Brexit and moving London forward

A factor you cannot ignore is the motivation of 'equality'. Many people campaign to reduce inequality betwewen the richest and the poorest in Britain, and it has been shown that there are some 25 million people in the world who have expressed a desire to move to the UK , often for economic reasons.

Immigration is not going to go away as a global problem just because Brexit campaigned to 'get our country back'.

We may well find that the most important problem is not our access to the EU, but the willingness of theEU not to contest our exports with lower costs of labour thanks to their immigrant populations.

London's expansion may be regretted by some and yes we are seeing a real pressure on infrastructure and housing but they can be addressed in a thriving economy. When London's population was shrinking before the relatively recent increase things were bad. There is a lot of nostalgia around for a golden age: it didn't happen. And being a beacon for a non consumerist shrinking economy is not what London will ever do

Don't you think that people have a right to campaign against something they believe not to be in the interests of the country?

Given what May has said, it sounds like she will invoke Article 50 whatever people say now... but that doesn't change the fact that we live in a (very broken) democratic society which gives us a right to express our views.

FWIW - I think that 2020 will be far too late for the electorate to address this broken state of affairs.

Given the SNAFU of May's coronation, I think the best the country can hope for is that the investigations into the 31 Conservative constituencies that are alleged to have broken the electoral funding laws will see the results nullified, driving by elections and removing the Tory majority so that parliament can force a General Election before the negative outcomes are able to become irreversible...

... sadly, like most of the failures of the last few weeks, it's probably already too late...

And access to EU research funds would be good

The goal is definitely privatisation of the NHS, and it has already been restructured in readiness for privatisation.
Anyone living on only the basic state pension also gets state benefits if they are paying council tax and rent. Who knows what happens with Universal Credit, except that people with long term disabilities or permanent serious health problems will get less money for essentials.

I don't suppose I am the only one who does not want to be treated by doctors who work a 60 hour week, or looked after by nurses who have to do 12 hour shifts rather than 8 hour shifts.

When companies or individual farmers bring in workers from overseas who will accept zero-hours and wages below the minimum wage, then immigrants are driving down wages. Local people cannot live in the slum domitory accommodation that these workers are housed in, having homes they rent or own. If you take the food industry, it is supermarkets that keep the wages down because of the punitive contracts they get farmers to sign up to. Ask the farmers. It might bring lower food prices, but not to the extent that it makes up for the wages below the miniumum or zero-hours. My understanding is that research indicates that it is the low paid workers who are most affected by this competition in the price of labour. And actually they are also most likely to be immigrants themselves.

Geoffwolf - You assert that nationalisation doesn't work, but there is strong evidence that privatisation has been a massive failure in most implementations - e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/national-audit-office-wat… and https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/privatisation-pub…. Meanwhile, the nationalised East Coast rail line outperformed the privatised ones - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-r….

I'm not sure what the relevance of the 3rd runway at Heathrow is. Are you just saying that we need better transport infrastructure to get to the rest of the world now our relationship in Europe is damaged?

Yes - the "living wage" is no such thing. We have an implicit subsidy for corporations where we top up very low wages with tax credits. A ridiculous system.

Re: NHS privatisation - it seems clear that the current government has been de-funding the NHS/capita in order to force it into a politically driven deficit to force down standards in order to nationalise it. I struggle to accept that anyone assessing the current government actions regarding the NHS could believe otherwise.

Re: junior doctors - the problem isn't unsociable hours. The problem is that the concept of a "7-day NHS" is a canard designed to further damage the resolve of the NHS workforce. There was always a 7-day NHS for priority and urgent treatments. Hunt's claim that a higher percentage of people die when admitted over the weekend just reflects that if you go to hospital during the weekend, typically your problems are more severe. It was just elective surgery that didn't happen over the weekends. In short, it's a lie.

Re: wages held down by immigrant workers - the wages have been jointly negotiated and agreed by the unions in a collective bargain... and the government is trying to pay the workforce approximately the same amount, but to make their working hours less convenient with more coverage with the same amount of money - implying fewer resources at all times. As you say, it has nothing to do with immigration (although it doesn't have anything to do with price competition either).

Indeed yes. The achievements of the post-war years were the outcome of the UK political consensus, from the end of the war to 1979 when Thatcher became PM. The main political parties stuck to Keynsian economics, the welfare state, and nationalisation of some major industries. With Thatcher came the monetarists, Keith Joseph, and etc.

I am not saying that the EU won and protected workers' rights. I am saying that with the previously socialist working class now clearly either voting Tory or not voting at all, and with increasingly right-wing minimal-state Tory governments in power, the EU has become a better chance of retaining at least a basic safety net of some kind. Though not a very good one.

Theresa May is now Prime Minister and we're not getting a 2nd referendum. But those who voted Remain might be happier with her than with the other candidates.

jewellguitars - FWIW - I took a quick look at the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 laws (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2013/14/enacted). Like the European Union Referendum Act 2015, I couldn't see anything in there that overrules the sovereignty of parliament to enact laws, so I suspect that the Scottish Referendum would also have been considered "advisory".

However, there are reasons to consider the Scottish Independence vote a more valid exercise in democracy than the EU vote. The Scottish Independence vote was announced a full 18 months prior to the actual vote taking place, with a 670 page document published 10 months prior to the referendum explaining in detail the expectations for what would happen after a vote to secede.

In contrast, the UK had 4 months between when the EU referendum was announced and only during the last 10 weeks of that were official funds for active campaigning made available. The Leave campaign published a 16 page pamphlet with very large text, lots of dubious claims about the EU and a total of 1293 words. It manifestly does not provide the electorate with the necessary information to adequately weigh up the pros and cons of a vote to leave. More info here - https://medium.com/@kirstymhall/brexit-was-a-con-67532113a7c

In fact, even today, I don't think anyone can say in full certainty which of the models for forming a post-Brexit relationship with the EU that "we" have selected.

Should the government be pursuing a Norway-style membership of the EEA with free trade in goods (other than tariffs on agriculture, fishing and customs costs) and services, free movement of people and full contributions to the EU budget but no say in EU decision making?

Should it aim for a Swiss-style membership of the European Free Trade Area, with free trade in goods (other than tariffs on agriculture, fishing and customs costs), limited free trade in services (excluding financial services), limited free movement of people (as part of the Schengen zone), no say in EU decision making, but having to comply with EU rules for access to the single market and smaller contributions to the EU budget?

Should it aim for Canada-style bilateral free trade agreements with free trade in goods (other than tariffs on agriculture, fishing and some manufactured goods as well as customs costs), limited free trade in services (excluding financial services), but without free movement of people and no contributions to the EU budget, but needing to comply with EU rules to access the single market?

Should it aim for a Turkey-like customs union, where there is with free trade in goods (other than tariffs on agriculture, fishing and some manufactured goods as well as customs costs), no free trade in services, no free movement of people and no contributions to the EU budget, but needing to comply with EU rules to access the single market?

... Or should it aim for a WTO-model, where there's no free trade in goods (subject to EU external tariffs), no free trade in services, no free movement of people, no contributions to the EU budget, but where we have full regulatory independence?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmwXJT8WcAA_LkB.jpg to see the options in a neat and easy to understand table)

When you ask "What part of OUT don't you all understand??", I'd be interested to know which of these different models you think we voted for?

Yes happier about not having to sign up to the TTIP, or at least the clauses that remove sovereignty. But majorly concerned because at least with TTIP vigilant people spotted TTIP and set up the Europe-wide campaign against the negative clauses. Whereas once we are out of the EU, the UK government will be negotiating trade agreements behind our backs, and if we do find out about them & the details, who in the UK will be monitoring? Will there be enough people campaigning against any trade agreements that take away UK sovereignty? I really have no faith at all that the people who voted Brexit would put as much effort into safeguarding our sovereignty once we are out of the EU.

That is less than half of those registered to vote, and just over one third of those entitled to vote. It is only democratic if the population is sufficiently well-informed to vote on the referendum subject. As the Leave campaign deliberately lied and as both campaigns used psychological tricks to induce the electorate to vote on the basis of emotion and fears rather than making informed decisions, it can hardly be called democratic.
And it was an ADVISORY referendum, not binding.

And frankly I would be less concerned about the referendum results if I thought that the people who voted Brexit would be bothering to campaign against the UK signing non-EU trade agreements that give away UK sovereignty to a far greater extent than being in the EU does. Or if Brexiters could be relied upon to monitor & campaign against as appropriate all UK legislation changes and new legislation from here on to ensure that UK workers don't lose any rights.

As mentioned previously 521 parliamentary constituencies had a majority for Leave (tell me if that number is incorrect). If MPs are to represent their constituents they would therefore vote for Article 50. MPs also voted 6 to 1 to hold a referendum. It would be the worst of all possible worlds to delay over-long.

MPs also have a responsibility to act for the good of their constituencies and the UK.