More job losses due to Brexit?

[BrilloPad]

I haven't seen an answer to my question as to why it is thought that Wales as a whole voted to leave the EU, when Wales was a major beneficiary of EU funds.

An easy one!

It was a protest vote.

Though I think the English get fed up of the Welsh whining all the time.

[JohntheBike]

An easy one!

It was a protest vote.

Though I think the English get fed up of the Welsh whining all the time.

OK, but a protest against what? Capel Celyn or Tryweryn?

Would average age of the population have anything to do with it?

[meridian]

E5 also contains alcohol although some supplies of super unleaded are alcohol free. However, the document infers that the supply of E5 is only guaranteed until 2020 and that there is no guarantee that it will not be discontinued in the future. My contention is that if we were not members of the EU, then the UK just might be able to make laws and issue edicts that suit the UK better.

Given that we’re agreed that the EU is not forcing any member states (including the U.K.) to implement E10, and given that any implementation of E10 is up to the U.K., and given that the U.K. is issuing consultations on the implementation of E10, I would suggest that your contention is wrong.

However, I voted the way I did and nothing can change that. As far as evading questions is concerned, I haven't seen an answer to my question as to why it is thought that Wales as a whole voted to leave the EU, when Wales was a major beneficiary of EU funds.

You asked what personal reasons people had for voting. When you got them, you changed the question to a fairly unanswerable one that can only be speculated on.

Here’s a short speculation: the people (not just of Wales) were misled and lied to, and promised sunlit uplands. BoJo the clown did it again last night. The people (not just of Wales) are feeling left behind and wanted change, and the charlatans promised them not only change, but change that would be good for them. It was an easy sell.

Whether this change will be good for them isn’t known yet. However, continuing the speculation, what do you think the chances are of a U.K. government (whether Tory, Labour, or any other party) allocating as much funding to Wales as the EU have?

(Now, you can argue as much as you like that it’s the U.K. money that the EU is allocating, but I fancy that the people on the ground, in Wales or Sunderland or Cornwall, won’t particularly care for that argument when the funding gets cut off.)

[JohntheBike]

Given that we’re agreed that the EU is not forcing any member states (including the U.K.) to implement E10, and given that any implementation of E10 is up to the U.K., and given that the U.K. is issuing consultations on the implementation of E10, I would suggest that your contention is wrong.





You asked what personal reasons people had for voting. When you got them, you changed the question to a fairly unanswerable one that can only be speculated on.

Here’s a short speculation: the people (not just of Wales) were misled and lied to, and promised sunlit uplands. BoJo the clown did it again last night. The people (not just of Wales) are feeling left behind and wanted change, and the charlatans promised them not only change, but change that would be good for them. It was an easy sell.

Whether this change will be good for them isn’t known yet. However, continuing the speculation, what do you think the chances are of a U.K. government (whether Tory, Labour, or any other party) allocating as much funding to Wales as the EU have?

(Now, you can argue as much as you like that it’s the U.K. money that the EU is allocating, but I fancy that the people on the ground, in Wales or Sunderland or Cornwall, won’t particularly care for that argument when the funding gets cut off.)

I took no notice of the official campaigns and voted based on my own personal experiences and perceptions, however incorrect those perceptions might have been. Remember what I said about speed cameras.

There has been a culture with officialdom in this country that when people have complained about any issues which affected them then those officials have claimed that EU rules had to be followed, even if this wasn't exactly true. How true was it that market traders were being forced to advertise their wares in metric measures as a result of EU regulations?

And as far as lying is concerned, both the Conservative Government which took us into the EU and the Labour Government which subsequently called for ratification, are guilty. So that argument doesn't hold water.

[darmstadt]

How true was it that market traders were being forced to advertise their wares in metric measures as a result of EU regulations?

Metrication in the UK is not the result of British membership of the EU. In 1965, eight years before joining the EEC, the Wilson Government decided to initiate the UK’s metrication programme, in response to global moves in this direction – Ireland and all Commonwealth countries had already adopted the metric system. The transition has been a gradual one but, for almost three decades now, children in British schools have enjoyed a metric-only education.

Metric units of measurement are now used for most transactions regulated by the Weights and Measures Act 1985. From 1 January 2000, goods sold loose by weight (mainly fresh foods) are required to be sold in grams and kilograms. It is not a criminal offence to sell goods in imperial. Traders are allowed to display weights and prices in both imperial and metric but not in imperial only. Consumers can continue to express the quantity they wish to buy in pounds and ounces. The directive was agreed by the UK Government of the day and the implementing legislation was approved by Parliament in Westminster.

[meridian]

I took no notice of the official campaigns and voted based on my own personal experiences and perceptions, however incorrect those perceptions might have been. Remember what I said about speed cameras.

And yet you’re too anchored to your incorrect perceptions that when presented with the facts you refuse to admit you were wrong and change your mind.

There has been a culture with officialdom in this country that when people have complained about any issues which affected them then those officials have claimed that EU rules had to be followed, even if this wasn't exactly true. How true was it that market traders were being forced to advertise their wares in metric measures as a result of EU regulations?

This is fair comment. MPs and the media have been all too happy to present anything bad as “EU” and to claim any credit themselves for anything good that the EU has done. The U.K.’s ruling and media class have dug this hole for themselves.

And as far as lying is concerned, both the Conservative Government which took us into the EU and the Labour Government which subsequently called for ratification, are guilty. So that argument doesn't hold water.

You wanted a plausible explanation for why Wales voted Leave, I gave you one.

[JohntheBike]

Metrication in the UK is not the result of British membership of the EU. In 1965, eight years before joining the EEC, the Wilson Government decided to initiate the UK’s metrication programme, in response to global moves in this direction – Ireland and all Commonwealth countries had already adopted the metric system. The transition has been a gradual one but, for almost three decades now, children in British schools have enjoyed a metric-only education.

Metric units of measurement are now used for most transactions regulated by the Weights and Measures Act 1985. From 1 January 2000, goods sold loose by weight (mainly fresh foods) are required to be sold in grams and kilograms. It is not a criminal offence to sell goods in imperial. Traders are allowed to display weights and prices in both imperial and metric but not in imperial only. Consumers can continue to express the quantity they wish to buy in pounds and ounces. The directive was agreed by the UK Government of the day and the implementing legislation was approved by Parliament in Westminster.

I think you miss the point, the market traders were being told that they couldn't display their wares exclusively in Imperial measures, as a result of EU regulations. Clearly given you post, this was a lie, and supports my contention that officialdom blamed the EU for many issues that were being forced on the populace, when in fact this may not have been true. Hence the resentment of EU officialdom.

[BrilloPad]

OK, but a protest against what? Capel Celyn or Tryweryn?

Against the Welsh overlords! The scum who have repressed us for too long! I mean, of course, the AM members.....

[original PM]

I think you miss the point, the market traders were being told that they couldn't display their wares exclusively in Imperial measures, as a result of EU regulations. Clearly given you post, this was a lie, and supports my contention that officialdom blamed the EU for many issues that were being forced on the populace, when in fact this may not have been true. Hence the resentment of EU officialdom.

yup one of the reasons I voted out is so our politicians could not hide behind EU rules

also less politicians = better.

[JohntheBike]

And yet you’re too anchored to your incorrect perceptions that when presented with the facts you refuse to admit you were wrong and change your mind.





This is fair comment. MPs and the media have been all too happy to present anything bad as “EU” and to claim any credit themselves for anything good that the EU has done. The U.K.’s ruling and media class have dug this hole for themselves.




You wanted a plausible explanation for why Wales voted Leave, I gave you one.

well, your second statement clearly explains my position in relation to your first statement. But, it doesn't alter the fact that we were lied to originally, in that we were advised that we were joining a free trading organisation and there was no mention of the accompanying legal issues, although the government knew at the time what the long term implications and goals were likely to be.

I still contend that if we were presented with all the facts back then, the UK would not have voted to join. We've now had 40 years of EU "rule", it remains to be seen what the next 40 years will bring without EU "rule".

As far as the way Wales voted is concerned, it could be that the populace is generally older and remembers more of what they perceived as the "downside" of EU membership, however that perception had been distorted by the media.

The UK accepted the "in" vote then, it must now accept the "out" vote.