Really? This goes against much of what I have heard from other sources, to the effect that many of the simple folk, people of the regions, common clay etc voted for Brexit because of a perception that the EU was a money sink and that Brexit would result in more money remaining in the UK.
Exactly. Oh, I’m sure that there are plenty of EMP’s who will want to do exactly that, but the truth is still that the voters inside EU countries are still not that aware of what the EU does or doesn’t do, so mostly there’s no political gain in going the aggressive route.
If anything, the actual, very real danger to a swift negotiation with the UK is the exact opposite of a concerted effort to thwart a deal, but the usual bickering and disagreeing between members.
On the whole, I expect that Brexit will leave the UK in a similar situation as, say, Canada if Trump went and disbanded NAFTA. It will suck for some individual cases, but on the whole Canada will hardly become some sort of post apocalyptic wasteland.
There are **loads **of Leave voters who aren’t expecting a financial hit. YouGov’sJan survey shows that 57% of Leavers think Britain’s economy will be better off after we leave, 22% think it won’t make a difference, 12% don’t know and only 8% think it will makes Britain worse off.
NatCen’sstudy on the referendum conducted in June/Sept 2016 found that 47% of Leave voters thought leaving the EU would make Britain better off, 39% thought no difference and 15% worse off.
Leave voters did not vote to take a financial hit. They are not expecting one.
I believe the number “£350m a week” may have been mentioned one or two times…
I wish I could at least enjoy some schadenfreude in watching places like Cornwall, who did think they could vote overwhelmingly to Leave but still keep all the subsidies they were getting (or have them covered in full by the UK government), face the harsh reality of waving those benefits goodbye, but in truth it’s all going to be rather miserable for everyone for a while (except those already with wealth and power). Not “crash and burn” miserable, but a definite decline nonetheless.
The question on page 3 of that survey does not differentiate between the short term and the long term.
As I said upthread, those to whom I spoke were indeed expecting a hit, but only in the short term.
You might read further: on page 6, that survey asks if May is on the right track and only 19% say no.
Neither did UTJ, whose comment I was responding to.
Given that we have still not got our economy back on track after the 2008 hit, the distinction between short-term and long-term hits seems a fine one. Our economy is structurally weak, and our ability to recover from short-term hits is evidently at a low ebb. (See also this [government report](file:///C:/Users/Andrew.Russell/Downloads/SN06492.pdf) on our stalled productivity since 2007.)
I have read further, thanks. I’ve even graphed out some of the data, which is the kind of thing I like to do for fun. That question (which doesn’t actually ask if May is on the right track) asks about May “negotiating a new free trade deal” and “negotiating a new customs agreement” without specifying what those are. In the abstract, of course people are happy with the idea of a “new free trade deal”. It sounds fantastic. The details of what the deal actually is will inevitably impact on people’s opinions.
Luckily, YouGov are ahead of us. They have recentlyasked people about the prospects of May not getting the deal she wants. Presented with the prospect of border checks between UK and Ireland, limited free trade with tariffs or limits imposed on goods and services, and having customs checks on imports and exports:
30% say Good for Britain,
30% say Don’t Know
40% say Bad for Britain.
So we can see that people’s opinion is very dependent on the actual deal they’re offered. (We can also see from the tables that 41% of people think that May’s preferred deal is realistic, and 33% don’t. This is why it wasn’t accurate to say people were asked if she were on the right track. They were asked, “If Britain does secure the sort of Brexit deal that Theresa May has suggested do you think it would be good or bad for Britain?” which is not the same. The third who think the deal is unrealistic probably wouldn’t say she was on the right track. )
None of which contradicts the main point which is that Leave voters expect the economy to benefit or at least stay the same once we leave the EU.
I read a piece about Ebbw Vale, the voting district of the UK that receives the most EU money of any voting district, and has the lowest proportion of immigrants, but voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. The journalist did a straw poll and found that the biggest two reasons for voting for Brexit were to stem the outflow of money and the inflow of migrants.
Like I said, the simple folk, the people of the regions, the common clay, you know…
A mate was in Cornwall pre-vote and he said that the Cornish were looking forward to getting their fisheries back and there was not a word about subsidies.
So…one person didn’t mention subsidies? The council certainly has:
Spoiler alert: They didn’t get it.
No, he said that not one person mentioned subsidies. Remember that different people have different perspectives.
won’t say it
won’t say it
won’t say it
It seems that your mate has an extremely limited perspective.
I accept that your mate had not heard anyone discuss the issue of subsidies but, as I’ve demonstrated, it was certainly a topic of significant concern in some circles. And it’s worth noting that 1) many people may be unaware exactly what those subsidies are funding and the consequences of losing them , and 2) the people concerned about it are the people who know exactly what they’re funding and the consequences of losing them.
That’s a very silly remark; I’ve not shared everything about him.
As I said, different people have different perspectives. It’s worth listening to more than one perspective. Or do you prefer living in an echo chamber?
Of course, the simple folk voted for Leave and the sophisticated, metro/cosmopolitans - who understand these things so much better - voted the correct way 
It’s also entirely coincidental that the same, sophisticated metro types run the media and determine the boundaries of the on going narratives.
Broadly, people who voted Leave did so for a whole bunch of reasons that people who voted Remain are not affected by, either at all or to anything like the same extent. Things like public housing, class sizes, services generally but NHS/GP in particular, and working class/unskilled/semi-skilled wages - all deeply affected by uncontrolled immigration.
If the UK takes an economic hit because of Brexit, it will not be felt by people already significantly affected by uncontrolled immigration and the consequences of the financial collapse in 07-08 (that has seen a class was on working people).
In addition, specifically in relation to the EU, there are great concerns about transparency, fraud, waste, lack of democracy or even consultation on huge changes, and a relentless drive to further integration without reference to the voters.
Lastly, and don’t underestimate this, an awful lot of people are now concerned for their culture/ID/way of life. They’re not saying it’s threatened immediately, but that they want control taken back from, effectively Germany.
As I say in the post immediately prior to this one. The London media has not generally distinguished between ‘the economy’ taking a hit - which is inevitable, and particular social groups. And the poor, dumb country folk who largely voted Leave have already taken hit after hit from uncontrolled immigration and the Tories class war/austerity policy. They are already utterly fucked on everything from housing and class sizes to wages and child care.
Not so the young trendy youngish metro types or their professional parents and/or property owning classes who can subsidise healthcare, education and generally insulate themselves from the worst of the austerity.
You shared that he had not heard a single person had mentioned subsidies in his presence.
This means that he pays no attention whatsoever to his town council, as they have mentioned them extensively. It also means that he is not talking to anyone who does not share his perspective, as even from over here on this side of the pond, I have heard grumblings from cornwallis about the loss of the subsidy.
So yes, your mate has a very limited perspective. While I grant that you are correct when you say, “Remember that different people have different perspectives” I do need to point out that some perspective are useful, and some are not. The perspective of your mate, not a useful one. Not any more useful than a perspective that tells you nothing but exactly what shape and size your umbilical hernia is.
So after a longish period of centralizing and combining, for efficiency and to recognize the very real global community, we (US and UK, and Russia, and others) seem to be back on a slide towards maximum balkanization. Translated, “We want to sit here in our OWN puddle of shit instead of hooking up to world sewers.”
And you decided the entirety of his character on that one piece of info.
What a blitheringly stupid statement. Who said that he didn’t? You also seem to assume that he lives in Cornwall - he does not. Please, do continue to display your ignorance.