BREXIT and others

tax should fund the welfare

PARABLE by LEO TOLSTOY
I see mankind as a herd of cattle inside a fenced enclosure. Outside the fence are green pastures and plenty for the cattle to eat, while inside the fence there is not quite grass enough for the cattle. Consequently, the cattle are tramping underfoot what little grass there is and goring each other to death in their struggle for existence.

I saw the owner of the herd come to them, and when he saw their pitiful condition he was filled with compassion for them and thought of all he could do to improve their condition.

So he called his friends together and asked them to assist him in cutting grass from outside the fence and throwing it over the fence to the cattle. And that they called Charity.

Then, because the calves were dying off and not growing up into serviceable cattle, he arranged that they should each have a pint of milk every morning for breakfast.

Because they were dying off in the cold nights, he put up beautiful well-drained and well-ventilated cowsheds for the cattle.

Because they were goring each other in the struggle for existence, he put corks on the horns of the cattle, so that the wounds they gave each other might not be so serious. Then he reserved a part of the enclosure for the old bulls and the old cows over 70 years of age.

In fact, he did everything he could think of to improve the condition of the cattle, and when I asked him why he did not do the one obvious thing, break down the fence, and let the cattle out, he answered: “If I let the cattle out, I should no longer be able to milk them”

Would you like to label me as a slave for the period mentioned? [voluntary

attendance at a beer festival]

No, certainly not! Why would I?

You are applying marxist/socialist principles to the concept of work and pay without actually taking in the full philosophy. Cherry-picking.

What? You think that the notion that people work in order to reap the results of that work is a Marxist/Socialist principle? So that, for example, if I go up onto my roof to replace a missing slate and replace that slate, I should not benefit from the repair? Or if I hire someone to fix my roof, that he is not entitled to recompense? Or if, with money saved or borrowed I buy a corner shop, that I do not intend/do not deserve to earn a living from it? Or that part of what I earn is mine and part is not mine? Or that a farmer sowing a field of wheat and tending it over the growing season is not entitled to reap it? Seems to me that what you are suggesting is more communistic than what I am saying, which is more or less Lockean, which is to say that a man owns himself and his labour; that property is created by the application of labour (to land); that property precedes govt.; that govt. is there to protect liberty and property, and that it has not the right to arbitrarily seize a subjects’ property.

Let me just remind you with the quote I kicked off with:
“The right to trade freely is a natural right. It conflicts with no other right and requires no compulsion. At all times and places the natural impulse to exchange goods and services to mutual advantage has tended to form a peaceful bond between individuals and nations, to stimulate intelligence and to promote prosperity. Governments have always denied this right, usually succeeding in persuading people to believe that the infinite series of exchanges can be directed by officialdom, using restrictions, penalties and taxes, national treaties and alliances, better than by leaving trade to the individuals concerned.”

looking at the first portion of the slogan it reads “from each according to ability” i.e. those with more ability to contribute do so in a greater amount. Taxing according to income seems to match this rather well (provided no one implements exceptions,rebates, allowances, etc)

And supermarkets should maybe means test all its shoppers and charge them accordingly – can of Coke – 10p for a poor man and £1 for a rich man? Or should it rather be, you pay for benefits received?

I am paid more1 than various people I know and I therefore contribute more to the tax pot. This seems perfectly equitable to me.

ditto – And supermarkets…..

Would you like to label me as a slave for the period mentioned? [voluntary attendance at a beer festival]

No, certainly not! Why would I?

Way to go on the misquotes. I didn’t say the bit in []
However, if you delete the word “attendance” and substitute “work” and it covers the activity. People tend to assume that being at a beer festival means extended inebriation.

And supermarkets should maybe means test all its shoppers and charge them accordingly

You’re way too late mate. Goods in Oxford Street vs. the same in the nearest Tesco. Don’t bang the quality drum, various customer quality research groups knock that one dead at regular intervals.

Or should it rather be, you pay for benefits received?

Ah, so now you’re advocating VAT.

Hackcherlly the socialist will tax, it’s the other side that want to avoid tax.

Nonono, the other side don’t want their rich mates to pay tax. That’s why there are so many mind-numbing loopholes. The traditional socialist ideal is to flip it around so the rich pay more and the little guy pays less, but the rich don’t pay more and…

…it’s part of why Ségo lost her election bid here in France a few years back. Some fairly nice ideas (in my opinion), blighted with the obvious problem of who is going to pay for this? I think this has also been Hollande’s problem. Sarko left a financial trail of devastation which meant that Hollande couldn’t really do what he wanted until the money pot was fixed, and… Well…

Yes, most of us are slaves – in part.
A/ because we are taxed on our income

I have no problem with that. A decade ago, I had no job but I had lived here for five years which (under EU rules, I should point out) automatically opened some rights. I got basic medical cover and a payment while looking for work. Not a lot, but it paid for some things.
Well, I got a job, so now I pay taxes and stuff which may go to help somebody else get their lives together. Because that’s how it works.

B/ our purchases are also taxed

Yup. It’s a “consumption” tax. The people that blow loads of money on things obviously contribute more via their purchases. It’s also a useful revenue source from foreigners, as that bottle of milk is 5%, that beer is 20%, and that meal they had is maybe 15% (average – like everything taxed, there is no one-rate-fits-all). Person comes to visit, tax is paid on their purchases. They go home.

C/ a lot of savings are taxed

Sort of. My savings, when it had it in the bank, was taxed an amount, and then interest was given which equalled the taxation. So the net result was zero. Seems like a waste of effort.
I keep my “going to Japan” fund in a piggy bank now, as the way the world is, I don’t trust the banks not to try negative interest to raise cash.

It’s not about what they /think/ they’re worth, but what they are worth.

And the obvious question is – who decides? It would be like the financial equivalent of Dunning-Kruger. A person will naturally overvalue themselves, the employer would naturally undervalue (less pay = more employees). I think it says a lot that companies always bitch about the minimum wage going up – which is the government basically saying “dude, pay your serfs a bit more”.

people generally have no individual bargaining power – that is why they often organise into unions, because, en masse, they carry more weight. Where all land is enclosed, this is the inevitable consequence.

I find your reasoning to be, well, utterly incomprehensible.
It has nothing to do with land anything, and everything to do with the fact that there are X jobs and Y people; where by any definition Y is a much greater number than X.
Where I work, the months before Christmas is peak time for production. We often get a lot of temporary staff. Not because we need so many, but because there is a huge churn in the numbers of people that can’t hack it. I’d say there’s maybe a 50% drop out rate. But it’s not a big deal. The only thing the line managers would like is if the people that can’t hack it could kindly throw in the towel right away so they don’t waste time getting the person up to speed for them to go and quit.
Why is it not a big deal? Simple. There’s plenty more CVs in the pile, plenty more people to ask to come in.

With that in mind, I am lucky that I have a full time contract because the only thing special about me is that I’m not French. If you remove that. I’m a forty-something who quietly gets on with the job and is capable of being left alone. Okay, that’s maybe a bit special, it seems far too many people need semi-constant supervision to ensure they’re actually, you know, working. Jeez… But, apart from that, there’s a queue of me as long as the border between France and Germany. If one me doesn’t work out, DING!, Next!

That is why people have no bargaining power. If a person should become greedy or obstreperous, just can them and get somebody else.

Believe me. If there was a war and two thirds of the population got wiped out, employment would be quite different. Companies would throw in perks to try to stop you drifting to something you might enjoy more. It happened like that, once, before I was born. Back with this fabled “job for life” sort of idea.

The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is widening and at an increasing rate

Yup. Isn’t it wonderful having a Tory government? The French are probably going to vote for the same sort of thing; though Fillon is starting to lose popularity as he was honest enough to say that he would like the public service workers that he doesn’t fire to do 39 hours a week…oh, and get paid for 37. People were like “Yay! Yay! Wait…hang on…WHAT?”.

First the land,

I pay the land tax. Goes towards the rubbish collection. Goes towards the street lights in the village (not a lot of help to us, but…), goes towards patching holes in the roads. The mayor releases a bulletin each year itemising what paid for what and what the tax value is. It is set per commune, and ours is quite low. Because the neighbour uses the back field and most of the “potager” (veg garden, sort of) and surrounding land is now officially an LPO bird refuge, we are rated agricultural use, which means the land tax is pretty low.

then the water,

The only thing I pay for the water is the electricity to pump it out of the ground with. We don’t drink that, of course. We drink bottled mountain water and sometimes I make tea with Evian. That costs whatever the standard tax rate on bottled water is.

next the air? Would you feel that you were free if you had to pay to breathe?

I’d say “come kiss my big hairy (insert your own word here)”. After all, is a person who refuses to pay the tax condemned to death? How would it be accounted for? By breath taken? Does breathing deeply cost more?

Really, this is along the same sort of lines as that old anti-homosexual argument “if you permit gays you’ll soon be permitting paedophiles”. It is nonsense designed to bypass the brain and play on the emotions. Please try to formulate a better argument because suggesting “Would you feel that you were free if you had to pay to breathe?” is embarrassing.

I pay taxes and stuff which may go to help somebody else

I refer you to the Tolstoy parable, above.
And I repeat, if we want to discourage consumption of something, we tax it – as most obviously with tobacco and alcohol: if we want to discourage imports we put up trade barriers – we apply tariffs. So the question is, do we want to discourage industry and trade, or to put it another way, do you think that all these taxes, that are applied at every stage of production – tax upon tax, upon tax, have no effect upon trade and industry? What, for example, was the effect of the windows tax of 1696?

It’s not about what they /think/ they’re worth, but what they are worth.

And the obvious question is – who decides?

I hope you’ll forgive me, since this is a little involved, if I refer you elsewhere – to here: http://economicrealities.site88.net/nos/nos05.htm

If there was a war and two thirds of the population got wiped out, employment would be quite different.

Yes, that was the situation after the Black Death, when landlords tried their best to hold down wages: http://economicrealities.site88.net/gear/geary.htm#5

I pay the land tax. Goes towards the rubbish collection. Goes towards the street lights in the village […] goes towards patching holes in the roads.

Yes, the French, have a land tax, though I don’t know much about it and I don’t know if it accounts for much revenue. I’ve just looked it up and it appears to be a genuine land value tax (since it applies to vacant sites as well). That’s good! One thing to note about a land value “tax” is that it isn’t a tax at all: it is user fee. You might like to investigate the benefits of LVT.

THE WATER
Over here, of course, all the utilities, which used to be in public hands, are now privatised.

THE AIR
When windmills began to be used in Holland, the landlords wanted to charge the operators for the use of “their” wind. However, I note in passing, that as far as windmill operators (and today, wind farm operators) are concerned, windy land is more valuable than less windy.

The point is, that nature can never be private property, since property is the product of labour. Nature can only be claimed. Perhaps it was recognition of this that brought about the auctioning of rights to use parts of the radio spectrum in 2000. (it brought in a considerable amount of revenue!)

And I repeat, if we want to discourage consumption of something, we tax it – as most obviously with tobacco and alcohol: if we want to discourage imports we put up trade barriers – we apply tariffs.

Absolutely true. On the other hand, taxes are used to encourage people. So the question could be: do you want to discourage people?

There are always at least two ways to analyse an economic strategy.

We know about this, and we are going to apply for it. The problem is, it is intended for and applies to EU citizens. When we cease to be EU citizens, then the rules that apply to EU citizens will no longer apply.
The general view of English speaking media in France is do not assume such residency permits will have any value whatsoever when the UK formally leaves the EU

I was just speaking to a friend in a similar situation in Croatia. He will be applying under the regular, non EU rules, which obviously is not automatic and is also after 5 years in Croatia.

Can you do the same, or is it likely they will say ‘non’?

This is France. Am EU citizen applying under non EU rules would probably cause people’s heads to explode.

As for saying “non”, it is tricky as if the response is that, then it’s definitive unless you can demonstrate that the response was unfair (racist etc), and while a “residency” permit for EU citizens is fairly straightforward, for non-EU citizens it may be “you can stay but you can’t work” or somesuch. It isn’t something to do on a whim…

I’ve just looked it up and it appears to be a genuine land value tax (since it applies to vacant sites as well). That’s good!

France has a lot of beaurocracy, so stuff that might come under “rates” is two separate things here. You want to see what a payslip looks like – every single contribution paid is outlined with amounts that I pay and amounts the employer pays. Okay, most of it is meaningless acronyms that even the natives don’t understand, but it is far more detailed than my UK payslips that said only NI and PAYE…

Over here, of course, all the utilities, which used to be in public hands, are now privatised.

Whether it is publicly or privately owned does not affect the taxation. While privatisation can be a bad thing, it can also be a good thing. People of a certain age will remember when BT was GPO and everything cost ££££ (and their failed Prestel took it to urine-extracting levels), repairs would be fixed when they felt like bothering, the infrastructure was such a mess that getting a phone installed was a nightmare (and the thing was hardwired to the incoming line, sockets were rare and looked like the 1/4" jack plugs on older headphones) and since they were the only game in town, there was no competition and could do what they felt like doing. Which usually meant charging more. People of a certain age in urban and semi urban areas will know that pricing was in bands by distance, but this distance was not distance between towns but distance of copper line travelled, the exact figure being practically impossible for a normal person to determine. To aid in keeping costs down, they eventually released little booklets giving weird incantations to dial into the phones to avoid entering national area codes for nearby areas (which would automatically mean a place two miles down the road might cost you a national rate call instead of a local rate call).
Breaking that monopoly was a good thing if you ask me, and while some might argue that BT/OpenReach have not changed much, at least now you can use an alternative provider for everything bar the actual wires (unless you have fibre or your own satellite uplink).

the landlords wanted to charge the operators for the use of “their” wind.

You’re surprised? The lords (and they usually were, lords that lay claim to the land) would happily cream off their cut off everything. You grow the crops for ME. You raise the livestock for ME. It’s MY wind. MY field. And yes, they’d even try “my air”. Their greed and sense of self obsessed entitlement knew no bounds. At least the French wised up to that crap and it was “MY back against the wall, oops” (though one might wonder if we’re overdue a corrective action regarding the same sorts of shenanigans in the world of finance – international banking should not be a giant casino!).

though one might wonder if we’re overdue a corrective action regarding the same sorts of shenanigans in the world of finance

Grease the slides, Madame has a lot of work to do.

While privatisation can be a bad thing, it can also be a good thing.

Maybe you’re right about BT – but maybe its an argument for better management.

Natural monopolies should never be privatised since they always have profit as their primary motivation and can never be satisfactorily regulated. (see here: “Energy secretary calls for meeting after leaked report suggested profits could be seven times higher than industry claims, for example” – http://preview.tinyurl.com/zl292dq

they always have profit as their primary motivation and can never be satisfactorily regulated.

I would argue that any correctly functioning business should have profit as a primary motivation. A business that is shrinking is not in good shape, and one that is just keeping head above water isn’t much better. That isn’t to say that a company should chase profit above all else, as that sort of behaviour tends to foster an attitude that clients don’t appreciate.

No, the problem with these sorts of situations is that a company that is very large (as a national telecoms provider would be) will have influence and know where to best use said influence. A brilliant example here is TalkTalk. If you or I ran a service like that, being publicly crucified would be the better outcome. The service would be closed, quite possibly raided, we could be looking at prison time for gross negligence, and our ghost of a company would attract the same derisory whispers as Yahoo! does these days. But that’s because we don’t have power, influence, and connections…

Nothing to do with regulation. Nothing to do with privatisation. Nothing to do with taxes. Just yet another aspect of how corrupt the entire system is.

….and the galling bit? I can’t say “when I were a lad”, ‘cos that was the ’70s leading into the ’80s, one might say that’s when this whole sorry mess began. I mean, can you imagine them making “Dallas” today? Or running adverts with a guy who liked it so much he bought the company? In hindsight, such things are crass and cringeworthy in equal measure. And so very eighties.

This, I think, is a large part about what brexit is. People don’t actually have specific reason to hate the EU, and the majority probably don’t know or care much either way. It has just been taken on as a target as it is easier to “blame Johnny foreigner” than come to terms with being screwed by the banks, screwed by the government, screwed by their employers, and screwed by anybody else with a modicum of power. Leaving the EU is a vote for change. Not a good change in my opinion, but something somehow. Unfortunately those people are going to be majorly screwed should brexit not be the desired (and highly unrealistic) utopia.

Look around. The only way the proles have of “taking back control” is a civil war. Anything else is just an illusion. The little people don’t have control. Witness the likes of the “snooper’s charter” (that the hated EU has just said is quite definitely illegal in its scope; and the lovely Home Secretary has indicated she’s just going to plough on ahead with it anyway). Control handed to the people? Don’t make me laugh…

I would argue that any correctly functioning business should have profit as a primary motivation.

and

That isn’t to say that a company should chase profit above all else

This needs clarification!

Natural monopolies should be run for the benefit of the nation as a whole, not just for a select, small portion of it at the expense of the rest. By definition, a monopoly has the power to extort – it does not have to offer value for value.

Reviving this thread as it seemed a logical place to put it.

I was talking about Brexit with some people at work. One of the girls summed it up as: a country that was never really a part of Europe is making this giant drama out of becoming even less of a part of Europe, because they still think they’re more important than everybody else and because they’re all racists.

This is how the UK is starting to be perceived by ordinary people.

We should offer Theresa May a slow handclap. Congratulations. Way to break it, hero. Etc.

This is how the UK is starting to be perceived by ordinary people.

On the other hand, quite a few people here in Germany believe that Germany should follow the UK ASAP, because the EU is perceived as being a generally bad idea.

On the other hand, quite a few people here in Germany believe that Germany should follow the UK ASAP, because the EU is perceived as being a generally bad idea.

Whilst the focus seems to be on countries like Greece leaving EU and simply defaulting on the artificial debt that Brussels has insisted they carry, far more likely is that a country like Germany might leave. Brussels seems to think that our departure will allow them to charge us after we’ve gone (and presumably Germany might get a bill if it left). I think they’ll find out that once we’ve left their bills will get ‘returned to sender’.

far more likely is that a country like Germany might leave. Brussels seems to think that our departure will allow them to charge us after we’ve gone (and presumably Germany might get a bill if it left). I think they’ll find out that once we’ve left their bills will get ‘returned to sender’.

As will putative transactions in the other direction, quid pro quo!

The civilised world is falling about our ears!

We need a saviour! Second coming? Or a competent politician? Hens teeth!

I despair!

I don’t think TM deserves to be singled out – as far as I can see she is trying to make the best out of the way the vote went. The ones to blame are the politicians from both sides of the argument who misled voters with blatant lies and promises of a better world that they couldn’t guarantee. Instead of a reasoned discussion about the pros and cons all we got were polarised arguments and mudslinging and no chance of any truth or light coming out.

I would agree that the mainstream debate was poor. But you could easily do your own research. You can even read the various treaty texts!

I think the worst bit is the commonplace labelling of someone who wants to leave a political union a racist. Race doesn’t come into it one iota. It doesn’t come into politics much, except as a way for the left to silence debate. Unhelpful, really. If you silence debate, people will eventually get upset.

I have also noticed that the UK media always portray the EU as one happy family, and only those strange Brits don’t like it. But if you speak to real people, you find it is not quite that simple.

I don’t think TM deserves to be singled out

Really? You don’t think that a more moderate person might have had a better result? The way things are going, Brexit is going to be extremely painful.

• Continually bleating on about the “overwhelming majority” (no, it wasn’t) and the “democratic will” (what did people actually vote for?) to justify her actions.
  As for democratic will, she’s giving the Irish and Scots about the same level of contempt as she is giving the entire EU.
  She seems to be completely oblivious to, or uncaring of, the Irish border issue.

• Still fighting against giving EU citizens in the UK any rights at all. This is nothing to do with Merkel, May is the PM of the country who voted to leave, it’s up to her to make the first move.
  Is she afraid the UK might make concessions and other countries not reciprocate? Well, Europe has a pretty good track record on reciprocal actions. The UK, on the other hand, didn’t even give huge numbers of long-term ex-pats the right to even vote in this farcical referendum, why is it suddenly expected to care about overseas citizens? It rarely does…

• She might have “apparently” back down from dismantling the Lords if they disagreed with the Brexit bill, but the fact that she said it at all should be extremely worrying. Not just that, but her choice to enter Lords to oversee intimidate.
  She has mostly got her way though. In order to keep to the schedule, the Commons are expected to fight the addition to the Brexit bill, at which point it will pass back to the Lords, who said they’ll pass it back as-is. In other words, all of this is theatre to hold the pretence of a functioning legislature instead of the whims of a dictator.

• Shall I mention the idea that not a penny more be paid to the EU (so stick that XX billion where the sun doesn’t shine), but, wait, there is every expectation that all agreed subsidies will be paid to the UK up until the point of formally leaving.

• The interesting white paper that took an eternity to arrive. You know, the one where she says “we’re all friends aren’t we”, so give us unfettered access to the single market for free or the UK will turn itself into a tax haven.

I could go on, but it is depressing enough. To put it bluntly, May is a horrible negotiator, about as far from a States(wo)man as Trump is from a President, and her single-minded insistence on ploughing ahead with the hardest possible Brexit.

I think the worst bit is the commonplace labelling of someone who wants to leave a political union a racist.

There were quite enough people on TV interviews who openly stated that they voted Brexit to kick out Muslims, Poles, Romanians… While you might say these people might represent a minority, you can’t deny that immigration was one of the big issues highlighted by both Leave campaigns, backed up by Nigel’s line-of-migrants poster, backed up by a government that appears to be openly hostile to EU citizens (not to mention non-EU), backed up by the Home Office giving itself new powers so it can alter residency rules to make it more difficult for non-EU citizens to be able to stay in the UK (and, note, this will apply to EU citizens too once the UK is no longer a part of it).

Race doesn’t come into it one iota.

I suggest you take a good long hard look at how the UK government is behaving and how this is being seen by other countries. What other word would you like people to use to label an administration that is openly hostile to foreigners?
Sure enough, it isn’t race exactly. It’s nationality. Ultimately, it’s the same thing, though, isn’t it?
And it’s utterly shameful.

If you silence debate, people will eventually get upset.

You might want to tell that to your Prime Minister.
Preferably before the country descends into a civil war over what the (real) “elite” in Westminster have done to the ordinary person. Remind me – what did the people actually vote for? What are they going to get?

I have also noticed that the UK media always portray the EU as one happy family,

Always? One might be tempted to suggest looking at the Express for a different story. Okay, most of the crap in the Express is made up gibberish, but there are loads of stories about how horrible things are just about to happen any moment now.
No, I don’t read the Express – its crap turns up in my news app. The headlines are easy to spot, all the emotive words are in capitals. They, and the Mail, seem to be running a lot of stories trying to discredit Nicola Sturgeon. I guess the Brexiteers must be getting worried about IndyRef2? That on top of Ireland’s Taoiseach making noises hinting at the possibility of reunification? Well…

But if you speak to real people, you find it is not quite that simple.

Of course it isn’t that simple. Angela Merkel made a huge mistake welcoming an entire continent to Europe. She meant well, but she didn’t think of the consequences and how the idea would be gamed by opportunists. Also I think the EU as an institution has taken its place for granted for too long and has often lost touch with the people it is supposed to be helping. I asked some people at work what the EU has done for them and people often shrug, and then seem surprised when I point out various pieces of equipment at work that were made possible thanks to the EU’s rural development programme. I’m not super-smart, there’s a sign on the gateway announcing this, and there are stickers on the relevant pieces of equipment. That nobody notices. <sigh>

The EU has good points and bad points. I would say that it is broadly a good idea, but the implementation has flaws – specifically too much power to the ringleader countries to make decisions in their favour which can be to the detriment of the poorer countries; and a decision making process that is lethargic at best; plus a general direction that is lacking backbone. No, people, the new EU-US data sharing agreement is even worse than the last one it took ten years to realise was a farce. And if the US wants visas and full bank details on EU citizens travelling to the US, the EU is entirely right to demand the same in return.

Maybe we need an EU 2.0 to come along soon? Why not? Humanity as a whole has a pretty abysmal track record of “getting it right first time”. The idea of populism and nationalism might appeal to some, but it’s a step very much in the wrong direction. But hey, it’s okay, you’re in the UK. You’ll get to see why soon enough.

I would agree that the mainstream debate was poor. But you could easily do your own research. You can even read the various treaty texts!

I wonder how many voters actually did their own research, and how many simply believed what the Daily Telegraph, Express, Daily Mail and Sun told them?

Cornwall seems to have had a bit of an epiphany over the future of its EU funding in the last week or so, by the way. Oh, and £350 million a week extra for the NHS, anyone?

I think the worst bit is the commonplace labelling of someone who wants to leave a political union a racist. Race doesn’t come into it one iota.

Maybe not race, but definitely nationality.

If it wasn’t (and isn’t) an issue, perhaps you could explain why the Government seem to be fighting the Lords’ suggestion that they treat all legitimate residents of the UK with some dignity? I presume that you would be completely happy for every EU citizen currently living in Britain to be given indefinite, unconditional leave to remain post-Brexit? I mean, nationality doesn’t come into it.

It doesn’t come into politics much, except as a way for the left to silence debate.

That’ll be why May seems happy to run the UK’s economy into a brick wall in two years’ time in order to “regain control of our borders”, I assume? And why attacks on foreigners (and the “foreign-looking”) went up significantly after the referendum?

I think the worst bit is the commonplace labelling of someone who wants to leave a political union a racist

As others have said there more than enough people with definitely racist/xenophobic views arguing that the UK should leave to show a large group, if not a majority, of leave supporters have that viewpoint.

the Lords’ suggestion that they treat all legitimate residents of the UK with some dignity?

Which is a damn good idea BTW. Simply put, the EU want something like that in return for the UK retaining access to europe. These things are always quid pro quo.

I can only go from my own observations. Me voting leave is not about race – is is about the supreme governing power being elected and based in the UK. End of. I also do not care about any supposed economic benefits (hard to prove either way) or what the media coverage around the world looks like.

As I understand the EU citizens debacle, May offered to sort it out several months ago, and the EU refused. They have made it clear that it will become a negotiation chip. Sad, but there you are. If it’s up for negotiation then TM cannot start one-sided offerings now: that would ruin her negotiation!

Remember also that ‘EU funding’ displayed on UK projects is a nonsense. We are a net contributor, so could have done it all ourselves, with cash left over (and making our own decisions on how the cash is spent).

I will try and leave it at that.

May offered to sort it out several months ago, and the EU refused.

From this side of the channel: it’s an anathema that the question has even arisen. And what the EU actually said was that the UK has not formally begun the process of leaving (what article 50 is), so no negotiation on what that involves will happen until the process formally begins. After all, an unscrupulous leader could spend years in pointless negotiation without ever actually having formally stated the intention to leave.
The whole “EU didn’t, EU doesn’t, it’s all Merkel’s fault” – that’s just the government creating a bogeyman instead of admitting they didn’t want to follow the established protocol. As usual.

They have made it clear that it will become a negotiation chip.

Ah, this will be the same EU that wants to create an “associate membership” to allow British citizens in the EU to continue being European, something that got shouted down by British MEPs claiming it was somehow “unfair” on British citizens in the UK? As if the very real chance of ****ing up my life (and hundreds of thousands like me who had no say in the referendum) is even remotely “fair”?

That would ruin her negotiation!

Her negotiation was ruined the moment she decided that backing up comically unrealistic demands with barely disguised threats was the way forward.
Congratulations, she’s just alienated everybody.
Brexit might have been difficult. Now it will hurt, as patience and amity are disappearing rapidly. Of course, you don’t care what the media in other countries reports so you only get the perversely biased reports in the highly partisan British media.

We are a net contributor, so could have done it all ourselves, with cash left over

Oh bollocks. Westminster can barely see beyond the M25, so expect quite a few fundamental changes when you have all that invisible money to squander on failed IT contracts and smart meters.
Only, you won’t.
Because you are still seeing it as a plain money in != money out equation. So let’s look at it differently. The entire payment to the EU per year represents a little under 0.5% of GDP. The payment is around eight and a half billion depending on sterling fluctuations (it’ll be more now, but that’s a self inflicted wound). Some money comes back while some stays in the EU to pay Nigel for taking the p*ss out of them all. But there are other benefits that need to be factored in. The Confederation of British Industry estimates the economic benefit of being in the EU to be around £62 to £78 billion (exchange rates etc) per year. That’s a hell of a healthy chunk of the GDP. Only a complete imbecile would think it is economically viable to gain ~8.5B while risking losing nearly nine times that.
Sure, the UK can talk to other non-EU countries to setting up trade agreements. How’s that working or for you, eh? The only leader who apparently is in favour of doing so is The Donald, but it is quite telling that when he meets with important British people, there’s not one single tweet about it @POTUS. The UK just isn’t that important to him. It’ll be a business deal (slanted heavily in America’s favour), nothing more.

is is about the supreme governing power being elected and based in the UK. End of.

You can stop parroting that rubbish now, thanks. May’s own white paper said that the government was never not sovereign, it just sometimes “felt like it”. In other words, a lot of lies were told and people believed them.