itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

I agree with that in essence and leaving will tell us if terrorist attacks increase, budget airlines stop flying here and we're all £4,700 worse off every year.... However, it does happen and in prominent places. From a Guardian article. They should have spoken to industry instead of using stats that suited their agenda; but then that's not how scare works. Our members and other trade associations noted an immediate pick up in sales and inquiries as some certainty was finally delivered with the ref....I did tell the Guardian; strangely they weren't interested.

You're talking about something created post war that has changed beyond recognition. It's much more, than many expected and wanted it to be. Plus, no EU, no single market....chicken, egg. And it leads nicely onto that ignorance; are you saying we can leave the EU and remain part of the single market without negotiation? Or do you believe subsequent treaties block that option? If I'm wrong then fair enough but nothing about the language, actions or campaigns make me see it any different. Of course I am not seriously suggesting that's it's just a trading block, it's so much more; but it concentrated on being a trading block which is why a message about English being less important was delivered in English, Africa is treated as a cashcow by EU policy, our desire to talk people protection was kicked into the long grass and historic borders such as the Irish one will remain under the microscope instead of under the radar. All these decisions are about trade, because the EU is more concerned with trade that co-operation. Even it's terms of co-operation and entry are based on trade. That's why the question to leave was about the single market and why everyone, leave or remain, used that fact to either promote or condemn arguments. I get your original point but we're here now and we are having exactly the same debates. Being pedantic about the question is not helpful when everyone who did any research knew the potential reality of their vote.

There are cases supporting either side, so to 'ahem' with such confidence misses the point made in the long quote! ECJ decisions are unpredictable as we saw with the greendeal. I'll also include the section of the article which you missed out. He starts with 'will not' and ends with 'should fervently hope'. Btw this isn't an attack but you're a smart cookie so I was surprised you posted in the manner you did.

I don't get this point of view. Leaving the EU is leaving the single market because the EU is the single market; it's a trading union not a co-operative one. (exampled many times by Junker and the EU post Brexit) It was mentioned by 'Remain' scare stories (facts) throughout the campaign and reiterated by many 'Leavers'. It's like the battlebus; only the very entrenched still use it to criticise 'Leave' because they weren't interested in what was being said or even how they said it. The same ignorance has already permeated our papers this morning with the 'Labour taking us back to the 1970's' story. The radio is full of callers regurgitating headlines and not reality and it bloody stinks.

Definitely correct. My dad works in parts manufacturing for a now American company and it's vital. However; for the last decade he's been told the plant is moving so historically there is a little bit of 'all talk'. So far so good and they won some new orders, though brexit is clearly making companies think tax advantages abroad. Efficiency is definitely one important factor in why they are staying however I am going to question where you got your stats from. To me it seems 2000 was the glory year with car ownership in the 25m mark. We have a lot more cars on our and foreign roads, so perhaps the stats aren't actually all that great? As with San Fran and the EV car fiasco, Japanese companies are already moving in to try and realise a marketplace post-Brexit.

Apart from the obvious issues caused by the financial crash, feel free to elaborate as banking is not my specialty!

Okay, I'll give you a few reasons that aren't wrapped in convenient stats. (eg- levels of employment which are skewed by temp work and zero hours contracts) T-Levels - About bloody time. Apprenticeships are vital and thank god they have been a focus so we could progress to T-Levels. Concentrating exclusively on pre-16 is wrong. Fairer Funding in Schools - Suddenly Labour are vehemently against it on the grounds they would spend more....not deliver more! Many teachers also support the policy. Housing - Whatever people say IT IS local authorities that are stopping supply coming through, May is changing Cameron's 'demand' direction and thank god, because Labour don't get it and created this mess in the first place! Especially in London. HA's are even impacted by local politics. Brexit - Do you want a party who understands the seriousness of the decision or one which says they understand but don't speak to industry? Tories listen, Labour often look for soundbites. Increase in personal tax allowance - We can thank the Lib Dems for this, but again, the Tories do listen to good advice and May is much better than Cameron for it. Of course there are many reasons against but I agree, 'the majority of voters will not read into what the parties are offering and they won't compare and reflect on the likely impact stated policies may have on their lives.' You may have illustrated that perfectly... Your brexit reasoning can also be applied to joining the EU too. Nobody told the people we'd swap manufacturing for arts, state aid (no matter how necessary/relevant) for a European court, local for big business and an increase from 9 to 28 voting members. Yet that's what happened and was always going to happen......just like the likely change we'd leave the single market etc....people have to think about the consequences too, you can't just blame politicians for campaigns or we'd be savaging remain every day! Finally, the Corbyn criticism is a disgrace and I agree wholeheartedly. I'm really angry that he never got a proper chance. Though, he's not really progressed his message while in debates and his replies are often soundbites or confused ramblings (though generally great content). The party is to blame and the media loves an ongoing scoop but he doesn't help himself, for example, he still sticks to Diane Abbot like 'ahem' and it must be great to know all those incredibly bright under 28 years olds to take up senior positions......

She is pretty sharp tongued when prepared but when questioned directly I'm not sure she's either stern enough to be like Thatcher or evasive enough to be like Cameron. Having said that I have probably seen 2 questions from Corbyn which made me think hmmmm, how would I answer that. He's a horrible questioner despite having great material.

Depends, did they vote Labour in 2001 and 2005?

Young people didn't vote in great enough numbers so perhaps the EU wasn't that important to them? Also houses prices are unaffordable,welfare has been cut, free education is no more but the EU continues do ignore their stakeholders as trade is so important....leaving the EU might be the best thing to have happened to young people. Especially if it kicks the EU and the UK up the behind.

Ignorance is bliss. I sometimes attend some high level political events where v wealthy donors appear (usually Labour events). Imo there is little difference between the two parties at that level; the level which runs the party.... You do make a good point though; A Lib Dem potentially winning in Richmond. Labour in Birmingham keeping seats. Caroline Lucas voters forgetting the Green record in the city. Labour voters forgetting that the guys who made all the mistakes are still running the party. I make my voting decision on how engaged my local candidate is, not on the rhetoric put out by twitter/parties/uninformed voters/media. When I lived in Moseley it was Jerry Evans, near Lichfield Chris Pincher and now in Brighton, well, the opposition to the Tories do not deserve speaking about. Maybe I'll go independent.

Useful but sadly not that accurate. One school I know has a budget cut of 5 teachers/15% (according to that site). Speaking to the Head who runs it they are actually in surplus next year and need extra staff; which they can afford. I'll try and find out the impact on the other two schools they manage/have managed.

I hope they don't vote Labour either. The architects of many Tory policies.

Worrying but apparently they're still talking about it.....

I know a few primary schools who aren't worrying. Secondary schools are in quite a pickle. Also higher echelons of learning? Seriously? As in what? Learning that gets you a job? Or education that lets you laud it over those deemed 'less intelligent?' Do me a favour and actually look at some of the educational announcements. At the moment I am consulting on T-Levels and jesus christ do we have an opportunity to shift education away from the mess it currently stands. The mess Labour seem to think is the answer. Good god the Tory's don't get it but at least they're trying! Quite some time ago eh! If working out whether regulation has been strengthened (before harking on about something fairly irrelevant) I'd have refereed to the Housing Standards Review.....Tories were in charge; sorry! What we can say is that Cameron was awful and built too few homes with too much emphasis on demand; but Labour, they are the real villains of the piece. Not only do their councils stifle planning hugely but the party are guilty of even now, misunderstanding the issue completely. Plus remember, the modern day planning process has Labour all over it. (we will soon see if May is as bad/lazy). Tbf John Healey is a nice guy who knows the issues and is willing to listen to solutions.....however, Labour appear a party of opposition rather than scrutiny and so we rarely have a reasoned debate on the subject.....well, unless lots of Tory's turn up. If you were forced to portion total blame at any party (and I don't think that's fair), then Labour made a real mess of housing in London.

Don't worry about the wording. I get you completely. I just wanted to clarify before I throw my toys out of the pram (not this time thank god) I'm not going to pretend I know enough about ECJ rulings, I simply don't and you're right that it is accepted as legitimate. (v good choice of word ;)) Annoyingly I don't even have the time to look it up this weekend but I do know a few cases that didn't really make a lot of sense because of sovereignty. Not small things either. It's easy to bang on about but the greendeal is one such example. At times the one rule for all (ECJ interpreted) is so far askew from the reality for others. The EU and ECJ has done a spectacularly poor job at realigning that. Though DC probably emboldened them with his pathetic renegotiation. I see parallels with yesterdays school holiday decision. If schools and govt are going to be so heavy handed (rightly or wrongly) perhaps they should be more responsible for the consequences? Also I'd guess in many court scenarios the decision makers sometimes get the rulings they need and not the ones that are right. Though of course that comes down to opinion. It's another discussion that should have been had fully pre-referendum. I wanted to know what influence the ECJ has and why that was good/bad. Nobody could give me the answer so I made decisions based on the little info I had.

Just to clarify, are you saying the ECJ has been used without problems for donkey's years?

Exactly right. And no, the problem is the Tories don't know what they are impacting; they just assume life is like X,Y and Z without really exploring the reality. Hence the panel debacle. I used to think it was arrogance but on too many occasions I have experienced it as ignorance. So many just don't know any better! Just for the record I started my benefits advice journey under the Labour party and the mess you see before you is their structure. They devalued our public services to the point of almost impossible return, especially in benefits. I hold Labour very much accountable for this mess, I didn't expect the Tories to do anything less than rub their hands with glee at how privatised Labour made the benefits and job searching system. The Tories are doing what they always do, think this as about work and not a route into work.

I used to work with people who claimed these benefits, or more accurately I worked for a private company who tried to get claimants off them through work, or reassessment (when they were judged fit for work). It was a real issue and I made a special effort to help people when they truly needed it....much to the displeasure of my company. They say it doesn't but it does work like that. At least the panels have started to work for and not against claimants, though it took many years for that to happen. The whole system stinks, right from the jobcentre to the assessments. Sadly @Stevo985 has it right, they rely on people either not making the effort or struggling to understand the language and process. Having said that the most successful claimants were always the ones who said nothing....in many cases honesty is not something that favours a claimant. Glad you saw justice, eventually.

A bit of reality would be great eh! The same can be said for those who complained EU citizens should not be used as a bargaining chip. It's incredible how ignorant people can be, as @MakemineVanilla also pointed out. Too many people only see one point of view without at least accepting the reality of another position.

Great post @lapal_fan. How we needed more of this sort of perspective pre-referendum. I will however throw a cat among the pigeons and perhaps someone else can put a perspective or even facts forward; that is defending spending on defence. Despite all too often bringing pain and sorrow, defence gives a lot to society. Some nations use 40% of defence spending on RnD, with tech regularly reaching the open market. This forum exists because of defence spending. When we look at private RnD we could easily argue that it's in their interest to advance relative to competition. And in the public sphere there are many experiments for the sake of experiments. (not always a bad thing) Defence navigates that political and competitive minefield with fewer burdens and although it could be argued it's for very specific applications, those applications often become part of a complete product. For example, defence RnD in batteries has amped heavily since drones developed a real purpose, supported by extensive defence spending on GPS. With the little knowledge I have I feel it might be a better solution to share more military RnD and patents with universities/researchers rather than considerably drop military funding. That way two public entities (one favouring society) could be part of the process.

It's really quite entertaining. Enjoyed it thoroughly. Not strictly a movie but movie length; however, Simon Amstells Carnage is both brilliant and hilarious.

I felt our need to take EU regulation and implement its structure everywhere a real issue. It definitely blurred the lines of where the EU influences. eg - procurement. The watchdog comment is also pretty interesting, I guess there are directives and regulations too. Though language is important too. If you look at the green deal and VAT, I believe our interpretation of the language was a little different from the ECJ's. The worst thing about all of this is the four years wasted by people butting heads on issues that became too big for many to climb down from. Good god I wish we'd have talked a little more about the EU.

But that's US politics. Their system has been cheap, tawdry and completely undignified for decades. In the context of US politics HE did look Presidential. I think that's something many anti-Trump people forget. Both those of us looking in and the Americans who have suddenly found their policy voice now there's a President with 'vilify me' stuck to his back, front and everywhere else.

Do you feel the same about the one to get us into the EEC?