migration tend to have the more negative view of it. Why do you think that is? Who are you to ignore those who say it has negatively effected their towns? Or those who want to have the power to elect people who ultimately are in a position to make a decision on it on their behalf? I'm certainly not against immigration but to simply state it's "needed" and thus opposition to it equals bigotry is absurd.

Didn't the larger towns and cities, where highest concentration of immigrants are centred vote significantly to remain, whereas in country areas, where there are few or even no immigrants, voted to leave, the complete opposite of what you have described

 

[NinjaFletch]

Didn't the larger towns and cities, where highest concentration of immigrants are centred vote significantly to remain, whereas in country areas, where there are few or even no immigrants, voted to leave, the complete opposite of what you have described

Yep, see above.

Apart from Slough, Barking and Dagenham, Luton and Hillingdon the trend is that areas with the least immigration were more likely to vote leave. Looking at the data spread I don't think the correlation is particularly strong (compared to say education or age) but it is there.

 

[JPRouve]

I must say I have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss this, the willingness to listen to others and treat them with civility is not entirely lost it seems, which is refreshing to see.

Having said that I feel we have reached something of an impasse. It seems Wibble you have a fundamental bias against those who wish to leave as you constantly revert to assumptions that ignorance, bigotry and deception caused the result. I disagree. After exchanging arguments we remain divided on this issue, so we must agree to disagree.

You also continue to maintain the EU doesn't effect our democracy, that it has "only the power we agreed to give them". Again I disagree. Democratically the country voted to join a trade alliance. Over the years as the EU expanded beyond this (generally without any transparency that this was happening) at no point did the country vote on remaining in what it had become. Until now. It's also worth noting that during the original referendum to join the EU trading block, the EU "influenced the election" by striking deals with the British press to push propaganda for us joining. This is what democracy means to the EU. Now each country is able to vote on policies allowed by those above them. This is against politicians outside of the control of British people. It does not compare.

Also consider this comment: THIS is how they view democracy, as a threat. But like I said, I agree we have our own problems and should we ever have the chance to vote to stop the house of lords or monarchy for example, I will be there to do so.

Who is "they"?

 

[devilish]

Few things:
The effect of migration extends beyond the issue of profit/business etc. The areas of the country that have the higher rates of migration tend to have the more negative view of it. Why do you think that is? Who are you to ignore those who say it has negatively effected their towns? Or those who want to have the power to elect people who ultimately are in a position to make a decision on it on their behalf? I'm certainly not against immigration but to simply state it's "needed" and thus opposition to it equals bigotry is absurd.

Our system is less democratic living within the EU than outside of it. You can quibble over the extent to which that is true and you can correctly point out that our own system is imperfect in that respect too but the bottom line is that this is true. Democracy used to matter to people, I remember being taught about it at a school where it was spoken of as this monumental achievement. Now? Dosn't seem to be the case.

As for the ever present accusations of "con job" and "lies", you realise both "sides" lied right? Are people equally angry about talk of triggering a nuclear war by leaving as they are about promises for the NHS? Because had I been undecided on the issue, my PM comming out with that warning could have been fairly persuasive.

Regarding "taking advantage of less educated and lower socioeconomic groups", could it be that such individuals simply had more to gain by leaving and less second homes in France to loose? Regardless (and this I feel this is important) don't kid yourself, neither "side" were remotely "informed" or "educated" on any of the issues at play.

By design our education system seems a little...light on issues of local, national or continental politics. Likewise I don't recall the monetary system or economy being required reading either. And how many people even knew we were in the EU prior to the referendum? Because it wasn't spoken of to me in school. Not once.

It's important to remember news coverage can be selective. I would have loved for all the interviews with people actually protesting the decision to leave who couldn't answer simple questions about it's leader or our our role within it to have been repeated ad nauseam in the same way they role out interviews with...a certain type of leaver. Maybe then it would be clearer just how many people also voted to stay without knowing an awful lot about it.

Lastly, the vote (at least for me) was a vote for the long term, not 12 months or even 12 years. Any judgement on how it has effected us should remember this.

that's fair enough. What's fascinated is the Brexiters obsession of sealing a deal with such undemocratic region, especially after all the insults they threw at the EU. Surely a global and fair country will limit its business with the EU while giving facilitating the access for immigrants fleeing from this horrible institution

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Well that's hardly clear cut for a start:

Interesting I would love to see one of these based on income.

 

[JPRouve]

Interesting I would love to see one of these based on income.

Maybe this can help?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Interesting I would love to see one of these based on income.

Ask and you shall receive.



If anyone could get the raw data that's gone into this I'd whip up some graphs with trend lines.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

The EU seems to be all over the place at the moment. Theresa May's offer to EU citizens is good and fair, but hasn't gone down so well with the EU.
Junker and Tusk wanted the EU citizens rights to be protected by the ECJ, which was obviously going to be difficult to agree to if we are leaving the ECJ. We cannot have different laws for EU citizens and British citizens.
However, although Merkel and Macron seem OK about the assurances given EU citizens currently in the UK, they seem to have only just realised that the UK will be taking back control of borders, which is regarded as a serious compromise of the four freedoms. They have said that they now have to go away and discuss how this affects our future relationship. Theresa May was very clear in her speech in January what our Brexit intentions are.
It looks like this will now be a regular pattern in the negotiations. Everyone in the EU will react differently to how they interpret offers put on the table, with Merkel and Macron probably having the biggest say, when they've figured out what's going on.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Over one year since the referendum and still no Brexiter has come up with a coherent reason that benefits them by voting leave nor an EU law that damages their life so much.

 

[Mogget]

Yep, see above.

Apart from Slough, Barking and Dagenham, Luton and Hillingdon the trend is that areas with the least immigration were more likely to vote leave. Looking at the data spread I don't think the correlation is particularly strong (compared to say education or age) but it is there.

I think this graph shows it better

Spoiler

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The EU seems to be all over the place at the moment. Theresa May's offer to EU citizens is good and fair, but hasn't gone down so well with the EU.
Junker and Tusk wanted the EU citizens rights to be protected by the ECJ, which was obviously going to be difficult to agree to if we are leaving the ECJ. We cannot have different laws for EU citizens and British citizens.
However, although Merkel and Macron seem OK about the assurances given EU citizens currently in the UK, they seem to have only just realised that the UK will be taking back control of borders, which is regarded as a serious compromise of the four freedoms. They have said that they now have to go away and discuss how this affects our future relationship. Theresa May was very clear in her speech in January what our Brexit intentions are.
It looks like this will now be a regular pattern in the negotiations. Everyone in the EU will react differently to how they interpret offers put on the table, with Merkel and Macron probably having the biggest say, when they've figured out what's going on.

You can't make this up, been reading the Mail again

What May has offered is not fair or serious - a joke

 

[JPRouve]

I think this graph shows it better

Spoiler

What is the proportion of non-UK born citizens, in those highly populated non-UK born residents areas? Or is the distinction implied?

 

[JPRouve]

The EU seems to be all over the place at the moment. Theresa May's offer to EU citizens is good and fair, but hasn't gone down so well with the EU.
Junker and Tusk wanted the EU citizens rights to be protected by the ECJ, which was obviously going to be difficult to agree to if we are leaving the ECJ. We cannot have different laws for EU citizens and British citizens.
However, although Merkel and Macron seem OK about the assurances given EU citizens currently in the UK, they seem to have only just realised that the UK will be taking back control of borders, which is regarded as a serious compromise of the four freedoms. They have said that they now have to go away and discuss how this affects our future relationship. Theresa May was very clear in her speech in January what our Brexit intentions are.
It looks like this will now be a regular pattern in the negotiations. Everyone in the EU will react differently to how they interpret offers put on the table, with Merkel and Macron probably having the biggest say, when they've figured out what's going on.

You mean the control that they never lost and for example partially exercise on french soil?

 

[NinjaFletch]

It's always nice to hear the little updates from the alternative universe vidic blood & sand lives in.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Thank guys,

Over one year since the referendum and still no Brexiter has come up with a coherent reason that benefits them by voting leave nor an EU law that damages their life so much.

I'm not sure you would accept one if it was provided.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Thank guys,


I'm not sure you would accept one if it was provided.

Try me, there must be one someone can think of, a real one that is, not one they have completely misunderstood

 

[vidic blood & sand]

You can't make this up, been reading the Mail again

What May has offered is not fair or serious - a joke

Explain why, from your perspective.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

You mean the control that they never lost and for example partially exercise on french soil?

Well, don't you think it's intriguing that two major EU officials do not like May's offer, but Merkel thinks it's a promising start?
And yet, the penny finally drops with Merkel and Macron that we are intending to end free movement of EU nationals?

There's certainly confusion within the EU, whereas we've known since January what our intentions are.

 

[JPRouve]

Well, don't you think it's intriguing that two major EU officials do not like May's offer, but Merkel thinks it's a promising start?
And yet, the penny finally drops with Merkel and Macron that we are intending to end free movement of EU nationals?

There's certainly confusion within the EU, whereas we've known since January what our intentions are.

The only confusion is in your head. EU officials are negotiating, their goal is to have as much as they can. As for Macron and Merkel nothing is dropping, the goal is to decide how the thing ends.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Try me, there must be one someone can think of, a real one that is, not one they have completely misunderstood

The one I agree with and personally find most persuasive of all the anti EU arguments is the effect of EU policy in regards to concentrating wealth power and opportunity.

If you think that is what is happening and it is hard to argue against it if you look at the numbers.

If you don't think it is acceptable for this to continue and if you can't see a way changing it then voting leave makes sense.

It is a fair reason and a logical line of argument.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Explain why, from your perspective.

Why do you think the EU is all over the place, May is presenting the UK as far from strong and stable, the EU have said they still don't know what the UK really wants, they're not even sure how long May will still be there.
The EU made an offer nearly two weeks ago which May seems to have ignored any reference to, which is far more comprehensive and removes any uncertainty about people's rights. There is still uncertainty with May's offer, nothing is guaranteed.
There are no conditions with the EU offer, there is with May's

She wants the EU to trust the UK courts whereas only a few months ago these same courts were called the enemies of the people by Brexiteers.
Once the UK is out of the EU they could introduce a law revoking all rights which the EU would have no control of. This is why the EU wants the ECJ.

Furthermore confidence in the UK's credibility is at a very low point. Suggesting that they won't pay what they owe the EU and could possibly walk away damages their reputation even more.
How can the EU trust the UK?

The control of the borders has always been there, maybe Brexiters are starting to realise the UK government and in particular Theresa May were lying to them.

Additionally, this is not to do with the future relationship, this for existing situations of people. If the Uk wants a trade deal the conditions of the four freedoms still stand.
The EU just want to get on with things and don't want to waste time with the UK posturing. The Uk know what the terms are.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The one I agree with and personally find most persuasive of all the anti EU arguments is the effect of EU policy in regards to concentrating wealth power and opportunity.

If you think that is what is happening and it is hard to argue against it if you look at the numbers.

If you don't think it is acceptable for this to continue and if you can't see a way changing it then voting leave makes sense.

It is a fair reason and a logical line of argument.

In what way will the UK be any different outside the EU. The wealth power and opportunity in the Uk centres around London, has done for donkeys years and will do after the UK leaves. How will leaving the EU change anything?

 

[Mogget]

What is the proportion of non-UK born citizens, in those highly populated non-UK born residents areas? Or is the distinction implied?

It's the percentage that's along the x axis I think. I may be misunderstanding your question

 

[JPRouve]

It's the percentage that's along the x axis I think. I may be misunderstanding your question

The x axis says that it's the residents not the citizens. Citizens have the right to vote while residents do not necessarily have it. Basically among those non-UK born residents how many have the right to vote?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

In what way will the UK be any different outside the EU. The wealth power and opportunity in the Uk centres around London, has done for donkeys years and will do after the UK leaves. How will leaving the EU change anything?

That is true but is it right that it does so? If you think it isn't right then why would you vote to stay in an organisation which is setting policies which have the effect of increasing the trend?

 

[Silva]

Frankfurt looks set to be Brexit's biggest winner, with a lot of financial services moving their EU operations there. The ECB is also making a bid for Euro clearing.

 

[Mogget]

The x axis says that it's the residents not the citizens. Citizens have the right to vote while residents do not necessarily have it. Basically among those non-UK born residents how many have the right to vote?

Oh right, I see what you mean. That's a good point, the site I got that graph from didn't make that distinction unfortunately

 

[Paul the Wolf]

That is true but is it right that it does so? If you think it isn't right then why would you vote to stay in an organisation which is setting policies which have the effect of increasing the trend?

But whether you agree or not, how does leaving the EU change it. If the UK was completely isolated from the rest of the world it would still be the same.
My grandfather moved from the fields of Hampshire to London in 1906 as did millions like him to get a better life.
If the UK decided to have policies that ensured this wealth opportunity and power would be shared throughout the whole country, I could understand why but it won't.

 

[Silva]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40381320

The European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority will move out of London before the March 2019 deadline, their new homes will be voted on in November this year. This one isn't much of a surprise, no matter what deal we negotiate with the EU they were going leave. They do represent a significant loss of money for London though.

 

[Brwned]

That is true but is it right that it does so? If you think it isn't right then why would you vote to stay in an organisation which is setting policies which have the effect of increasing the trend?

If that was a specific issue of the EU then it would make sense, but evidence from countries outside the EU makes it pretty clear it's not. There's very little to suggest leaving the EU would reverse that trend - it's just blind hope. It's the equivalent to voting for Trump because he's not part of the elite. He is part of the elite, it's just a different elite which is equally self-serving.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

If that was a specific issue of the EU then it would make sense, but evidence from countries outside the EU makes it pretty clear it's not. There's very little to suggest leaving the EU would reverse that trend - it's just blind hope. It's the equivalent to voting for Trump because he's not part of the elite. He is part of the elite, it's just a different elite which is equally self-serving.

The EU is bigger than the nation states so centralization and concentration are likely to be far greater. Also as separate taxation and spending areas, the drain to the centre is going to be more damaging. The chance of addressing the issue is likely made more difficult.

 

[Kentonio]

The EU is bigger than the nation states so centralization and concentration are likely to be far greater. Also as separate taxation and spending areas, the drain to the centre is going to be more damaging. The chance of addressing the issue is likely made more difficult.

The EU has focused pretty heavily on directing funds to regional areas that are traditionally underfunded. Cornwall and Wales are both good examples.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

But whether you agree or not, how does leaving the EU change it. If the UK was completely isolated from the rest of the world it would still be the same.
My grandfather moved from the fields of Hampshire to London in 1906 as did millions like him to get a better life.
If the UK decided to have policies that ensured this wealth opportunity and power would be shared throughout the whole country, I could understand why but it won't.

An EU centralization and concentration changes the dynamic quite a lot.

It is much easier to move within your own country than moving to another country. That limits the number of people who can take the most effective course of action to counter the effect to a specific group of internationalist well trained well-educated people. Or remain voters for shorthand.

Also from a tax and spend perspective it is much easier, though still not easy at all, to grow consensus for redistribution inside a single country than across borders which is normally very unpopular.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The EU has focused pretty heavily on directing funds to regional areas that are traditionally underfunded. Cornwall and Wales are both good examples.

If you accept the premise of the argument, which I am making only to answer Paul's point about there being no valid arguments pro Brexit then it would follow that the EU funding of these regions is a fractional return on the money being moved out of these regions by the general trend.

It would be good propaganda as the organisation causing the underfunding to be visible in giving some back.

 

[Kentonio]

If you accept the premise of the argument, which I am making only to answer Paul's point about there being no valid arguments pro Brexit then it would follow that the EU funding of these regions is a fractional return on the money being moved out of these regions by the general trend.

It would be good propaganda as the organisation causing the underfunding to be visible in giving some back.

Yet the premise of the argument was false. There was little investment pre-EU and there will once again be little after, as the goverrnment showed by refusing to match the funding.