How to Cope With Post-Election Stress

Nov 12, 2016

By Julie Beck

Collective trauma is “a shared experience of threat and anxiety in response to sudden or ongoing events that lead to some threat to a basic sense of belonging in society,” says Jack Saul, the director of the International Trauma Studies Program. “It usually is a disruption to the social and moral order.”

One could argue that those who opposed Donald Trump’s election have been through a collective trauma that has left them feeling rattled and afraid. Women and people of color have good reason to be anxious, given the sexist and racist things Trump said during the campaign, given his threats against the women who accused him of sexual assault, given how he has painted Mexicans as criminals, given that he was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, given so, so many things. People have very real fears rooted in policies Trump has promised to enact in office—including a ban on Muslim immigrants and the deportation of millions of immigrants.

It’s more than plausible to interpret the election of someone who openly espouses such views to the nation’s highest office as a disruption of the social and moral order.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

58 comments on “How to Cope With Post-Election Stress

  • 1
    Cairsley says:

    I was looking forward to the presidential election on 8th November for the simple reason that, once the president had been elected, everyone would shut the fuck up about that circus called American politics and would settle back down to the ordinary business of life. But the unthinkable happened, the orange clown was elected and has wasted no time in indicating that the circus is not going away any time soon. Those so far chosen for cabinet positions and other positions of influence are all of either the regressive, science-denying, anti-intellectual mindset or close kin of the orange clown himself. Not only are we witnessing preparation for a move to an irrational combination of laissez-faire capitalism and protectionism, along with mediaeval obscurantism, but for even more bribery and corruption in a political system already worryingly corrupt. What the orange clown has been saying all through his campaign gives a general indication of what he will strive to implement. The damage this proudly ignorant buffoon can now do ensures that people everywhere in the world will continue to worry about his intentions and actions, and that alone must be very gratifying to his monstrously inflated ego.

    Americans! What have you done?!



    Report abuse

  • “I think probably a lot of people in this country take democracy for granted,” McNaughton-Cassill says.

    This was the last line of the article and the most important one. Democracy, as the prophetic Norman Mailer said, is a delicate thing. He called it “a state of grace.”

    The author of the article says we should take action. But what if that right, the right to protest and to speak out against the government, is suppressed?

    I don’t think Trump is a clown. The man is highly dangerous. He is a man truly to be feared. Clowns are not dangerous. Mussolini was no clown. We may be on the brink of something far worse than we can imagine, worse than all of the terrible things mentioned in the comment above; to wit, the emergence of a totalitarian society. Look at this tweet from Trump’s beloved Sheriff Clarke, who may be appointed to be a member of Trump’s cabinet. He is referencing the protesters.

    David A. Clarke, Jr. ✔@SheriffClarke
    These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled. [!!!] There is no legitimate reason to protest the will of the people.
    11:45 PM – 9 Nov 2016

    From The Second Coming (Yeats)

    . . . A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    . . . What rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

    That rough beast is totalitarianism.

    On a more positive note the author does offer some nice bits of practical advice.



    Report abuse

  • I am really quite surprised at how otherwise intelligent people can come to this website and talk like frightened children. Your problem is the fact that you believe all of the left wing hype about Trump. This was an election fought over nationalism vs globalism, not the traditional left vs right. The mass media and utterly corrupt Clinton campaign conspire to paint any form of opposition as a racist, a sexist, a bigot etc. And you trembling little babies read articles such as this and believe it. Well I am a Trump supporter and I have never committed a crime or any form of verbal or physical abuse. On the other hand I see thousands of Clinton supporters rioting in the streets and violently assaulting innocent people of all ages. You would indeed be happy to tear down democracy to get what you want. We would all be better off if you would stop rioting, assaulting, calling for Trumps assassination and open your eyes to the millions of decent people who live along side you, but who don’t share your opinion. Now grow up.



    Report abuse

  • Olgan, I honestly can’t be bothered. After Brexit happened and then Trump was elected I thought that the gigantic group think bubble of the left would finally burst, then the left would actually listen to the legitimate concerns of the “deplorables” as Hillary so delicately described us. Hillary’s sense of entitlement, her bias media machine and the utterly intolerant left wing supporters have shown no signs of abating. I am sure that their safe spaces will grow ever bigger and their fear of deplorables will grow ever stronger, the media will become more biased and we will never see eye to eye. I have a prediction – either the left stop what they are doing, calm down, show some respect and engage the “right” or you will see this backlash continue around the world. For starters, you will see European countries elect far right parties and then watch as they leave the EU one by one. I am not saying these things like some internet troll, I really believe them and so do millions of others.



    Report abuse

  • Moderator message

    Would all commenters please remember that rudeness to other users of the site is strictly prohibited by our Terms of Use. Make your points, argue, disagree, by all means. But keep it civil, thoughtful and constructive, please.

    The ethos of the site is set out in Section 14, right at the bottom of the long text at http://www.www.richarddawkins.net/tcp (also linked to at the foot of every page).

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • I between the left and the right is reason and facts S. Grant. Unless that FACT is observed it seems a waste of time pandering to phobic fears.



    Report abuse

  • S. Grant #5
    Nov 13, 2016 at 4:54 am

    Olgan, I honestly can’t be bothered.

    This does suggest that you could not be bothered to look into Trump’s history and just accepted media superficial slanging matches in place of policy analysis.

    After Brexit happened and then Trump was elected I thought that the gigantic group think bubble of the left would finally burst,

    Brexit was a a fantasy fairy-tale made up by the nutters of UKIP and the loony fringes of the Tory Party. Nobody who actually looked competently at the practical implications thought it was a good idea.
    As for the UK “left wing bubble”, that has materialised as the fantasies of the Corbynites and a failed opposition core of MPs which has still not recognised key issues!

    then the left would actually listen to the legitimate concerns of the “deplorables” as Hillary so delicately described us. Hillary’s sense of entitlement, her bias media machine and the utterly intolerant left wing supporters have shown no signs of abating.

    Trump has identified several legitimate failings of previous administrations – particularly in foreign policies of starting civil wars, by incompetently interfering in flawed attempts at regime change.
    The worst of these, costing thousands of lives, causing massive refugee problems, and costing the US taxpayers $trillions, arise mainly from the Bush administration.

    These are “on the record history” which anyone can quote.
    When it comes to practical visions for the future, Trump only offers rhetoric, confused misconceptions, and advice from bigoted know-nothing ignoramuses such as climate change deniers and anti-medical services clowns!



    Report abuse

  • S. Grant #8
    Nov 13, 2016 at 5:33 am

    Here’s a FACT. Donald Trump is president of the United States and you have no idea why.

    “Why?” is an issue for post election analysis, with a view to the next election, although it looks like a combination of rebel anti-establishment reaction, one-issue Anti-abortion religiosity, Trump’s pandering to identifiable sections of population group think, a media smoke screen of petty personal sniping in place of constructive policy issues, and poor arguments from campaigning Democrats.

    However, the immediate issue, is the potential damage likely to be caused by a president with no political experience, a history litigatious bullying and personal abuse, of critics and opponents, and his close associations with corrupt lobbyists and anti-science and anti-regulation conspiracy nuts!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – How to Cope With Post-Election Stress

    It would seem that teenagers subjected to the stressful effects of political actions, crime, poverty, civil wars etc., are likely to have sex-based differing responses!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37936514

    Teenage boys and girls respond to severe stress in different ways deep inside their brains, the researchers suggest

    Very stressful events affect the brains of girls and boys in different ways, a Stanford University study suggests.

    A part of the brain linked to emotions and empathy, called the insula, was found to be particularly small in girls who had suffered trauma.

    But in traumatised boys, the insula was larger than usual.

    This could explain why girls are more likely than boys to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the researchers said.

    Their findings suggest that boys and girls could display contrasting symptoms after a particularly distressing or frightening event, and should be treated differently as a result.

    The research team, from Stanford University School of Medicine, said girls who develop PTSD may actually be suffering from a faster than normal ageing of one part of the insula – an area of the brain which processes feelings and pain.



    Report abuse

  • Alan,

    This may explain the recent five to one ratio of distress amongst girls due to social media/internet bullying. This may also account for the apparent stability of patriarchies and their bullying tactics. We know early cortisol (stress) has an adverse effect on topical brain growth and that this can run on epigenetically for a generation or two….



    Report abuse

  • @#9 – Trump only offers rhetoric, confused misconceptions, and advice from bigoted know-nothing ignoramuses such as climate change deniers and anti-medical services clowns!

    . . . and as if there was not already enough evidence of this!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37965089

    Nigel Farage has become the first British politician to meet Donald Trump since he became US president-elect.

    A UKIP spokesman said the interim party leader discussed “freedom and winning” with Mr Trump on a visit to Trump Tower in New York.

    Mr Trump’s spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway said the meeting had been “very productive”.

    Downing Street said Mr Farage had “no role” in the government’s relationship with the incoming US administration.

    Speaking after the meeting, Mr Farage said: “It was a great honour to spend time with Donald Trump. He was relaxed, and full of good ideas.

    “I’m confident he will be a good president. His support for the US-UK relationship is very strong. This is a man with whom we can do business.”

    Analysis – By Chris Mason, political correspondent

    It’s the image that encapsulates politics in 2016. President-elect Trump, in an open necked shirt, smiles, giving the thumbs up gesture.

    He’s stood, shoulder to shoulder, with Nigel Farage in front of a glitzy, golden backdrop inside Trump Tower in New York. Outsiders, who faced scorn and ridicule, they stand together now as winners. To be anti-establishment now is to be mainstream.

    The two men, catalysts for political convulsions on both sides of the Atlantic, discussed “freedom and winning,” UKIP sources said.

    Their meeting was an embarrassment for Downing Street and stellar political theatre – but perhaps only that. Nigel Farage knows Mr Trump, but wields no power.

    The challenge for the UK government now is to build bridges with a new American administration it didn’t want, and didn’t expect to win.

    When it comes to seeking advice from ignorant opinionated idiots, Trump can sure pick ’em!



    Report abuse

  • Erol #16
    Nov 13, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Here’s a very interesting article about the alarming rise of nationalism and its spawning of Brexit and Trump:

    You have indeed identified one of the causes of the predominance of rhetorical hype over reasoned evaluation of policies.

    The Daily Mail, The Express, and Faux News are regular fountains of ignorant hype, the selfishness playing sections of the poor against other sections of the poor, and divisive nationalism, targetted at the poorly informed who are looking for simplistic answers to the abuses the fat-cat supporters of these media outlets are inflicting on the ordinary citizens!

    It is laughable to suggest that abrasive billionaire property developers like Trump, are friends of the ordinary citizen!



    Report abuse

  • @17

    In this regard Trump has clearly acted as a con artist, for which millions have unfortunately fallen for. He knew that his outrageous nationalistic speeches were the only conceivable way that he was going to win the election, ironically aided at the last moment by the FBI head.

    Now that he’s won the election what is he going to do????? I suspect it was the winning that was MOST important – a kind of ego satisfaction of stupendous proportions. An optimist might wish for an eventual ‘national unity’ government in which Hilary and Obama could actually take part in! After all Trump apparently had Democrat leanings once! We will just have to wait and see how things pan out.



    Report abuse

  • A good and very well-informed friend of mine, who lives in SC, sent me this (below). It gave me (a little) comfort. Maybe it’ll comfort someone else.

    “It’s scary. I won’t lie, but there are a lot of good people that will be watching the slightest thing he does. Already there have been street demonstrations. The intelligence community doesn’t like him and I am not talking about the very top people, but the people that make up the every day running of the CIA and FBI. He doesn’t have their support. In a year or so when it becomes clear that he is not doing anything to help the white blue collar they will turn on him as well. He will have a lame duck administration after the first 100 days.”



    Report abuse

  • Dan #23
    Nov 13, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    The intelligence community doesn’t like him and I am not talking about the very top people, but the people that make up the every day running of the CIA and FBI. He doesn’t have their support.

    It looks like there is a job for them or the police to investigate already!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37968490

    The Fox News presenter Megyn Kelly has claimed Donald Trump tried to influence her to cover him positively by offering gifts including free hotel stays.

    She said she was not the only journalist who had been offered gifts, saying this was “one of the untold stories of the 2016 campaign”.

    The claims are in her memoir, to be released on Tuesday.

    In her memoir, Ms Kelly alleges that Mr Trump offered to fly her and her husband to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, or let her and her friends stay at his New York City hotel for free for the weekend. She said she did not accept his offers.



    Report abuse

  • Erol #16
    Nov 13, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Here’s a very interesting article about the alarming rise of nationalism and its spawning of Brexit and Trump:

    dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3929240/For-decades-arrogant-global-ruling-class-tried-crush-spirit-nationhonhood-says-DOMINIC-SANDBROOK

    Ethical campaigners are starting to tackle these irresponsible disinformation rags which are marketed as newspapers!
    Hitting their advertising profits as the only areas they care about, may act as a deterrent!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37962425

    Lego has announced its promotional giveaways with the Daily Mail have ended – amid a campaign to stop firms advertising with some newspapers over “divisive” coverage of migrants.

    The firm regularly gives away free toys via the paper, but said there would be no more “in the foreseeable future”.

    Lego did not say why the tie-up had ended – but said it had listened carefully to parents and grandparents.

    Stop Funding Hate has lobbied firms to stop advertising with some newspapers.

    The group, formed in the summer, has criticised several national newspapers for “portraying migrants in overwhelmingly negative terms” and whipping up hatred before and after the EU referendum.

    It has urged companies including John Lewis, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer to stop advertising with the Daily Mail, the Sun and Daily Express.

    Responding to a tweet from Stop Funding Hate, Lego confirmed its promotional agreement with the Mail had ended.



    Report abuse

  • @22

    The article gave a reasoned assessment of WHY nationalistic attitudes had arisen across Europe. I didn’t consider it to be an example of ‘disinformation’ as the BBC implies.



    Report abuse

  • Erol #23
    Nov 14, 2016 at 3:58 am

    @22 – The article gave a reasoned assessment of WHY nationalistic attitudes had arisen across Europe.

    When the pseudo-evidence is made up, or just asserted hype, and “reasoning” which is based on it is just propaganda.

    @ Your #16 dailymail. link: – And in his message to the ‘world community’, designed to reassure foreign leaders that he would ‘deal fairly’ with them, Mr Trump added something else. ‘We will,’ he said, ‘always put America first.’

    This is just quoting Trump’s empty self-contradictory double-talk.
    You need to look at earlier examples from his business activities and bankruptcies, of what Trump considers to be “fairness”!

    Put America first. Restore lost greatness. Here, boiled down to its essentials, was Mr Trump’s manifesto. There is a word for this kind of thing, and it is nationalism.

    America has huge potential to be a leading power in the development green energy industries. It is already a great power in space technologies, communications, and computing.

    This claim is just rebranding economic and social backwardness as some antiquated delusion of past “greatness” which did not exist!

    The whole article is deceptive media hype – especially the part about brexit which after months of chanting “Brexit means Brexit” is still a totally undefined “Emperor’s new Clothes” type right-wing Utopian fantasy – with no details of what is involved, how it is supposed to work better than existing systems, or indeed, how it is supposed to work at all! It still has no operational plan, and is demanding that parliament sign a blank cheque for the secretive antics of this brexiteering government of secretive fantacists – who are simply ignoring all the expert advice they have been given! They don’t want a parliamentary debate because they don’t have a credible argument. (A bunch of liars and media propagandists, conned poorly informed members of the public to ignore expert advice and vote for stupidity – is not a credible argument!)
    (The open secret, is “they don’t have a plan, and have no idea how to write one”! – but they do have air-head stooge anti-authority journalists cheering them on!)

    I didn’t consider it to be an example of ‘disinformation’ as the BBC implies.

    The empty assertion that isolationist protectionism will generate “greatness” by attacking the poor and minorities, is pure wish-thinking!
    Perhaps you should look at evidence from history, and consider the matter more deeply.

    The only thing “great” about American healthcare before Obamacare, was the scale of the rip-off of US citizens!



    Report abuse

  • Not sure if I would have read past the headline Erol. It does not take in any aspect of a well intended unity of Europe and uses ‘nationhood’ instead of ‘statehood’ exactly for that reason IMHO!



    Report abuse

  • Phil, Alan,

    Brexit was declared because 52% of the population voted for it! Trump has won the U.S. election because his ‘make America great again’ appeal to the nationalist segment of the U.S. population dominated in the Electoral College system they adopted (and was ONLY 200,000 votes in favour of HC by populist numbers!).

    Which ever way you look at it large segments of the UK, U.S. and European populations currently have nationalistic leanings which the Mail article was highlighting. If you try to dismiss this using insinuations of ‘propaganda’ you are very mistaken in my opinion.

    (Unfortunately I will be off-line now for the rest of the day but will reply to any further posts when I return)



    Report abuse

  • Erol #29
    Nov 14, 2016 at 5:26 am

    Which ever way you look at it large segments of the UK, U.S. and European populations currently have nationalistic leanings which the Mail article was highlighting.

    Actually a small majority of the UK population, who have no understanding of the big issues and are largely ignorant of the expert advice on the subject, have been misled and sold nationalistic propaganda BY the vacuous hype in rags like the Mail and the Express.

    The argument in the Mail, is circular! “This is a good idea because WE have conned many ignorant people as a basis to swamp and contradict the expert opinions which parliament should be heeding”!

    If you try to dismiss this using insinuations of ‘propaganda’ you are very mistaken in my opinion.

    Propaganda is opinions which are hype lacking any evidenced basis! The assertions are ignorant garbage of no substance!

    As I pointed out earlier, “the brexiteers’ plan” is to try to dodge the legitimate scrutiny by parliament – (scrutiny which functions to recognise and correct damaging mistakes) in order to hide the fact from the public, that they don’t have a plan, don’t know how to write a plan, and have no idea (apart from whimsical wish-thinking), what the outcome of these actions are likely to be.

    Experts in various fields have warned of predictable severely damaging effects, but brexiteers don’t want to listen to experts on trade, economics, industry, banking, science engineering etc.
    They have ideological answers based on ignorance and prejudice!

    As I pointed out in David Attenborough’s quote of Brexiteer Gove:-

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/11/richard-dawkins-and-other-prominent-scientists-react-to-trumps-win/#li-comment-214271

    Sir David argued the claim, frequently touted by Michael Gove, during the Brexit campaign that “we’ve had enough of experts” was “catastrophic”.

    So Brexiteer Gove – the man who set new UK records for the most votes of no confidence in him as a Tory government minister, and who has now been sacked by Teresa May, like many brexiteers, demands the ignorant, fed simplistic nonsense from disinformation rags, should shout down expert advice and scapegoat the EU for UK national government blunders and failures!

    There is an illegal immigrant problem, but this is caused by the TORY government’s cuts in the Boarder Agency staff, and the use of three patrol boats guarding thousands of miles UK shores, when another EIGHT boats (belatedly ordered), are needed to do a proper job!
    This has NOTHING to do with the EU!



    Report abuse

  • dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3929240/For-decades-arrogant-global-ruling-class-tried-crush-spirit-nationhonhood-says-DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-

    There is a certain ironic comedy about a posturing journalist, with airs of superiority, disingenuously pretending to criticise the arrogant privileged right-wing Tory elite, while supporting the likes of opportunists like Gove, Boris, and Farage! – Especially when they write articles full of ignorant hype and lacking in substance or ANY indication of ANY constructive researching of the subject! !



    Report abuse

  • @30

    Actually a small majority of the UK population, who have no
    understanding of the big issues and are largely ignorant of the expert
    advice on the subject, have been misled and sold nationalistic
    propaganda BY the vacuous hype in rags like the Mail and the Express.

    We will have to agree to disagree on this one Alan. Although I myself didn’t vote on the Brexit issue I was sympathetic towards the arguments made for it. I certainly don’t accept that the 52% that voted for it were simply ‘misled’ by ‘nationalistic propaganda’ as you put it. The jury is out on whether Brexit will eventually be a success – I myself am optimistic, and more so than the future of the European Superstate experiment. We can compare notes in a few years time!



    Report abuse

  • Erol #33
    Nov 14, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    em> Actually a small majority of the UK population, who have no
    understanding of the big issues and are largely ignorant of the expert
    advice on the subject, have been misled and sold nationalistic
    propaganda BY the vacuous hype in rags like the Mail and the Express.

    We will have to agree to disagree on this one Alan. Although I myself didn’t vote on the Brexit issue I was sympathetic towards the arguments made for it.

    What “arguments”? Various fantasies were asserted about wonderful benefits, but most of those making the assertions did not even know from which parts of the various European agreements the UK was to opted out!

    I certainly don’t accept that the 52% that voted for it were simply ‘misled’ by ‘nationalistic propaganda’ as you put it.

    Perhaps you would like to list some facts of which they were aware!

    The jury is out on whether Brexit will eventually be a success –

    Before a jury can evaluate a case and make a decision, there actually has to be a coherent case and evidence presented. Months on there is still none!
    To make any reasoned prediction on the effects of Brexit, a future with and without brexit need to be compared.
    After months of fanciful assurances, the details have not even STARTED to be put together!
    There is no plan and no evaluated outcome predicted.

    All we have is egotistical brexiteers who earlier illustrated their incompetence giving bland assurances only to find on closer examination that what they said was utter wish-thinking nonsense.

    I myself am optimistic, and more so than the future of the European Superstate experiment.

    You really have no idea what is involved do you?

    Oh dear! oh dear! You swallowed that tabloid rag fantasy!! Some EURO MPs have suggested DISCUSSING closer ties!

    We can compare notes in a few years time!

    I think you will have to do A LOT of study on politics, trade, and international law, before you could even start that!
    You see no problems in the same way a learner driver sees no problems on the road, – due to having failed the hazard perception test!

    Let’s run through a few basics:-

    The UK has trade agreements with the EU and about 50 other countries via the EU.

    IF article 50 is triggered to leave the EU, these will ALL have to be renegotiated within the TWO YEARS, and this will require between 200 and 500 professional trade negotiators.
    Our self professed “brilliant brexiteers” (none of whom are qualified international trade negotiators), assure us that they will negotiate wonderful new trade agreements keeping all the bits they like from old ones, and unilaterally discarding the bits and responsibilities they don’t like! (Apparently in their fantasies, all the other countries are just going to agree to this.)

    If we fail to negotiate new trade agreements (of any sort – let alone better ones,) within the two years, we will automatically revert to the much less favourable World Trade Organisation rules for international trade.

    With a full team of professional international trade negotiators (skilled in business law etc) the Canadians have finally managed to secure a trade agreement with the EU -AFTER 7 YEARS OF HARD NEGOTIATIONS!

    Of the hundreds needed to deal with the EU, other trade blocks, and 50 other countries the UK currently employs (wait for it) NO professional international trade negotiators. NONE!!! The only professional trade negotiators currently used by the UK are employed by the EU!
    The fact that the brexiteers failed to notice that we had NONE, suggests they were NOT very diligent in seeking professional advice from expert trade negotiators before making their promised assurances of wondrous outcomes and wondrous new deals, – but then they did not listen to expert advice from scientists, economists, industry, bankers, and lately this brexiteering government, is even disputing the legal advice from senior judges on the rights of parliament to scrutinise the plans they have not written.

    So you are “optimistic” about the results of a plan which does not exist, expertise which is needed but absent, and have done nothing to explain how we will be protected from a long list of real evidenced damaging problems, loss of funding, loss of shared resources etc. which experts in specific areas of business, industry, training and international trade, have pointed out!



    Report abuse

  • The Brexit referendum was a serious mistake (as asking large numbers of uneducated amateurs for opinions for making decisions on complex specialist subjects, usually is!).

    It was never about the best interests of the UK, of the British people, or in keeping good trade relations with our partners in Europe.

    It was always about patching together the Tory party to avoid dissent from its own loony right-wing fringe, defections of MPs reducing the small Tory parliamentary majority, and about loss of votes to UKIP.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37981888

    David Cameron’s former media chief, Sir Craig Oliver, has defended his ex-boss’s decision to call the EU referendum, calling it “inevitable”.

    He said the ex-prime minister had to hold the vote to overcome threats from UKIP and rebellious Conservative MPs.

    The 23 June vote went against Mr Cameron and he resigned the next day.

    The Remain campaign, which Mr Cameron backed, lost by 51.9% to 48.1%, leading critics to question why the referendum was promised in the first place.

    The Labour Corbynites also became a totally failed split opposition, performing policy gymnastics to try out kipper UKIP, and importing UKIP style infighting in its MPs and membership, with the gratuitous vote hunters on one side, and those promoting the country’s best interests in the face of the propaganda on the other!



    Report abuse

  • Brexit is simply a disaster for much of our eco-tech development. The almost certain lack of free access to the single largest circlar and eco-standards driven market will drive us out of the country. We spent a decade working in the US but found it too expensive for a small enterprise to sustain.

    There are many stories like mine. I remain incensed at the wasted years of investment for this choicest of techno-markets. I can settle for a tenth of the opportunity in the UK or move to Ireland. All to (poorly) control immigration in exactly the wrong way….



    Report abuse

  • Erol #25
    Nov 14, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Well, if Brexit is anything to go by that’s approx. 50% of the population!

    When it comes to counting the number of people who do not understand the workings of the European Court of Justice, The European Union, the European Parliament, the European Economic Area, and the European Council of Ministers, it is probably in excess of 95% of the population!



    Report abuse

  • @37

    I totally agree.

    But the people who voted for Brexit did so because they saw firsthand the deleterious effects of being within the EU in their OWN locales. Many discovered that a large influx of EU workers had arrived in their neighbourhoods, the numbers of which were perceived to be a threat to the local demographic order. I emphasize the term ‘perceived’ because clearly the vast majority of the migrants who came here did so to work and were NOT actually a threat. Nevertheless the average Briton is conservative by nature and doesn’t appreciate abrupt changes to occur without their foreknowledge. Add to that the perception that all these newcomers were going to strain the local authority services for which the indigenous population depended upon and it became too much of a gamble for many Britons to accept.

    I believe that another strong factor were the many references to how EU rules were somehow usurping UK parliamentary ones, which suggested to many that the UK had transformed into a pseudo-vassal state of the EU. Again, for the typical Briton who has a patriotic element ingrained in their psyche this was all rubbing up the wrong way, and they eventually said STOP when the vote came to the fore.



    Report abuse

  • Erol #38
    Nov 15, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    <em.@37 – the number of people who do not understand . . . . is probably in excess of 95% of the population!

    I totally agree.

    But the people who voted for Brexit did so because they saw firsthand the deleterious effects of being within the EU in their OWN locales.

    No they didn’t!
    What they saw were hyped lies and cherry picked examples in tabloid rags, which said there were “deleterious effects”!
    The actual effects were that 20% of nursing staff and 10% of doctors, who are absolutely essential to maintaining the NHS service, are from the EU!

    Many discovered that a large influx of EU workers had arrived in their neighbourhoods, the numbers of which were perceived to be a threat to the local demographic order. I emphasize the term ‘perceived’ because clearly the vast majority of the migrants who came here did so to work and were NOT actually a threat.

    You have now corrected some aspects of your first paragraph!

    Nevertheless the average Briton is conservative by nature and doesn’t appreciate abrupt changes to occur without their foreknowledge.

    That is a truly ironically comical reason to vote for utterly unpredictable abrupt calamity which will strike the UK if brexit goes ahead.
    It’s like saying, “I don’t like the sudden shocks from changes of temperature on this cruise liner, so I am going to jump overboard in the North Atlantic! – The rescue craft is bound to have better cabins!!”

    As I said @#30, illegals are a separate issue, as is the flood of African and Middle-Eastern refugees into Europe generally.

    Add to that the perception that all these newcomers were going to strain the local authority services for which the indigenous population depended upon and it became too much of a gamble for many Britons to accept.

    This is a “perception” contrived and sold by the dishonest ideological tabloid propagandists, and some very ignorant and stupid egotistical know-it-all politicians who are either dishonest or utterly incompetent!

    The actual evidence is that immigrants from the EU are a positive contribution to UK productivity and services.
    The failure to recognise the MASSIVE gamble of brexit in the face of expert warnings, is simply sitting in ignorant denial!

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

    Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence

    European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services – according to new research by the UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).

    European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.

    Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received.

    These are the central findings of new analysis by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the fiscal consequences of European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.

    As I said earlier the expert view was and is, diametrically opposed to uninformed, bigoted, ignorant propaganda, which was made up and spread around by low-grade journalists and clueless loud-mouth politicians!

    I believe that another strong factor were the many references to how EU rules were somehow usurping UK parliamentary ones, which suggested to many that the UK had transformed into a pseudo-vassal state of the EU.

    Again! This was just oft repeated crap – made up by cowboy operators who don’t like level playing-fields, or rules, or codes of conduct, or regulations, inhibiting their rip-offs or reckless behaviour!!

    Again, for the typical Briton who has a patriotic element ingrained in their psyche this was all rubbing up the wrong way, and they eventually said STOP when the vote came to the fore.

    Yep the propagandist manipulators concocted emotive lies and rhetoric to con the uninformed and easily misled, who were foolish enough to believe posturing liars!

    Brexit is about throwing away what we have as workers rights, trade agreements, shared data, research and industrial developments, in exchange for brexiteer “Emperor’s new Clothes “style Utopian fairy stories”, for which there is no supporting evidence, no plan, no research based predicted outcome, and if they get their way in the name of alleged “democracy” – no parliamentary scrutiny! !

    Those who think there is some merit in this wild leap into the dark, should take a good look at the original source the politicians are copying from! – UKIP – that centre of bigotry, ignorance, with in-fighting and punch-ups between members in parliament, – people who cannot even organise an election for their own leaders, but in no way feel inhibited from telling everyone else how to run Europe!

    It is also a good reason for avoiding the opinionated ignoramuses writing for tabloid rags, and instead, using information sources from reputable academic journals, or at least direct quotes from these in the more reputable papers!



    Report abuse

  • @39

    During the period leading up to the Brexit vote there were numerous TV interviews of the public going about their normal business and I watched and heard them discuss their concerns about migrant influx based upon WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THEIR OWN NEIGHBOURHOODS. In other words their anxieties were created by ACTUAL events on the ground and NOT by media propaganda as you suggest!

    Inward migration – especially in large numbers – cannot possibly be 100% positive for the indigenous population. Are you suggesting that if circumstances permitted 10 million people could enter the UK with absolutely NO deleterious effects!?



    Report abuse

  • Erol #40
    Nov 15, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    During the period leading up to the Brexit vote there were numerous TV interviews of the public going about their normal business and I watched and heard them discuss their concerns about migrant influx based upon WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THEIR OWN NEIGHBOURHOODS.

    Like I said, the media cherry picked local examples untypical of the whole country.

    In other words their anxieties were created by ACTUAL events on the ground and NOT by media propaganda as you suggest!

    The two are not mutually exclusive! It is quite possible to create propaganda using selected , but untypical examples.

    Inward migration – especially in large numbers – cannot possibly be 100% positive for the indigenous population.

    The article I provided shows that on balance those who actually live in the UK ARE making a positive contribution.

    What is more, in many specialist fields organisations are having to go out and recruit them, but still have staff shortages!

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/28/-sp-nhs-hires-3000-foreign-doctors-staff-shortage

    Are you suggesting that if circumstances permitted 10 million people could enter the UK with absolutely NO deleterious effects!?

    That would simply be silly, but I have suggested nothing of the sort!

    It is however very unlikely that the other 27 countries are going to agree to let Britain have free trading access to (the 10 times bigger) EU markets, without the free movement of people being linked to this, so the suggestion that UK can pick and choose what it likes from treaties while dodging reciprocal responsibilities, is pure fantasy!
    There is a real risk of ending up with NO trade agreements or a tiny percentage of the trade we already have!



    Report abuse

  • That would simply be silly, but I have suggested nothing of the sort!

    Well, at what point does it cease to be silly??? For many people we have already reached the limit, hence the current Brexit desire for controlling immigration!

    It is however very unlikely that the other 27 countries are going to
    agree to let Britain have free trading access to (the 10 times bigger)
    EU markets, without the free movement of people being linked to this,
    so the suggestion the the UK can pick what it likes from treaties
    while dodging reciprocal responsibilities, is pure fantasy! There is a
    real risk of ending up with NO trade agreements or a tiny percentage
    of the trade we already have!

    That is YOUR opinion based upon wholly pessimistic speculation! Others – myself included – are more optimistic about how this will pan out. As I indicated in a previous post I believe the days of a Brussels dominated EU are numbered! There are forthcoming European elections which may give a pointer to this. We will just have to wait and see.



    Report abuse

  • Erol #42
    Nov 15, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    It is however very unlikely that the other 27 countries are going to
    agree to let Britain have free trading access to (the 10 times bigger)
    EU markets, without the free movement of people being linked to this,
    so the suggestion the the UK can pick what it likes from treaties
    while dodging reciprocal responsibilities, is pure fantasy! There is a
    real risk of ending up with NO trade agreements or a tiny percentage
    of the trade we already have!

    That is YOUR opinion based upon wholly pessimistic speculation!

    My opinions are based on historical records of actual trade negotiations such as those conducted over a 7 year period by Canada.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

    The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a tentative free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.[1][2][3] If enacted, the agreement will eliminate 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU.

    The negotiations were concluded in August 2014. All 28 European Union member states approved CETA, with Belgium being the final country to approve.[4] Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada traveled to Brussels on 30 October 2016 to sign on behalf of Canada.[5] If ratified by the European Parliament, most of the agreement will take effect on a provisional basis. The remaining parts of the agreement are subject to ratification by national legislatures.[6][3]

    The EU claims the treaty will lead to savings of just over half a billion euros in taxes for EU exporters every year, mutual recognition in regulated professions such as architects, accountants and engineers, and easier transfers of company staff and other professionals between the EU and Canada. The European Commission claims CETA will create a more level playing field between Canada and the EU on intellectual property rights.

    Others – myself included – are more optimistic about how this will pan out.

    Your opinions are based on pure speculation and brexiteers unevidenced assertions and wish-thinking – Unless I am mistaken and you can actually present some credible evidence to support your claims.

    As I indicated in a previous post I believe the days of a Brussels dominated EU are numbered!

    Do you also believe the days of the Westminster Parliament are numbered?

    There are forthcoming European elections which may give a pointer to this.

    UK elections may give a pointer to this

    We will just have to wait and see.

    We will just have to wait and see if such wild speculations, whimsicality and tabloid assertions of the end to parliamentary rule, have any substance? Probably not!

    Of course there is no need to take wild speculations seriously just because some media propagandist keeps shouting out an ignorant opinion as a tabloid headline!



    Report abuse

  • Brexit demographics

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/

    Erol is entirely correct when asserting that the vote was about impressions and not facts. Brexiteers lived in areas with low immigration, with more people above working age. They voted leave on impressions and not experience.

    The net benefit to localities with (mostly) youth replenishing immigrants was clear. The re-balancing of the old young demographic often re-vitalised local businesses. My area grows the bulk of the UK’s salad vegetables. Until recently this had been declining with increasing imports from Europe. East European migrants happy to work seasonally, restored the glasshouse industry’s prospects, resulting in new investment with world class infrastructure and new 7 metre glasshouses for the highest density production.

    I am utterly flummoxed over claims of actual job losses (except in a few areas I saw in Lincolnshire) The need for uprated local services is granted but increasingly restored productivity locally and nationally justifies this in the longer term. Those voting for Brexit actually saw little such local pressure.



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer #45
    Nov 15, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Brexit demographics

    @ your link – The higher the level of education, the higher the EU support

    According to the polls, university graduates were the most likely people to want to remain in the EU – while those with a GCSE or equivalent as their highest qualification were more likely to back Brexit.

    This was a pattern that was reflected in the results – with the Brexit vote correlating with areas with high shares of people with no education.

    This indeed confirms what I was saying about those who research proper information about practicalities, legal requirements, and likely outcomes, from reputable academic or business sources, and those who choose to believe baseless emotive rhetoric, made up by the reckless ideological propagandist writers of tabloid comics – such as those @#22!



    Report abuse

  • The Trump campaign was a successful con, as explained lucidly here:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/?tid=pm_pop

    The Brexit campaign, likewise. It won’t benefit those who were conned into voting for it.

    There’s one group of people who really want the UK out of the EU, for their own reasons: they are the UK parliamentary political power elite, especially (but not necessarily entirely) the Old-Guard tories, who see their overall power being eroded from “above” by the European Parliament and from “below” by devolution to the regional governments. They see this pincer movement as a serious threat, depriving them of their accustomed power and privilege.

    They narrowly avoided further erosion from below with the Scottish independence referendum. Now they’ve succeeded in conning enough of the electorate, Trump style, to make Britain Great again. They’ll push through this agenda of regaining as much of the lost power as they can, with scant regard for the consequences for anyone who isn’t them. They’ll still be rich, in their tax havens, it’s losing power that they fear most.



    Report abuse

  • If you want a cogent case for leaving the EU here’s one from the insider MEP Daniel Hannan:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/six-best-reasons-vote-leave/

    Unfortunately our own discussion will remain open-ended because no know can know or predict the eventual outcome of Brexit. There are clearly both optimists and pessimists as to how it might end for the UK, but it’s all based on speculation and trying to draw conclusions from inappropriate analogies (c.f. Canada, Norway, etc). I suggest we put the discussion on the back-burner and come back to it as and when new events demand.



    Report abuse

  • @ link @#45 This was a pattern that was reflected in the results – with the Brexit vote correlating with areas with high shares of people with no education.

    So the “immigration question” for these people is:
    “As I have a poor level of education, and compete badly in the jobs market, – who can I blame for my lack of employment, or limited choice of jobs?”!

    The tabloid writers say the answer is to: “scapegoat Johnny Foreigner”, and to “take back control” of the boarders we already control(badly), and wreck the economy blaming it on the EU!

    We must (allegedly) listen to the opinions shouted by the uneducated, who are parroting ideological hype, fed to them by reckless tabloid journalists who are in the pay of papers owned by, and operated in the interests of, the right-wing fat-cat exploiters of the very people who are being conned into supporting their power-grabs!



    Report abuse

  • Erol #48
    Nov 16, 2016 at 4:59 am

    If you want a cogent case for leaving the EU here’s one from the insider MEP Daniel Hannan:

    This is purely conjecture! There is nothing concrete in it!

    Unfortunately our own discussion will remain open-ended because no know can know or predict the eventual outcome of Brexit.

    That is simply wrong!
    While the effects of the total Brexit package is unknown, – mainly at present because there is no “package or detailed plan”, there are many very specific items (including accounts of £millions) which benefit us at present, which will be thrown away and lost if Article 50 goes ahead.
    That is why May is fighting against parliamentary scrutiny.

    Throwing away what we have and then trying to negotiate getting bits of it back again, is a very poor strategy!

    There are clearly both optimists and pessimists as to how it might end for the UK, but it’s all based on speculation

    That is simply a false equivalence of hard evidence from experts on how things work at present in the business world, and whimsical speculations offering vague assurances “that something better will turn up”!

    and trying to draw conclusions from inappropriate analogies (c.f. Canada, Norway, etc).

    You make no case as to why the treaties between the EU and Canada and Norway giving them associate membership and access to the EEA trade, should be “considered inappropriate” models. These are precisely the sorts of examples which negotiators would be seeking under article 50 negotiations!

    I suggest we put the discussion on the back-burner and come back to it as and when new events demand.

    I have a better suggestion.
    Why don’t you go and do your homework on the issues raised here, and look at what happens in the real world, and then come back with an informed debate, rather than a fatalistic “I have no idea what areas of business, services and international relations will be damagingly affected, by brexit, so I close my eyes to evidence, and choose to believe the writers of fantasies, and wait to see if their wishes and fairy-tales come true by magic”!

    There are plenty of warnings from experts in each of the relevant sectors.

    There was a list on this earlier discussion:

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/06/richard-dawkins-ignoramuses-should-have-no-say-on-our-eu-membership-and-that-includes-me/#li-comment-205561



    Report abuse

  • Erol #50
    Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 am

    @#49 – We must (allegedly) listen to the opinions shouted by the uneducated, who are parroting ideological hype, fed to them by reckless tabloid journalists who are in the pay of papers owned by, and operated in the interests of, the right-wing fat-cat exploiters of the very people who are being conned into supporting their power-grabs!

    @49 – Your last paragraph seems to me to be an excellent example of “parroting ideological hype” !

    I take it you don’t know who owns and controls these newspapers!!

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

    The Daily Mail (aka, Hate Mail, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan, Crazy Mail and so on) is a reactionary, neo-fascist tabloid rag masquerading as a “traditional values,” middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the second-worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch’s Sun is worse). Its weighty Sunday counterpart is the Mail on Sunday.

    The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to whit, gossipy tabloid “journalism” for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. The Daily Mail is notable among British tabloids for rejecting the standard red-top banner in order to try to appear more upmarket and respectable, although it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the populist rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities (lately focusing on Muslims), and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.

    That is why I suggest you do some homework studying reputable information sources which contain reports based on evidenced substance, rather than tabloid loony fantasies!



    Report abuse

  • @#51 – There are plenty of warnings from experts in each of the relevant sectors.

    There was a list on this earlier discussion:

    .. . . and to add to these, more expert informed opinion is telling brexiteers their claims are impossible fantasies!

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/16/boris-johnsons-brexit-vision-intellectually-impossible-eu-minister

    Boris Johnson’s Brexit vision ‘intellectually impossible’ – EU minister

    Boris Johnson is promising the British people a Brexit deal that is “intellectually impossible” and “politically unavailable”, according to the Dutch finance minister and Eurogroup president.

    Jeroen Dijsselbloem delivered a scathing attack on Johnson after the foreign secretary claimed the UK would probably be leaving the customs union while also seeking free trade with the EU and extra immigration controls.

    Dijsselbloem told the BBC’s Newsnight: “I think he’s offering to the British people options that are really not available. For example, to say we could be inside the internal market but be outside the customs union, this is impossible, it just doesn’t exist. The opposite does exist. We have a customs union with Turkey but Turkey is not part of the internal market.

    “He’s saying things that are intellectually impossible, politically unavailable, so I think he’s not offering the British people a fair view of what is available and what can be achieved in these negotiations.”

    Describing Brexit as a lose-lose situation, Dijsselbloem added: “It would be in my country’s interests and in European and British interests if the Brits would stay in the EU but I don’t think it’s going to happen. The next best option is to have as good an agreement as possible but the UK will be outside the single market and there will be some hindrances.”

    Leaving the customs union would allow the UK to strike trade deals independently with non-EU countries but Whitehall has told cabinet ministers that it could seriously harm the economy by causing extra border checks and bureaucracy.

    The government’s Brexit strategy also came under fire on Tuesday from an Italian minister, who described it as chaotic and slammed the UK for holding the EU hostage to Conservative party infighting.

    As I said earlier, brexit is about keeping the Tory right wing from defecting to UKIP, and has NOTHING to do with looking after the county’s best interests!

    Boris sat on the fence over brexit, until he decided which side of the argument was most likely to promote his political career!

    The customs union allows members to move goods without the imposition of tariffs on each other.

    However, all members also have to apply the same tariffs to goods that are imported from outside the union

    This maintains fair competition, and prevents multinational corporations from playing one country off against another, instigating a race to the bottom!



    Report abuse

  • @51 – 53

    Brexit is something totally new! There are therefore NO experts to which one can refer, only people with biased opinions one way or the other! The precise manner of the exit is to be negotiated, the outcome of which no one can possibly predict beforehand!

    As I said earlier, we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue for now. Let’s just wait and see how things pan out.



    Report abuse

  • Erol #54
    Nov 16, 2016 at 9:06 am

    @51 – 53

    Brexit is something totally new!

    This is just a new variation on changes in the jurisdiction of governments and the scope of treaties.
    International trade has been conducted and regulated for centuries, and has included various groupings of nations at various times.

    Just because you have no comprehension of this sort of history, does not mean it does not exist!

    There are therefore NO experts to which one can refer,

    That is utter nonsense.
    There are numerous experts in international finance, international trade, import tariffs, treaties, legal requirements, and implications for international research projects, international co-operative projects, international agencies, and international supplies of components in manufacturing.

    only people with biased opinions one way or the other!

    This is a view simply based on ignorance and denial of the expertise and evidence, of international finance, politics, and of international trade!

    The precise manner of the exit is to be negotiated, the outcome of which no one can possibly predict beforehand!

    You talk as if you think the EU and the EEA are the only free-trade areas which have ever existed in the world, and as if you are totally unaware of countries previously making changes to such area trade agreements!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Area_of_the_Americas

    Multilateral Free Trade Area (CEFTA, CISFTA, COMESA, EFTA, GAFTA, NAFTA, SAFTA, AANZFTA, PAFTA, SADCFTA)

    I have already listed several several credible predictions from a long list of specific outcomes, and other incredible brexiteer claims of impossible outcomes where they fancifully claim to be able to have their cake and eat it.

    There are predictable business models of what happens when tariffs are imposed on goods at national borders, and how this affects the volumes and profitability of sales of imported and exported goods.

    It is simply disingenuous to pretend that because expert opinion does not know everything, it therefore knows nothing, and can be equated with the wildly speculative views of ignoramuses, who have no comprehension of the subjects whatsoever!

    @Wiki- Previous agreements
    Canada: Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (1988; superseded by the NAFTA)
    Costa Rica- Dominican Republic (superseded by DR-CAFTA)
    Costa Rica- Trinidad and Tobago (superseded by a Costa Rica – CARICOM FTA).




    Report abuse

  • It is, at least, reassuring to see Erol’s admission (#54) that brexit is a mostly ignorant leap of faith into the dark. It is frankly clear that our tech exports (60% of which go to EU countries) will take a huge hit. This 60% will have added costs that simply come straight off the bottom line, unless companies redirect their product supply directly from their pacific rim contract manufacturers diverting a substantial part of the value streams away from the UK. Substituting other markets for the EU means adopting new standards requirements (EU and UK after decades are perfectly synchronised). These are costly and specifically hit middle and smaller sized companies where most innovation comes from. Small innovative companies are denied that easy up-scaling of business from UK to Europe.

    The crass simplicity of mind that drove brexit understood little of these consequences, adding the insult to injury that the east european engineers we depended upon (the UK has some very specific shortage skills) feel very unwelcome living here.

    I need a lie down.



    Report abuse

  • Olgun #57
    Nov 16, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    @-link – The West Wales and the Valleys region was identified as the poorest region in the whole of north-western Europe. To address this, from 2014 to 2020, Wales would have benefited from around £1.8bn EU European Structural Funds investment.

    Yep!
    The gullibles – conned into shooting themselves in the foot by tabloid twaddle spouters – who cause them real problems from lost funding, while tackling non-existent imaginary problems that only exist in confused ideological brexiteer brains!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.