United Kingdom Referendum on European Union Membership

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I genuinely wouldn't like the UK to join the EEA, and rather focus on models like the (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) EU-Canadian Trade model.  

If it hurts the city of London, then be it, the UK economy must be restructured to generate wealth from other British regions,  

The UK Government, must focus on trade deals with the USA, commonwealth, South Korea, Japan, China, Brazil, etc.

Brazil is going to be a vey useful economic partner, I am sure. And trade deal with China will be very beneficial for manufacturing.

I mean, I do not expect people to be all experts in econ, but, at least, please think before posting.

Have you checked what share of public revenue is accounted for by financial sector in the UK? How deep a cut in the NHS are you willing to take?

Im no expert on economy, but i genuinely believe that this whole single market thing to protect the Banks in london and their city mates , is just the reason why successive UK governments since the 80s led by thatcherism contributed to the deindustrialization to most of the UK manufacturing industries,
focused so much on London and neglected the steel, shipping, railway and other manufacturing industries, which kept entire communities behind since the 80s, which is still evident in the black country, Manchester-liverpool area, north east and glasgow

Its a real travesty that the country that invented the railways, now gave it all away for privatization and we are prohibited under EU law to renationalize the railways, which just shows how the EU works for big businesses and big greedy banks.  

Actually, chances are that, to a non-insignificant degree, whatever manufacturing still exists in England is there because of EU, not despite it. The giant elephant in the room (or, right outside it) is China. It has become the main supplier of everything for everyone worldwide. But within EU Chinese advantage is relatively muted: most of the manufacturing trade there is, actually, between fellow EU/EFTA countries. A big reason for that is, of course, that there is a relative disadvantage for Chinese products in terms of access: trading is much easier within the free trade zone. And that, actually, includes relatively easy British access to European markets.

Note that not only you have suggested that you want to be out of the free trade zone with Europe - you want more trade deals with China. China is much more of a threat to whatever manufacturing there is in the UK than Germany will ever be. So, even in terms of what you yourself consider desirable, your proposal makes exactly no sense. Establishing trade barriers between UK and Europe, while lowering them with China will, actually, make manufacturing in England a lot less competitive, not more. So, what you are proposing is smaller financial sector and smaller manufacturing sector at the same time. I wonder, what is it exactly you are thinking British workers are supposed to do?

Yes, absolutely this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

and you think they're coming back?

[ag]

When we negotiate a deal with China, of course there will be a limit of protectionism, if the Chinese reject we can trade with them via WTO MFN.

Let me put it this way. You, probably, know a lot more about nuclear physics or ancient Babylonian literature than you know about economics and trade

[ag]

and you think they're coming back?

Why do you bother to ask? He thinks EU is somehow designed to get UK companies move to Malaysia and Turkey.

[2952-0-0]

When we negotiate a deal with China, of course there will be a limit of protectionism, if the Chinese reject we can trade with them via WTO MFN.

Why will China negotiate a trade agreement with the UK (or England, as it's soon to be)? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Out of fear that Britain (which won't exist by then) will send warships to take back Hong Kong? Or purely because it sees material opportunities?

And what does England produce in terms of goods and services which the EU, USA, Australia, Japan, or South Korea don't?

Granted, at this stage, the fastest growing sector of China's economy is now consumer services where English companies hold a huge competitive advantage. But while having an Anglo/Chinese trade agreement is a plus from China's perspective, it's absolutely essential from England's perspective. So the talks are inherently unequal. It will then demand (and receive) far more savage concessions than if it were negotiating with the European Union, an entity of similar GDP.

How ironic that almost 200 years after Britain forced an unequal trade agreement on China to legally partake in drug trafficking, a much-emasculated England will grovel to China for an unequal trade agreement which ends whatever's left of England's manufacturing in exchange for allowing HSBC (which ironically finance the opium trade) to open more branches across China...

Of course, you can replace "China" with every other trading power in the above. Including supposed Commonwealth realms like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

[2952-0-0]

Regardless weather the UK signs a deal with China or not, the U.K. Economy is too dependent on finance.

Maybe so, but as of present, the loss of such a large sector of the economy will have a huge impact on the English government's tax base, at a time when a self-induced recession causes spending to rise.

And, all trade agreements will be negotiated by City-friendly Tory government, which will definitely push to salvage the financial sector's interests across the world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of them will have any sympathy for England's self-induced predicament. All of them will drive hard bargains. Many will even be gleeful at the chance to "get back" at the old colonial master. Anyone who thinks the Commonwealth is anything more than a talking shop which organizes a sporting event every four years is delusional.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The best case scenario is that Scottish nationalism is tempered down by the realization that Brussels cannot give Scotland an easy ride, that a Norway-style deal is made where the UK is obliged to automatically pass EU laws without debate (and make transfer payments) to retain access to the single market, *and* that UKIP is discredited when they fail to deliver. But we're in uncharted territory, and investors (real investors, not City traders) always hate that.

[ChrisDR68]

My prediction from a few pages back wasn't too bad:

Remain 48.6%
Leave 51.4%

Just 0.5% out with both figures

Where I got it wrong was on turnout. I predicted 58.8% but it was miles more than that at 72.2%. The highest turnout for a nationwide election since the 1992 general election.

[parochial boy]

Opinium poll - 7% of Leave voters and 3% of Remain voters regret their votes.

So we are potentially now at a point where remain would win.

Sigh...

[Clyde1998]

In the meantime FTSE 100 index is now above the pre-Brexit vote levels.

It's the FTSE 250 index you should be looking at - the 100 is made up of companies that generate around 75-80% of their revenue outside the UK. The 250 includes smaller companies that generate most of their revenue in the UK - that's still down by 5.1% compared to last Thursday.

[ObserverIE]

Opinium poll - 7% of Leave voters and 3% of Remain voters regret their votes.

So we are potentially now at a point where remain would win.

Sigh...

Talking about a second referendum is pointless and counter-productive at the moment.

You probably need a couple of years of the brown stuff consistently hitting the fan before there's any point in revisiting the issue. The economic effects of Brexit per se are going to be a relatively slow burner over the next two years; the potential bursting of the property bubble that could be prompted by Brexit, however, could do much more damage much more quickly.

[ChrisDR68]

The thing that most surprised me about the result was the West Midlands. The East Midlands and Eastern (East Anglia) were always likely to be heavily Leave but not the West Midlands.



Remain 1,207,175 (40.74%)
Leave 1,755,687 (59.26%)



Of the 30 voting districts only Warwick had a Remain majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I predicted that!

(Although I was horribly wrong when I thought the North East would be England's most pro-Remain region other than London).

[politicallefty]

I hope this isn't a stupid question, but why exactly is the area around the Thames Estuary so pro-Leave (and by extension so pro-UKIP, as I do recall that area sending a UKIP MP to Parliament last year)?

[vileplume]

I hope this isn't a stupid question, but why exactly is the area around the Thames Estuary so pro-Leave (and by extension so pro-UKIP, as I do recall that area sending a UKIP MP to Parliament last year)?

You're thinking of Clacton which is in Essex but is in North East Coastal Essex as opposed to the Thames Estuary but the Thames Estuary is indeed one of UKIPs best regions in the country. The reason for this (using generalisations) is largely because South Essex has large proportions of the 'white van man' demographic which is essentially white lower middle class people who typically are small trades people or work in decently paid manual labour jobs (builder, plumber etc.), usually don't have university education, are fiercely patriotic and view immigration as the number one issue facing the country. Thus UKIP's core demographic. This demographic is also very dominant in the London Borough of Havering which unsurprisingly is also UKIP/leaves best in London (in fact many residents of Havering resent being in London at all and still insist they are part of Essex as it was pre 1965). South Essex/Havering is also where the a lot of the white flight from the east end of London has gone.

 These areas of Essex were fairly Labour inclined until they flipped en masse to the Tories under Thatcher, they did return to Labour in the Blair landslides but are currently reliably in the Tory camp with UKIP often coming second (or nearly second).

These are the parliamentary constituencies in Essex if you want to take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Essex.

[vileplume]

And re. St Albans it was only Labour until 2005 not 2010. The 1997 boundary changes were very helpful for Labour though as it moved the extremely wealthy Tory town of Harpenden and surrounding villages into a new Hitchin and Harpenden constituency where the sitting Tory MP for St Albans Peter Lilley stood and easily won even as the reconfigured St Albans constituency fell to Labour. Needless to say it is seat that Labour won't win except with a centrist leader/platform in a complete Tory meltdown.

The Lib Dems are pretty strong in local government there but they always seem to do far worse in general elections than they do in national elections suggesting many of the people who vote Lib Dem locally vote Tory nationally and I imagine these people would have broke heavily for remain. St Albans also has a lot of affluent city professionals and despite its wealth (I remember reading property was the most expensive there than any other city in the UK) has much more of a socially liberal tendency than most other home counties constituencies.

[Phony Moderate]

Opinium poll - 7% of Leave voters and 3% of Remain voters regret their votes.

So we are potentially now at a point where remain would win.

Sigh...

We're potentially at a point (according to those figures) where polling would show it as 50-50. And most of the polls (which on average showed a 4-5% Remain lead at the end of the campaign) were wrong. Though interestingly those figures would, if entirely accurate, produce a 51-49 Leave victory - which is exactly what that particular pollster showed in its final campaign poll.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The really unusual feature about South Essex (Havering included) in terms of employment patterns is the strikingly high number of people employed in admin, clerical jobs etc. A lot of these people live in detached houses built relatively recently (i.e. after the 1960s) and are often mortgaged up to their throats. A lot of those houses were built on estuarial floodplain and are horrifyingly vulnerable to tidal surges (and were built despite that fact being not exactly a state secret). It's an interesting area, much more so than media stereotypes would imply.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And re. St Albans it was only Labour until 2005 not 2010. The 1997 boundary changes were very helpful for Labour though as it moved the extremely wealthy Tory town of Harpenden and surrounding villages into a new Hitchin and Harpenden constituency where the sitting Tory MP for St Albans Peter Lilley stood and easily won even as the reconfigured St Albans constituency fell to Labour. Needless to say it is seat that Labour won't win except with a centrist leader/platform in a complete Tory meltdown.

It's one of those seats that you just can't believe ever actually fell even with 1997 being 1997. But then that's why we follow elections isn't it?

[parochial boy]

You're thinking of Clacton which is in Essex but is in North East Coastal Essex as opposed to the Thames Estuary but the Thames Estuary is indeed one of UKIPs best regions in the country. The reason for this (using generalisations) is largely because South Essex has large proportions of the 'white van man' demographic which is essentially white lower middle class people who typically are small trades people or work in decently paid manual labour jobs (builder, plumber etc.), usually don't have university education, are fiercely patriotic and view immigration as the number one issue facing the country. Thus UKIP's core demographic. This demographic is also very dominant in the London Borough of Havering which unsurprisingly is also UKIP/leaves best in London (in fact many residents of Havering resent being in London at all and still insist they are part of Essex as it was pre 1965). South Essex/Havering is also where the a lot of the white flight from the east end of London has gone.

 These areas of Essex were fairly Labour inclined until they flipped en masse to the Tories under Thatcher, they did return to Labour in the Blair landslides but are currently reliably in the Tory camp with UKIP often coming second (or nearly second).

These are the parliamentary constituencies in Essex if you want to take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Essex.

Interesting, as a follow up to the original questions, is there any reason why the Kentish side of the Thames estuary stayed Labour, or at least margin, for much longer?

Places like Gillingham, Chatham and Sheppey still had Labour MPs as late as 2010, long after South Essex (excluding Thurrock) shed its Labour MPs. I guess Medway is a bit more traditional working class than Essex? After all, Chatham is one of the places alleged to be the source of the word "Chav".

And re. St Albans it was only Labour until 2005 not 2010. The 1997 boundary changes were very helpful for Labour though as it moved the extremely wealthy Tory town of Harpenden and surrounding villages into a new Hitchin and Harpenden constituency where the sitting Tory MP for St Albans Peter Lilley stood and easily won even as the reconfigured St Albans constituency fell to Labour. Needless to say it is seat that Labour won't win except with a centrist leader/platform in a complete Tory meltdown.

As far as I am aware, St Albans also has a slightly younger population, and is more of an actual employment centre, than most of the rest of the commuter belt. In a lot of respects, it resembles somewhere like Reading more than somewhere like Hertford, which leads to it having a more substantial Labour vote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Labour only held some of those North Kent seats in 2005 because of personal votes (definitely true of Sittingbourne & Sheppey and also Dartford), but one issue when comparing those places is that North Kent is old towns with new suburban-and-commuter developments, while South Essex is pretty much entirely the latter (plus Southend). Though Labour's best seat in North Kent last year was Gravesham, the one they lost in 2005.

[vileplume]

And re. St Albans it was only Labour until 2005 not 2010. The 1997 boundary changes were very helpful for Labour though as it moved the extremely wealthy Tory town of Harpenden and surrounding villages into a new Hitchin and Harpenden constituency where the sitting Tory MP for St Albans Peter Lilley stood and easily won even as the reconfigured St Albans constituency fell to Labour. Needless to say it is seat that Labour won't win except with a centrist leader/platform in a complete Tory meltdown.

As far as I am aware, St Albans also has a slightly younger population, and is more of an actual employment centre, than most of the rest of the commuter belt. In a lot of respects, it resembles somewhere like Reading more than somewhere like Hertford, which leads to it having a more substantial Labour vote.

No St Albans is not similar to Reading at all. For starters St Albans is far, far wealthier than Reading, Reading has the university aspect which St Albans doesn't have, Reading has a significantly younger population than St Albans (not sure how St Albans compares to other home counties seats though) and Reading has a much larger ethnic minority population than St Albans. Labour dominates Reading council (the two parliamentary seats contain heavily Tory suburbs which fall under West Berkshire and Wokingham councils respectively). By contrast Labour are weak on St Albans city council their only safe ward is Sopwell (council estate), they usually win Batchwood and London Colney but that's essentially it. In a exceptional year they could probably carry Ashley and St Peters (city centre) but they aren't even vaguely competitive in the rest.

A lot of Tory voters in St Albans are more 'centrist' than those in other home counties constituencies (such people often vote Lib Dem in local elections) which made them fairly amenable to voting for a more centrist New Labour when the Tories were in meltdown. This coupled with St Albans being a medium sized city and thus being more socially mixed than seats like Hertford and Stortford (having some council estates) delivered the seat to Labour in 1997 and 2001. Now Labour have completely abandoned the centre ground don't expect them to win or get anywhere near winning St Albans again, the main threat to the Tories long-term comes from the Lib Dems if that party can work out how to get their local voters to vote for them nationally instead of the Tories.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And if Labour were to move towards the middle at all then it's clear that it would be in a... erm... direction that would not go down well in St Albans either.

[ChrisDR68]

Nigel Lawson's speech from the Lord's debate on the EU Referendum yesterday:



My Lords, one of the most momentous decisions of our time has now been taken. Parliament agreed by an overwhelming majority that the people should decide in a referendum whether our country should stay in the European Union or leave. The people decided, on a massive poll, that we should leave.

It is regrettable that some, unhappy with the result, seek to prevent its implementation, whether by way of a second referendum or some other device. It is difficult to imagine anything more irresponsible, either democratically or politically. I can only assume that living in an elitist London bubble they are blithely unaware of the alienation of a large and growing section of the British people from the London-based political and banking establishment. Any attempt to overturn the referendum result would invite mayhem of the most grievous kind. It would not only be dishonourable, it would be playing with fire. I invite those who entertain this desire to consider the consequences. Incidentally, they might also reflect on what their response would be had the referendum produced a majority to remain in the European Union and the disaffected losers then demanded that it be re-run.

The only question before us is how best to implement our departure from the European Union. Our starting point should be that we wish the best possible relationship with the peoples and Governments of Europe, against whom we have no grievance whatever and a multiplicity of mutual interests. One important point that follows from this is that we must respect the EU doctrine that to remain a member of the so-called single market we would have to accept the freedom of European citizens to live and work here. That is something the British people have made clear is not on, so we must accept that we will be outside the single market. That is scarcely a disaster. The rest of the world is outside the so-called single market and trades happily and profitably with the European Union. You do not need a trade agreement to trade. Moreover, if we were to seek some special trading relationship with the EU, not only would we be adopting the position of a supplicant—which I do not like—but it would be a futile quest.​

Following the invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, it is important that our negotiations with the EU are completed as speedily as possible. A prolonged period of uncertainty can only be damaging for British business and the British economy. By ruling out the chimera of trade negotiations, a speedy process becomes practicable.

Instead of wasting time and energy on a futile and wholly misguided attempt to secure a trade agreement with the EU, the British Government need to focus on how we plan to conduct ourselves as a self-governing nation outside the European Union. The Government also need to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, which makes UK law subordinate to EU law, with a delayed commencement date to be determined by Parliament in due course. All this is a substantial and vital undertaking, which needs to be started now. It is all entirely in our own hands and not a matter of negotiation with others.

The result of the referendum was a tribute to the courage of the British people. Project Fear may have been successful in reducing the size of the Brexit majority but most of our fellow citizens declined to be cowed. The next Government and the next Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be, will have a historic opportunity to make the United Kingdom the most dynamic and freest country in the whole of Europe and to become a beacon to our European friends, currently embroiled in a failed and doomed experiment.


Clearly Lawson is going for a clean break with the EU and the WTO option. That would certainly be the speediest way of removing the UK from the EU.

My guess is that this is probably Andrea Leadsom's approach as well going by what she's said since the referendum result.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-07-05/debates/16070548000162/OutcomeOfTheEuropeanUnionReferendum

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

^

 we're actually going to do this. The future of the economy is going to be settled by a vote of the Tory membership.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

^

 we're actually going to do this. The future of the economy is going to be settled by a vote of the Tory membership.

Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

And if it doesn't, remember this is what the average Conservative membership looks like