brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

It was a majority of 1,250,000 people. A sizeable sum indeed

Not when you consider the total number who voted.

Hop you enjoyed your beer!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Hop you enjoyed your beer!

Freudian slip?

[ahinton]

Freudian slip?

No, deliberate this time! Thought that you'd notice and indeed you did!

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

I'm just glad we can move on from this.

[ahinton]

I'm just glad we can move on from this.

I fear that the possibility of moving on from it, at least in UK, has been denied to us for a very long time indeed.

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

Perhaps so in the UK, but not on piano street

[ahinton]

Perhaps so in the UK, but not on piano street

But the damage is being done from and by UK - and not only to UK; the effect upon Pianosteet is unlikely to be especially grave, but the fallout from it will certainly affect many countries, not just UK.

Best,

Alistair

[iansinclair]

I have no idea how this thing is going to play out.  We shall just have to wait and see.  However, it does illustrate, quite graphically, some of the lessons of history, and why it was that the various framers of at least some of our governments sought to have elected representatives, rather than relying on direct democracy.

Direct democracy has a fine ring to it -- "let the people decide".  It also brought you the French Revolution, which was hardly a success (if you don't read history, you should) and it is in the process of bringing ill thought out policies to places as diverse as California, a State in the US, Venezuela, Greece, Quebec, a Province in Canada, and the United Kingdom (considered either as individual Kingdoms or as a more or less unified whole.  It looks like to bring a certain amount of chaos to France and Spain and the Netherlands and...

The original idea of the various representative assemblies -- either Parliament or, in the US, Congress, was that the people who were in them were selected --usually, but not always by any means, by direct election -- to represent the interests and needs of the region they represented.  The presumption was that they would be leading figures of one kind or another in those regions, and that they would be better informed (often, in earlier times) far better informed about the issues they were debating and the implications of those issues than the people who elected them -- and thus able and inclined to make better decisions.  Now granted that this has not always been the case, but it would be hard to make an argument that they have made worse decisions.

In the present instance, therefore, the proper route would have been for the various MPs to consider the needs and fears of their constituents and then, having each one examined the issue carefully, to make a balanced and fully informed decision.

This proper route has, of course, been well and truly hijacked by the referendum, and I very much doubt that one could support the notion that even a small fraction of those who voted voted based on such a researched and balanced view of the options and the implications.

[ahinton]

I have no idea how this thing is going to play out.  We shall just have to wait and see.  However, it does illustrate, quite graphically, some of the lessons of history, and why it was that the various framers of at least some of our governments sought to have elected representatives, rather than relying on direct democracy.

Direct democracy has a fine ring to it -- "let the people decide".  It also brought you the French Revolution, which was hardly a success (if you don't read history, you should) and it is in the process of bringing ill thought out policies to places as diverse as California, a State in the US, Venezuela, Greece, Quebec, a Province in Canada, and the United Kingdom (considered either as individual Kingdoms or as a more or less unified whole.  It looks like to bring a certain amount of chaos to France and Spain and the Netherlands and...

The original idea of the various representative assemblies -- either Parliament or, in the US, Congress, was that the people who were in them were selected --usually, but not always by any means, by direct election -- to represent the interests and needs of the region they represented.  The presumption was that they would be leading figures of one kind or another in those regions, and that they would be better informed (often, in earlier times) far better informed about the issues they were debating and the implications of those issues than the people who elected them -- and thus able and inclined to make better decisions.  Now granted that this has not always been the case, but it would be hard to make an argument that they have made worse decisions.

In the present instance, therefore, the proper route would have been for the various MPs to consider the needs and fears of their constituents and then, having each one examined the issue carefully, to make a balanced and fully informed decision.

This proper route has, of course, been well and truly hijacked by the referendum, and I very much doubt that one could support the notion that even a small fraction of those who voted voted based on such a researched and balanced view of the options and the implications.

You make some good point here; however, I'm not so sure that the very notion of a referendum per se is the biggest stumbling block here - it's other aspects of it that have thwarted credibility in this instance.

As I've pointed out previously, there was no need to hold it in the first place.

There was no evidence of general public clamouring for it and only one UK political party, the Conservatives, included in its General Election manifesto a promise to hold it so, had that party lost the election, it would not have been held and, even had the election returned resulted in a coalition as did the 2010 one, it might not have been held.

The referendum was a cynical ploy on the part of the Conservatives to hang a UK/EU in/out referendum on the true motivation behind it - a fear of defections from it to UKIP, which in the event did not happen.

Your last sentence is indeed pertinent; far too many people were swayed by the force-fed lies from both sides, albeit mostly by the Leave side.

The statistics of the result have been covered already.

Had the government of the day decided to create legislation to sever UK's ties with EU rather than subject this issue to referendum, the process might well have been a good deal less acrimonious and flawed, but would it have done so? Somehow I doubt it. With insufficient evidence of public demand for Parliament to debate this, I suspect that it would have left well alone; as it is, they decided to gamble on passing the buck to the public in a referendum and it's backfired on them.

The government line was in support of Remain (which alone would probably have discouraged it from toying with such legislation). The problem is that most people, even Leave supporters, assumed that the referendum would be won resoundingly by Remain. So complacently careless was the attitude of the Leave side on this that no plans in the event of a vote favouring Brexit were laid in advance, thereby compounding the mess in which the referendum has left us all.

Again, had the government of the day tried to push this through as legislation without a referendum, the chances that the outcome would encourage Scotland to consider a second secession referendum would have been considerably less.

I think that one lesson to be learned by government is to be extremely wary of the referendum route in future!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Your last sentence is indeed pertinent; far too many people were swayed by the force-fed lies from both sides, albeit mostly by the Leave side.

Whilst i would not be boorish enough to add up the various lies, (i had formed an opinion different to yours), Project Fear was so negative and doom laden and sufficient to put me off.

I am not convinced that it was the lies that swayed public opinion over to leaving. I feel it was more like fears over free movement and a general feeling that they wanted to be masters of their own destiny.

Thal

[ahinton]

Whilst i would not be boorish enough to add up the various lies, (i had formed an opinion different to yours), Project Fear was so negative and doom laden and sufficient to put me off.

Put you off what? Voting? I daresay that it put quite a few people off that. But then Project Fear afflicted and was promulgated by both sides

I am not convinced that it was the lies that swayed public opinion over to leaving.

Well, quite a few people have said that it did influence the way that they voted, although given that the margin of c.1.25m represents only c.3.8% it would not have needed to sway many in any case.

I feel it was more like fears over free movement and a general feeling that they wanted to be masters of their own destiny.

Then instead of lies and deception about that there ought to have been a sane and honest explanation of the significance of the four freedoms as clearly outlined in https://www.europeanpolicy.org/en/european-policies/single-market.html
and then voters would have had a clearer vision of the conditions fundamental to single market membership. This would have divided Leavers who want to remain within the single market (the majority) from those who don't; exposure of this division would have been an educative and constructive experience that might have focused all leavers on some of the most important the issues on which they were being given the opportunity to vote, but instead we had what you rightly call Project Fear, which merely confused and misled voters.

It should also have been made much clearer that single market membership is free only to EU member states, so any post-Brexit UK's wish to rejoin it would come at a price.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

How much time do you think the average hard working Brit had to devote to learning about the pros and cons?. Not as much as you for certain.

The hard working Brits who worked for a local courier company to me certainly have more time now that they have been undercut by Bulgarians and all 5 are now out of work. Do you think they would give a crap about all the links you keep posting?

Thal (currently drunk).

Thal

[ahinton]

How much time do you think the average hard working Brit had to devote to learning about the pros and cons?. Not as much as you for certain.

The hard working Brits who worked for a local courier company to me certainly have more time now that they have been undercut by Bulgarians and all 5 are now out of work. Do you think they would give a crap about all the links you keep posting?

Thal (currently drunk).

Thal

As it appears from your two sign-offs that both the inebriated and the sober Thal are addressing me here, I would say this.

Whilst of course most people wouldn't have the time or the legal, constitutional, economic &c. expertise to go into all of this in the kind of deep detail that would enable them to make an informed and uncoerced decision as to how to vote on it, it must also be said that they could likewise have saved some of their time by ignoring all the lies being told to them and instead make up their respective minds on the basis of such reliable information as they did have time to source, absorb and consider.

All that said, however, I would put forward the following that relates to this aspect of the issue as posted to another forum, as follows:

...notwithstanding all the questions about
(a) whether the public were really clamouring for a UK/EU in/out referendum (of which there appears to be scant evidence)
(b) why it was that the Tories were the only party to include the promise of one in its General Election manifesto (and so, had that party lost the election, it would not have been held anyway) and
(c) whether this particular referendum was being held honestly and at face value or whether it was merely a cynical ploy by the Tories to address their unfounded fears of defections from it to UKIP,
the truly big question is whether a referendum was the most appropriate instrument with which to address so fundamental and far-reaching a question as UK's future as an EU member state rather than have Parliament debate, vote on and seek to implement any issues about it as it would otherwise be expected to do.

After all, we don't put out to public tender other issues that are intended to lead to legislative action by Parliament (be it healthcare, education, defence or whaever else), do we? - so what was supposedly perceived (albeit only by the Tory party, it would seem) as so different about the issue of UK's continued membership or otherwise of EU?

Were I to fall prey to cynicism on this particular aspect of the matter, I might be tempted to see it as the government of the day using Parliament to pass the buck on its behalf.

As to workers undercutting other workers, that happens all the time and would continue to do so whether UK was in or out of EU, not least because it happened not only before Britain joined EU's predecessor but also long before any kind of European union was even born or thought of.

It is in any case employers, not employees, who determine how much employees are paid and there are now legal minima in place that apply regardless of where those employees originate; if those laws are being broken by certain unscrupulous employers (and I'm certainly not suggesting that this isn't the case), it is the employers alone that are in breach and therefore liable to be prosecuted for it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

As to workers undercutting other workers, that happens all the time and would continue to do so whether UK was in or out of EU, not least because it happened not only before Britain joined EU's predecessor but also long before any kind of European union was even born or thought of.

Because you have never had a proper job, i think you fail to identify with the working man. Of course undercutting happens all the time, but never on such a huge scale. The freedom of movement so loved by the EU was only ever going to result in largely one way traffic. 600,000 English were never realistically going to uproot and move to Poland.

I recall reading some statistic that over the last 10 years, 95% of job vacancies were filled by immigrants. If this is even partially accurate, it is devastating for the british working man.

Don't worry though, your job is safe, unless thousands of archivists are waiting to come over.

Thal  (even more drunk than last time)

[mjames]

Lol Frankfurt projected to be one of the big winners of Brexit. The French are trying to convince banks to shift to Paris but we know that's not going to happen thanks to those pesky laws! xP

So it looks like aside from the 52% in Britain, the Germans are also hoping for a brexit. haha

[ahinton]

Because you have never had a proper job, I think you fail to identify with the working man. Of course undercutting happens all the time, but never on such a huge scale. The freedom of movement so loved by the EU was only ever going to result in largely one way traffic. 600,000 English were never realistically going to uproot and move to Poland.

I recall reading some statistic that over the last 10 years, 95% of job vacancies were filled by immigrants. If this is even partially accurate, it is devastating for the british working man.

Don't worry though, your job is safe, unless thousands of archivists are waiting to come over.

Thal  (even more drunk than last time)

I must disagree with your first sentence. I have never had any "job" (i.e. employed office), "proper" or otherwise, but it is hardly necessary for someone to have been an employee in order to understand the plight of some employees. I don't play the banjo or drink beer as you do but I do know what each of them are!

You mention the scale of undercutting, yet you omit to mention that there are far more people in the employment market now than once there were and you also conveniently ignore my remark about employment law protecting employees' pay except where those laws are broken.

You also forget to mention that some jobs taken by migrant workers are those that non-migrant ones seem to be uninterested in taking - and don't tell me that employers go ever further and break race relations rules as well as employment pay laws by advertising or offering jobs to Bulgarians only!

As to large numbers of English people (what about Scots, Welsh and NI people?) not having emigrated to Poland (by which I take you to mean since that country joined EU), you also forget how many Poles, many of whom served on UK's side during WWII, came to settle in UK long before Eu's predecessor organisation was even born or thought of; you cite "600,000", yet according to the United Nations Population Division, the number of British people living outside UK and elsewhere in EU is twice that, 1.2 million, a substantial proportion of whom work there.

You note your view that my "job[sic] is safe, unless thousands of archivists are waiting to come over", yet you have already stated that I don't have a "job" as such (as I'm self-employed) and the sheer unlikelihood that hundreds of thousands of archivists might descend upon UK from elsewhere in EU is of no relevance whatsoever, since they'd hardly come over to set up in their own businesses in UK in any case; futhermore, I'm a composer anyway and I don't imagine for one moment that Brexit or no Brexit will make much difference to composers' decisions to relocate from one country to another within EU.

I hope that you are enjoying your drink!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Lol Frankfurt projected to be one of the big winners of Brexit. The French are trying to convince banks to shift to Paris but we know that's not going to happen thanks to those pesky laws! xP

So it looks like aside from the 52% in Britain, the Germans are also hoping for a brexit. haha

If Brexit proceeds unimpeded by anything other than the sheer number of years that will be required to complete that project, there will undoubtedly be an exodus of companies and their operations to other EU locations, which will hardly help the UK economy, especially when it would have to assume the additional burden of the costs of seeing that monumental project through. It is also likely to cause increased unemployment in UK and decreased unemployment in other EU member states unless "all those Brits come over here and take our jobs!" ("here" being those other EU member states to which their current employers decide to move some or all of their operations).

Anyway, for those interested (and Thal needn't put his glass down to read this next bit), a new petition has been launched on the Parliamentary petition website calling upon people to request that Parliament declines to invoke Article 50; its argument for this based around similar premises to the first one, it's at https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/23695257 , it commenced less than a week ago and hs so far attacted 17,859 signatures.

Another on the same website which calls upon Parliament to decide (without specifically requesting that it declines to invoke Article 50) whether or not UK remains or leaves is at https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/23695752 ; this commenced a day earlier than the other one and has so far attracted 14,460 signatures.

By the way, to change the subject momentarily, since today has seen the long-awaited publication of the Chilcot report on the Iraq war and Britain's part in it, I note from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120 @ 16.45 that

"Today is George W Bush's birthday. He's 70."

And, as we see from the photo attached to this, Vladimir Ashkenazy, nine years his senior, shares his birthday. That is a misfortune rather than a misunderestimation, methinks...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You mention the scale of undercutting, yet you omit to mention that there are far more people in the employment market now than once there were and you also conveniently ignore my remark about employment law protecting employees' pay except where those laws are broken.

You also forget to mention that some jobs taken by migrant workers are those that non-migrant ones seem to be uninterested in taking - and don't tell me that employers go ever further and break race relations rules as well as employment pay laws by advertising or offering jobs to Bulgarians only!

You are in Disneyland if you think that small businesses like the courier company i mentioned earlier give a crap about employment law or that their employees have the knowledge to know their rights or the wits and somtimes even money to invoke it.

Also, whilst migrants do jobs that others are uninterested in, perhaps the uninterest stems from the reduced wages they now attract.

Lastly, there are several instances where employers have advertised for ethnic minorities only.  This includes the BBC and the Met Police. There have even been a few Poles only.

As i said, no need for you to worry as your job is safe. Carry on with your billion word posts and lets have some more interesting links.

Hic

[ahinton]

You are in Disneyland

No chance!

if you think that small businesses like the courier company i mentioned earlier give a crap about employment law or that their employees have the knowledge to know their rights or the wits and somtimes even money to invoke it.

I didn't say that they did; indeed, I made it clear that I did not assume that no one broke the law. That said, this is down to employers (who are presumably mostly not immigrant ones) prepared to take the chance of breaking the law and hoping to get away with it.
 

As i said, no need for you to worry as your job is safe.

Oh, indeed; as everyone knows, there's nothing in life safer than being a composer!

Hic

Change of name?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Sincere apologies for the technical glitch; the correct URLs for those other two petitions are in fact
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133767
and
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133540
Good luck!

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

Oh, indeed; as everyone knows, there's nothing in life safer than being a composer!

That sass

[ahinton]

While London & NYC law firm Mishcon de Reya work on their legal challenge to Parliament about the circumstances in which Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty may and not not be invoked, here's a different legal take on the outcome of the referendum; it's from The Connexion, an English language French newspaper (to which I omit to privde a link as it's subscription only) and, whilst it addresses only the consequences for UK ex-pats living and/or working in France, it could as easily and reasonably apply to UK ex-pats living and/or working anywhere else within EU. It's by a law professor and legal adviser to the French government rather than a law firm.


Let Brit expats become French
July 04, 2016

"French professor of law Patrick Weil, who has worked with the French government on reports leading to new laws on immigration and nationality policy, believes (that) France can – and should – offer citizenship to British expats. Here, in his own words, he explains:

Let's remember Churchill and have France offer its citizenship to the British!

On June 16, 1940, when France was on the brink of military defeat, Winston Churchill proposed a full union of the peoples of France and the United Kingdom. This offer would have created a common citizenship for all French and Britons, and was supported by General de Gaulle. But the French government rejected it only a few hours before it demanded the infamous Armistice with the Nazis.

As we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme, let's not forget what unites the French and the Brits. And especially, let's not engage in insults, as too many French have taken to doing since last Thursday: "Go on, get out! Hurry up and leave, les anglais, don't make us wait!" These reactions of frustration and anger are even more astonishing when they come from European leaders, as they camouflage these leaders' impotence to address the situation. It is not up to them to set the agenda. The British authorities have the power to choose when to activate article 50 of the European Union Treaty, if they ever decide to use it, and so the Europeans will simply have to wait.

So what can we do until then? What is to be done besides wait for British politicians to sort through the chaos?

There is at least one thing that can be done immediately. We should think of the millions of British who currently make concrete use of their European citizenship, whether by spending their lives in continental Europe or in Ireland, or by marrying European citizens of other nationalities. Their European citizenship means a lot to them, and at present they are about to lose it.

In France, British citizens have contributed to the revival of a great number of villages abandoned by their native population. They have voted in local elections, have been elected to municipal councils, and actively participate in the life of local communities. To all Britons who have formed such attachments to France, our message can only be one of welcome. And this welcome can, and must, take the form of immediate French citizenship for those that seek it.

Before the end of July, the French Parliament can pass a bill that would permit any British citizen residing in France or married to a French citizen for at least one year, to become French by naturalisation, or by declaration for those with French spouses. Such a special provision  —  not exceptional in French legal history  —  could be implemented immediately and remain in effect until the official exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

It would not presume to determine the future of the UK within the EU. Rather, it would serve to send the message that the French have not forgotten their common past with the UK, and that they remain willing to build a future together."


Now what the writer might have thought of the ideas that he puts forward here other than in the event of Brexit I do not know (and, of course, there remains a chance, woefully slim though it might be, that Parliament be persuaded not to try to invoke Article 50 without first holding a debate on it and having a vote that is in favour of so doing). It would certainly represent an entente cordiale to end all ententes cordiales; it might also help to influence ideas about EU citizens living and/or working in UK, an issue that the UK Tory party leadership hopefuls seem especially anxious to assure everyone will remain unaffected by Brexit if it happens.

The total of the number of EU citizens living in UK and that of UK citizens living elsewhere in EU is some 4.5m. For the record, that figure is equivalent to almost 7% of the entire UK population, not far short of 10% of the UK electorate and nearly 13.5% of those who voted in the referendum; it is therefore not small and their future position must be borne in mind when any legislation is passed that might affect their rights of free movement, labour &c.

Here's some information (albeit rather outdated) on Brits living elsewhere in EU: https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ . Here also is some data about the other way around, although this is more out of date again: https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ . These figures cannot be relied upon for total accuracy for many obvious reasons but they do provide a useful guide to these population movements.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

How much time do you think the average hard working Brit had to devote to learning about the pros and cons?. Not as much as you for certain.

But the time and expertise that I've given it is itself inevitably very little indeed.That, however, is a very good point of yours, in that Parliament should never have allowed this momentous issue to be farmed out to members of the electorate to decide. It should instead have debated it as it would usually do and then had a vote on it; the MPs who would have voted thereafter would have been far less susceptible than were members of the voting public to the raft of lies, deceit and the rest that characterised the campaign and so the outcome would have been far more credible. There would seem to be little point in funding the salaries and expenses of 650 MPs and then letting them all off the hook in this most fundamental and far-reaching of political decisions

More importantly than all the other isues, shortcomings, errors, misunderstandings and questionable necessity that surround this referendum, it was quite clearly a most inappropriate kind of instrument to invoke in order to arrive at a view on it; in opting for this route, Parliament has let the country down very badly by effectively putting the matter out to public tender rather than acting responsibly on it of its own accord.

The hard working Brits who worked for a local courier company to me certainly have more time now that they have been undercut by Bulgarians and all 5 are now out of work.

That's down to their (ex-)employer. Anyway, as Bulgaria is 14th on the list of immigrants to UK from other EU nations, there are reckoned to be no more than around 50,000 of them, which is well less than 0.08% of the UK population as a whole, so don't suggest that UK is overrun by Bulgarians!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That's down to their (ex-)employer. Anyway, as Bulgaria is 14th on the list of immigrants to UK from other EU nations, there are reckoned to be no more than around 50,000 of them, which is well less than 0.08% of the UK population as a whole, so don't suggest that UK is overrun by Bulgarians!

It is down to their ex employer (who is Bulgarian), but if they were not there in the first place, he would have no cheap labor to exploit and some hard working Brits would still have a job.

I am not suggesting the Country is overrun with Bulgarians, but parts of it are overrun with Eastern Europeans and in places like Boston, you would do well to hear English spoken on market day. Perhaps that is why, Boston was the biggest Brexit vote in the Country.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is down to their ex employer (who is Bulgarian), but if they were not there in the first place, he would have no cheap labor to exploit and some hard working Brits would still have a job.

But is that employer breaking the law in terms of what he's paying his compatriot employees?

Whether or not such employers or employees might care overmuch (or indeed at all) about such matters, the employer does not require the employee to issue a formal complaint about this - anyone can do it and, if they have sufficient evidence, the employer can be prosecuted as indeed should happen if the law has been breached.

This is the whole point of having national minimum and living wage law; of course these laws get broken, but then so do many others; the clown who ran you over on your bike no doubt broke the law, but you did report it!

You write "if they were not there in the first place". What of all the UK citizens living and working elsewhere in EU? Might not at least some employers in their host nations feel the same about them?

I am not suggesting the Country is overrun with Bulgarians, but parts of it are overrun with Eastern Europeans and in places like Boston, you would do well to hear English spoken on market day. Perhaps that is why, Boston was the biggest Brexit vote in the Country.

It was pretty high in Herefordshire as well and on an even higher turnout, yet despite there being numerous central Europeans (not east Europeans, for there are none in EU anyway) in the area, there's little problem with attitudes to immigration around these parts; likewise, as someone who runs another forum has rightly noted, "we know [that] the areas least affected by immigration voted Leave on account of the immigrants"(!).

One problem with the scabrous attempts to elevant immigration issues to the point at which one might be forgiven for assuming that voting Leave and disdain for UK's immigration policies were somehow synonymous is that there were so many other pertinent considerations to explore before arriving at an intelligent and informed decision as to which way to vote; it is well known in any case that most of the largest concentrations of immigrants in UK (albeit not just from EU) are found in the big cities, yet much of London as well as Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh voted Remain and the only exception to this, Birmingham, was very close indeed - 50.4% Leave as against 49.6% Remain.

What was also not understood by many Leavers is that leaving EU does not in any case mean that any EU immigrants already in UK will have to leave indeed, (many politicans are almost competing with one another to drive hom a promise on that) or that freedom of movement is likely to change one iota following Brexit.

Another factor that was not widely considered is what might be expected to occur should swathes of EU citizens in UK leave it, namely that many UK citizens living elsewhere in EU might likewise return to UK, the effect of which would likely be little different to that of the central Europeans coming to UK that you have highlighted; likewise, should all British citizens living outside UK decide to return (as their citizenship entitles them to do just whenever they might so choose), just imagine the effect of that on the UK population!

If the pound takes a long time to recover or even fails in the long term to do so, it will become very difficult for many ex-pats living elsewhere in EU (especially within the Eurozone) and this might encourage some of them to return to UK even if they'd far rather not feel obliged to do so.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It was pretty high in Herefordshire as well and on an even higher turnout, yet despite there being numerous central Europeans (not east Europeans, for there are none in EU anyway) in the area, there's little problem with attitudes to immigration around these parts; likewise, as someone who runs another forum has rightly noted, "we know [that] the areas least affected by immigration voted Leave on account of the immigrants"(!).

It is not a question of having an "attitude" towards immigration, it is a matter of wanting a living wage from hard work and not to be undercut and chucked on the scrapheap. It is also a matter of having the infastructure to cope, which our hospitals and schools appear not to possess.

As to your other comment, who is "we"? If it is true, at least it shows that some who are not affected have some empathy towards others that are and in addition, they might not want to end up having the same problems in their own areas.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is not a question of having an "attitude" towards immigration

I suspect that you mean not having a negative one; most of us have some kind of attitude towards it!

it is a matter of wanting a living wage from hard work and not to be undercut and chucked on the scrapheap

Of course it is, but I think that you're taking a biased and over-simplified view of this which might well change were you to speak to any number of UK citizens who are likewise being mistreated by unscrupulous employers; zero hours contracts (which do have their uses for some but only a small minority) and illicitly low pay don't just affect immigrant workers, they affect UK citizens as well, especially in areas where immigration is relatively low in any case.

It is also a matter of having the infastructure to cope, which our hospitals and schools appear not to possess.

That's a different matter, although I agree that it's a very serious one.

As to your other comment, who is "we"?

It wasn't my comment, as you know, but a quote from someone else but I interpret her recourse to the first person plural pronoun as meaning "it is known"; I happen to know that she's based in Bristol which, like many of the larger UK cities, has a substantial immigrant population (albeit not all from elsewhere in EU) but which, again like all but one of those cities, voted Remain.

If it is true, at least it shows that some who are not affected have some empathy towards others that are and in addition, they might not want to end up having the same problems in their own areas.

Indeed it does, but it does more than just that; it also demonstrates an empathy towards others who are already having the same problems in their own areas, including non-immigrants.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Please unencapsulate yourself old chap.

Thal

[ahinton]

Please unencapsulate yourself old chap.

Done, by dint merely of adding a single missing closing square bracket! Sorry about that!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It's getting messier by the minute - not just Mishcon de Reya now but...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/legal-attempt-prevent-brexit-preliminary-hearing-article-50

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/uk-statistics-chief-vote-leave-350m-figure-misleading

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/uk-statistics-authority-statement-on-the-use-of-official-statistics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/should-vote-leave-be-prosecuted-over-its-referendum-propaganda-an-article-by-anthony-eskander/

Well, Dave asked for it - and he (and the rest of us in UK and elsewhere) is getting it or is about to do so.

The government can bleat all that it likes about not holding a second referendum but, insofar as doing so would require a revised Act of Parliament (to replace the 2015 one and to include terms along the lines of those called for by the petitioner) which would be a cumbersome and time-consuming procedure, that's perhaps OK as far as it goes.

What's really needed instead of a second referendum under tougher conditions, however, is for Parliament to clarify to the electorate that

(a) the referendum result is not legally binding

(b) its result may be "respected" (as it persistently tells everyone that it must be) only insofar as it was achieved on the basis of correct information, which it accepts is questionable and

(c) it undertakes to schedule and hold debates on the subject of it in both Houses of Parliament and act in accordance with the votes that follow these debates in the customary manner.

Let's hope that it does these things of its own volition rather than having to be forced into doing them by litigation or threats thereof.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Good to hear that the petition for a 2nd referendum has been declined by government.

Now hopefully the 4 million or so bad losers who signed it will accept the result of the first one and stop moaning.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Is it not the case that they are obligated to at least discuss it (or any other petition) once 100k signatures are reached?

Or maybe not!

[storyseller]

It's really interesting to see 2 of the most prominent members of this forum debate in such a friendly-yet-passionate manner...



Some lines like

As it appears from your two sign-offs that both the inebriated and the sober Thal are addressing me here, I would say this.

are stuff theatrical plays are made of!

[ahinton]

Good to hear that the petition for a 2nd referendum has been declined by government.

It hasn't. All that the statement that's been added by the quaintly named Foreign and Commonwealth Office conveys is this:

"The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say. The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations."

OK, so what does this revised version of what that office has published tell readers other than what they already knew?

No one in his/her right mind is suggesting that the Act itself was unlawful; of course it was lawful as far as it went.

Yes, of course the decision - insofar as it can reasonably be regarded as a decision - can be "respected" as far as it goes; whilst no one is arguing with how many votes were cast for either side, legal actions against the Leave side are being prepared in accordance with the misinformation that they provided during the campaign (although I'd be the first to agree that the Remain camp did some of the same).

The more important legal action being prepared is to force Parliament to act in accordance with the fact thet the referendum should never have been called in the first place and that Parliament itself must deal with this important issue just as it would customarily be expected to do; we all pay for professional MPs to be a part of that and they should debate and vote on it.

Whilst I signed the petition, a second referendum is, as I have already stated, not the best answer, even under the terms and conditions for which the petitioner calls; should Parliament do its duty and debate and vote on it (that's in both Houses), all will be well whatever the outcome and this would obviate any need for a second referendum.

If you read the rest of what's on the petition page you will note that

"The Committee has decided to defer its decision on this petition until the Government Digital Service has done all it can to verify the signatures on the petition. We have already had to remove 77,000 fraudulent signatures. The Committee wishes to make clear that, although it may choose to schedule a debate on this petition in due course, it only has the power to schedule debates in Westminster Hall – the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. Debates in Westminster Hall do not have the power to change the law, and could not trigger a second referendum.

The Petitions Committee will look at the petition again at its next meeting, on Tuesday 12 July."

Now of course any fraudulent signatures must quite rightly be dealt with appropriately, but the very fact that Parliament has undertaken to review this in three days' time clarifies beyond doubt that, at the moment, it still regards the petition as live and has therefore not closed it down as it has the exclusive power to do at any time (which is why signatures are still being added to it).

I therefore think that you are jumping to too many premature conclusions.

Now hopefully the 4 million or so bad losers who signed it will accept the result of the first one and stop moaning.

I assume you to refer to the signatories, which shows inconsistency on your part; more than 16m voted Remain, so you appear to refer here only to petition signatories which, as far as anyone can know, might include Remainers, Leavers and those who did not vote and, since you have no idea of how many of each have signed the petition, you are in no position to make the statement that you do about it.

As
(a) the petition has no legal validity and is not mandatory upon Parliament
(b) a number of legal actions against the Leave campaign and Parliament are currenly in the offing and
(c) Parliament has yet to declare anything firm about when it might or might not act on the present situation,
your references to "losers", bad or otherwise - and to acceptance of the result when what matters is acceptance of otherwise as to how it was obtained from whom and how - is of little relevance at present.

All remains to play for. I have no idea how it will play out but, whichever way it might begin to do so, it remains a fact that if any Brexit procedures commence under the cloud of not merely one but possibly several legal actions, they will risk not merely being delayed (to the even greater exasperation of other EU member states) but also undermined altogether, which might make those other EU members states become so irascible that a consequence might arise that no one ever wanted and which none of us has witnessed since the formation of Council of Europe in the late 1940s - and you will know well what I mean by that, even though neither of us was around at the time.

We are all treading on very unsafe and unfamiliar territory here, so be very careful of what you wish for...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It's really interesting to see 2 of the most prominent members of this forum debate in such a friendly-yet-passionate manner...



Some lines like

are stuff theatrical plays are made of!

But this is no theatre piece, however theatrical some might seek to make it seem; it's one of the most important political issues within EU since the formation of Council of Europe (not the same as - and earlier than - EU's predecessor), so it is unamenable to any trivialisation, for all that the conduct of the referendum campaign has in part been of the kind that would look disgraceful in the playground of a school in a deprived area.

None of that makes it any the less important to continue discussion of the issue in a civilised manner at all times.

Anyway, since the UK PM has now resigned over it and the conduct of the race for his replacement (from five hopeful - or hopeless, depending on your view - candidates) has so far been consistent with the dismayingly unprofessional conduct of the referendum campaign itself, let's consider for a moment the behaviour of one of the two women let in this race to the death and who has accused the other of being unsuitable for the rôle of Prime Minister and leader of the UK Tory party on account of her being childless. The name of this delightful character is Andrea Leadsom. Since there has been some input from the Church of England in the matter, it occurred to me that one of hits 'orrible 'ymns could be paraphrased as follows:

Leadsom, heavenly Father, Leadsom's
Like the world's tempestuous sea;
Guard us, guide us, keep us, feed us,
For we have no hope with she
Who possesses not one blessing
But her wretched offspring. Gee!

Saviour, breathe forgiveness o'er us;
If our votes the wrong way go.
Brexit's dead; its worth before us
is as naught – we know it's so;
Let us, cheering, in thy hearing,
To Remain shall we now go.

Spirit of our Gove, descending
Into Hell shall be our joy.
Crabb and Fox have met their ending;
Leadsom's not for hoi polloi.
Thus provided, pardoned, guided,
Nothing May* our peace destroy.

(with due apologies to James Edmeston)...

* Theresa May is the other woman candidate still left in the running for this most poisoned of chalices.

Or, again,

Ms Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom,
When interviewed by The Times*, said some
Daft things she might come to regret.

The claim that she's best 'cause she's bred some
Shows her as quite willing to tread some
Of the shakiest steps; now she's set

Herself up as a mum
Whose CV doth claim some
Of the baldest untruths you could get;

So her uppance will come.
She'll be seen as the dumb
One who ensured that la May's the best bet.

* UK Murdoch owned newspaper

It could be said that whenever Ms Leadsom drops one, she Brexit...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It's really interesting to see 2 of the most prominent members of this forum debate in such a friendly-yet-passionate manner...

I must admit to being quite interested in a Greek perspective on this..

I'm wary of commenting on other countries' politics (for it is liable to do little other than show up my ignorance thereof), but I do think events in Greece had some indirect bearing on the result of the Uk referendum. It's my experience that a fair few UK people looked at the events with Syriza / Tsipras / Varoufakis and thought it a vivid demonstration of the EU over-ruling the democratic choices of another country.

[thalbergmad]

It hasn't. All that the statement that's been added by the quaintly named Foreign and Commonwealth Office conveys is this:

"The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say. The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations."

OK, so what does this revised version of what that office has published tell readers other than what they already knew?

No one in his/her right mind is suggesting that the Act itself was unlawful; of course it was lawful as far as it went.

Yes, of course the decision - insofar as it can reasonably be regsarded as a decision - can be "respected" as far as it goes; whilst no one is arguing with how many votes were cast for either side, legal actions against the Leave side are being prepared in accordance with the misinformation that they provided during the campaign (although I'd be the first to agree that the Remain camp did some of the same).

The more important legal action being prepared is to force Parliament to act in accordance with the fact thet the referendum should never have been called in the first place and that Parliament itself must deal with this important issue just as it would customarily be expected to do; we all pay for professional MPs to be a part of that and they should debate and vote on it.

Whilst I signed the petition, a second referendum is, s I have already stated, not the best answer, even under the terms and conditions for which the petitioner calls; should Parliament do its duty and debate and vote on it (that's in both Houses), all will be well whatever the outcome and this wold obviate any need for a second referendum.

If you read the rest of what's on the petition page you will note that

"The Committee has decided to defer its decision on this petition until the Government Digital Service has done all it can to verify the signatures on the petition. We have already had to remove 77,000 fraudulent signatures. The Committee wishes to make clear that, although it may choose to schedule a debate on this petition in due course, it only has the power to schedule debates in Westminster Hall – the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. Debates in Westminster Hall do not have the power to change the law, and could not trigger a second referendum.

The Petitions Committee will look at the petition again at its next meeting, on Tuesday 12 July."

Now of course any fraudulent signatures must quite rightly be dealt with appropriately, but the very fact that Parliament has undertaken to review this in three days' time clarifies beyond doubt that, at the moment, it still regards the petition as live and has therefore not closed it down as it has the exclusive power to do at any time (which is why signatures are still being added to it).

I therefore think that you are jumping to too many premature conclusions.
I assume you to refer to the signatories, which shows inconsistency on your part; more than 16m voted Remain, so you appear to refer here only to petition signatories which, as far as anyone can know, might include Remainers, Leavers and those who did not vote and, since you have no idea of how many of each have signed the petition, you are in no position to make the statement that you do about it.

As
(a) the petition has no legal validity and is not mandatory upon Parliament
(b) a number of legal actions against the Leave campaign and Parliament are currenly in the offing and
(c) Parliament has yet to declare anything firm about when it might or might not act on the present situation,
your references to "losers", bad or otherwise - and to acceptance of the result when what matters is acceptance of otherwise as to how it was obtained from whom and how - is of little relevance at present.

All remains to play for. I have no idea how it will play out but, whichever way it might begin to do so, it remains a fact that if any Brexit procedures commence under the cloud of not merely one but possibly several legal actions, they will risk not merely being delayed (to the even greater exasperation of other EU member states) but also undermined altogether, which might make those other EU members states become so irascible that a consequence might arise that no one ever wanted and which none of us has witnessed since the formation of Council of Europe in the late 1940s - and you will know well what I mean by that, even though neither of us was around at the time.

We are all treading on very unsafe and unfamiliar territory here, so be very careful of what you wish for...

Best,

Alistair

Is there any chance that you could summarize this in just a few short sentences. It is of Sorabjian length.

Thal

[ahinton]

I must admit to being quite interested in a Greek perspective on this..

I'm wary of commenting on other countries' politics (for it is liable to do little other than show up my ignorance thereof), but I do think events in Greece had some indirect bearing on the result of the Uk referendum. It's my experience that a fair few UK people looked at the events with Syriza / Tsipras / Varoufakis and thought it a vivid demonstration of the EU over-ruling the democratic choices of another country.

It's a valid point and there might have been a little of this but, believe you me, having been in the thick of it in UK, this was but a very small part of what happened in the run-up to the referendum.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Is there any chance that you could summarize this in just a few short sentences. It is of Sorabjian length.

Just read it again, slowly; it's actually quite simple.

Sorabji has nothing to do with this in any way!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I must admit to being quite interested in a Greek perspective on this..

I'm wary of commenting on other countries' politics (for it is liable to do little other than show up my ignorance thereof), but I do think events in Greece had some indirect bearing on the result of the Uk referendum. It's my experience that a fair few UK people looked at the events with Syriza / Tsipras / Varoufakis and thought it a vivid demonstration of the EU over-ruling the democratic choices of another country.

It's a valid point and there might have been a little of this but, believe you me, having been in the thick of it in UK, this was but a very small part of what happened in the run-up to the referendum.

With respect, Alistair, whilst I wasn't actively involved in campaigning during the referendum, I was following things quite closely on social media and I think it had a certain relevance, particularly to left-leaning voters whose sympathies could be expected to align with Syriza. Slightly peripheral, perhaps, but if it changed the inclination of 2% of people, that was enough.

[thalbergmad]

Just read it again, slowly; it's actually quite simple.

I cannot read it again as i have not read it the first time.

Can you try again with a limit of say 50 words?

Thal

[ahinton]

With respect, Alistair, whilst I wasn't actively involved in campaigning during the referendum, I was following things quite closely on social media and I think it had a certain relevance, particularly to left-leaning voters whose sympathies could be expected to align with Syriza. Slightly peripheral, perhaps, but if it changed the inclination of 2% of people, that was enough.

Indeed, but I am not remotely convinced that it did. I'm not undermining the Greek situation in any way but too many people in UK were influenced by rubbish about immigration and other issues that the Greek thing barely figured in what influenced people to change their minds as to how they voted.

Yes, there was an element of "protest vote" and that wasn't even entirely confined to the Leave side - a protest against "the establishment", whatever that might be - and this served only to muddy the waters further, beause the vote wasn't about that, or about the rise or otherwise of UKIP or anything else except "should UK remain an EU member state?".

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Yes, of course immigration was the number one issue. The Greek situation was a manifestation of the arguments, flawed or otherwise, about national sovereignty. Undoubtedly it was a distant second (or fourth, or fifth..) within the national sovereignty debate when compared to deporting foreign criminals, abuses of the Human Rights act, etc., etc. I suppose my point essentially is that all the other issues I've mentioned here were the preserve of the right, whereas the Greek situation was an argument used by those on the left who wished to foment a leave vote (and there certainly were some on the left taking that stance).

[ahinton]

I cannot read it again as i have not read it the first time.

Can you try again with a limit of say 50 words?

Not 50 words, no but, since it's you, I will indeed attempt to summarise, for what good it might or might not hope to do.

OK, the F&C Office statement tells people only what they already knew; nothing new. It does not invalidate the petition, nor does it or what follows lower down the page about the 12 July review of it signify that Parliament rejects the petition or finds it unacceptable and therefore shuts it down.

The referendum decision being "respected" doesn't mean that it must be taken as gospel by everyone.

Why?

No need for it.

Held for wrong reasons.

Conducted shabbily; much misinformation of both sides.

T&Cs far too lax in terms of minimum turnout and majority.

Wrong instrument for addressing the subject; why use a referendum when Parliament debate and vote's good enough for almost all other legislation?

Margin way too low for credibility. Only 37% voted Leave; nowhere near enough.

No one in authority had thought what to do in the event of a vote supporting Brexit, so now everyone's up creeks without canoes let alone paddles.

Referendum has no legal validity so why did Parliament foist it on the public?

Legal challenges to force Parliamentary debate and against the outcome of Leave campaign's misinformation are being mounted.

No one's prepared to invoke Article 50.

No other EU leader supported UK leaving EU.

Scotland voted against it, as did almost all of NI and England's largest cities (where, incidentally, there's the greatest numbers of immigrants).

226 words; best I can do. Surely you can manage that, between beers?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Yes, of course immigration was the number one issue. The Greek situation was a manifestation of the arguments, flawed or otherwise, about national sovereignty. Undoubtedly it was a distant second (or fourth, or fifth..) within the national sovereignty debate when compared to deporting foreign criminals, abuses of the Human Rights act, etc., etc. I suppose my point essentially is that all the other issues I've mentioned here were the preserve of the right, whereas the Greek situation was an argument used by those on the left who wished to foment a leave vote (and there certainly were some on the left taking that stance).

I'm afraid that I must disagree. For all that the Leave side sought to foment the immigration issue - not entirely without success, by any means - it wasn't ultimately the abiding concern; the greatest concentration of immigrants (who are not all from EU in any case and those that aren't cannot figure in this issue) is, as I pointed out earlier, in UK's larger cities, most of which voted Remain and just one of which, Birmingham, almost did.

The Greek issue really didn't figure high on it at all and the proportion of EU immigrants to UK who are Greek is relatively small (saying which is not to undermine the Greek situation within EU).

That Scotland and most of NI voted Remain must also be taken into due consideration.

In my constituency, the turnout was very high and the majority for Leave was also, yet there have been scant manifestations of negative immigration related issues around here, even though the predominant immigrant input is central European (Polish and Baltic as well as from outside EU - Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia &c.). Whilst a massive increase in racial hate crimes in UK has been reported in the week or two before and since the referendum, there have been very few instances in my locality.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

For all that the Leave side sought to foment the immigration issue - not entirely without success, by any means - it wasn't ultimately the abiding concern; the greatest concentration of immigrants (who are not all from EU in any case and those that aren't cannot figure in this issue) is, as I pointed out earlier, in UK's larger cities, most of which voted Remain and just one of which, Birmingham, almost did.

Yes, but do you not see the great paradox at the heart of this? Those areas with relatively few immigrants voted that way because a. in a rural area, an influx of five (for the sake of argument) immigrants seems like a very large number, and more importantly b. they voted that way because they didn't want / were afraid of immigrants arriving.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

For reference:

https://facts4eu.org/top_5_reasons.shtml

Restoration of Democracy and UK Laws Being Decided in Parliament 18%
Immigration Concerns 16%
Safety and Security of the Country and Your Family 12%
Future Enlargement of the EU (Turkey, more Eastern European countries, etc) 11%
Knowing What The EU Will Become 10%

So, ok, number two reason by that site's online poll. Not number one reason as I stated earlier. What would I know? I didn't vote to leave..

[iansinclair]

I didn't vote, either, Ronde, for the simple reason that I live in the USA now.  However, had I voted, it would have been leave -- why?  Not because of immigration, but because of the Restoration of Democracy etc. thing.  Which is also why I would have voted, given the chance, to leave the UK (I'm a mislaid Scot; a mislaid Orcadian, to be more exact) -- except for the fact that then I would have been saddled with Holyrood, which is even less responsive than either Westminster or Brussels to those of us -- like my cousins -- who live in the peripheries.  And most of the Orcadians did vote to not separate from the UK -- and also to remain in the EU.

A good many Orcadians and our Shetland cousins would quite cheerfully be done with the lot of them, given the choice (applies to most of the Highlands and the Western Isles, too, come to that)!

It's a matter of picking your poison.  Which overbearing bureaucracy can you best live with?  None of them listen to you anyway...  and it seems to a lot of us in our little windswept islands that at least Brussels sends more money our way than either Westminster does, or Holyrood ever would.

[thalbergmad]

Not 50 words, no but, since it's you, I will indeed attempt to summarise, for what good it might or might not hope to do.

OK, the F&C Office statement tells people only what they already knew; nothing new. It does not invalidate the petition, nor does it or what follows lower down the page about the 12 July review of it signify that Parliament rejects the petition or finds it unacceptable and therefore shuts it down.

The referendum decision being "respected" doesn't mean that it must be taken as gospel by everyone.

Why?

No need for it.

Held for wrong reasons.

Conducted shabbily; much misinformation of both sides.

T&Cs far too lax in terms of minimum turnout and majority.

Wrong instrument for addressing the subject; why use a referendum when Parliament debate and vote's good enough for almost all other legislation?

Margin way too low for credibility. Only 37% voted Leave; nowhere near enough.

No one in authority had thought what to do in the event of a vote supporting Brexit, so now everyone's up creeks without canoes let alone paddles.

Referendum has no legal validity so why did Parliament foist it on the public?

Legal challenges to force Parliamentary debate and against the outcome of Leave campaign's misinformation are being mounted.

No one's prepared to invoke Article 50.

No other EU leader supported UK leaving EU.

Scotland voted against it, as did almost all of NI and England's largest cities (where, incidentally, there's the greatest numbers of immigrants).

226 words; best I can do. Surely you can manage that, between beers?

Best,

Alistair

Thanks for your failed attempt, which again has more repeats than Schubert.

I will repeat what i have said before.

YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

Thal.

[ahinton]

Yes, but do you not see the great paradox at the heart of this? Those areas with relatively few immigrants voted that way because a. in a rural area, an influx of five (for the sake of argument) immigrants seems like a very large number, and more importantly b. they voted that way because they didn't want / were afraid of immigrants arriving.

I just don't think that it's right. I'm in a constitutency that voted almost 60% Leave - so quite a high proportion as these things went - and there's a fair few immigrants around here already; it doesn't appear to have been an issue of overwhelming importance to local voters and I understand that, in the four public sessions conducted by our MP before the referendum, it was hardly mentioned at all.

Best,

Alistair