Nick Clegg in Ebbw Vale

Those who voted to leave in the valleys deserve all the hardship that Brexit brings. They have no sympathy from me, Turkeys voting for Christmas.

At least our fair city was enlightened enough to vote remain. It's maybe this open, optimistic, forward looking attitude that is driving Cardiff on, a beacon of light for the rest of Wales whilst north of the M4 withers away

I have sympathy for them. Stupid people deserve to be protected from themselves. It shouldn't be a "law of the jungle" thing.

Those who voted to leave in the valleys deserve all the hardship that Brexit brings. They have no sympathy from me, Turkeys voting for Christmas.

At least our fair city was enlightened enough to vote remain. It's maybe this open, optimistic, forward looking attitude that is driving Cardiff on, a beacon of light for the rest of Wales whilst north of the M4 withers away

I have sympathy for them. Stupid people deserve to be protected from themselves. It shouldn't be a "law of the jungle" thing.

ZZzzzz oh well a breakout of this stuff was inevitable given what happened yesterday. Well as an idiot myself who's stupid brother lives in the area in question and was a 'turkey voting for christmas'. Personally I find that very patronising - but 'my team won' so I'm hoping that in the long term this all works out great - don't really understand why everyone now doesn't wish for the same? Oh and my stupid brothers vision just may have been further than christmas? I would ask him but he's to moronic to answer!! For those that wish to bleat on about the disaster that was the Brexit vote, then you can do here until it gets even more condescending, vitriolic, nasty etc. almost always from the losers of that democratic vote. Last time we lost some great posters following this debate - and no I didn't have anything to do with that.

I had to have my say but can't indulge any further as it's as bad for my blood pressure as listening to James O'Brian on LBC ! and that's BAD!!! however if it swamps this place that is to do primarily with Cardiff Developments then it'll be taking a one way trip to room 101!

OK, so I'm going to throw myself into the maelstrom, but hopefully not stir it much more.

Look, I think its hard to deny the following:

- Many leave voters and some remain voters voted the way they did for issues that don't stand up to much scrutiny. It suggests either they aren't that smart, haven't thought about this issue with their full capabilities, or have voted on a sort of gut feeling and struggled to rationalise it.

I say "many" leavers because, in my view at least, there is something more inherently "emotional" about voting leave: taking back control; restoring Britain to some sort of globe-trotting glory.

I say only "some" remain voters because a lot of the voted remain in a sort of "hard-headed" way - they would probably be emotional leavers, but thought economics/risks were such that they really should vote remain. (Its the same in Scotland where a lot of "No" voters would actually vote yes if they thought the economics was balanced).

But the relative strength/rationality of remainers arguments doesn't necessarily mean they are right - they just tended to be more consistent with things like: the economics of trade; the legal and political workings of the EU, and the wider world, etc. With people like Donald Trump about, and the rise of China, its possible that the rules of the game are changing, and maybe Leavers have cottoned on to that sooner than the rest of us.

One of the best arguments I've heard about leaving the EU is that the economic and monetary union is fundamentally misconceived and will collapse; that this will drag down the whole of the EU; and more generally the world is going to become more insular and nation-state led again. Now even if you think thats a bad thing (I certainly do!), you can make the case that its better for the UK to get out the EU before the collapse, so that theres less chance of us losing money in bail outs etc. And we can start preparing for that more mercantalist world better outside the EU. To be honest, I'm not sure I buy this argument given the rising power (China's) growing interest in globalisation, given the centrality of global supply chains to its own prosperity. So even if the US starts to pull back, China will push forward on globalisation. And I'd rather be negotiating with them as a bigger bloc (the EU) than as smaller units, which they can divide and rule.

The other good argument I've heard is about how the EU allows the UK government to be less accountable. Thats because the media and people don't really take enough interest in what happens in Europe and quite a few important things in relation to the economy, workers rights, environment are taken in the EU. Now quite often, the British Govt is in the vanguard of supporting controversial decisions in these areas: such as the decision in 2015 to not apply big tariffs to chinese steel. But thats because this is all rather opaque in the EU, and issues don't get the same public debate and scrutiny as if they are happening in Westminster. So the British Govt can get away with stuff that they couldn't get away with if the decisions were being taken in the UK parliament. Again, I think there is a counter-argument: the solution to this is a much better media that properly holds policymakers and decisions taken at a European level to account, not pulling out of the EU!

I must say, most of the other arguments I've heard don't seem to stack up to me:
- We can do more trade with the rest of the world like China: I don't see Germans struggling to trade with China in the EU, and we'd get less good trade deals given our smaller size
- We can spend more money on things here given our EU contribution will stop: thats only true if the impact on the economy is less than 0.5%, and in the long-term still virtually every analyst/researcher thinks it will be quite a bit more than that
- Migration is taking jobs and hurting public services; migrants are a source of demand for products/services as well as extra labour; they also pay more money in tax than receive in benefits and public services, so the real problem is under-investment in public services not migrants.

And unfortunately you hear some absolute tosh:
- the EU money was spent badly (thats our fault not theirs!)
- people in 1066 wouldn't have put up with unelected rule!!! (That was some lady from Hastings saying why she voted leave)

And finally, Paul. Just because a lot of remainers continue to point our problems, potential pitfalls, etc, does not mean they don't want things to turn out well. Its for two things:
(1) Some think there is genuinely a chance to stop Brexit, if they can persuade people its going to be bad, and if people start seeing intractable negotiations, etc.
(2) Many more think that its important to be forwarned of the potential problems lying ahead, in part so the more giddy sort of leavers (and there are quite a few in Westminster) don't get carried away and do damage to the country's interests by patronising our EU neighbours, thinking through consequences, etc.

OK, so I'm going to throw myself into the maelstrom, but hopefully not stir it much more.

Look, I think its hard to deny the following:

- Many leave voters and some remain voters voted the way they did for issues that don't stand up to much scrutiny. It suggests either they aren't that smart, haven't thought about this issue with their full capabilities, or have voted on a sort of gut feeling and struggled to rationalise it.

I say "many" leavers because, in my view at least, there is something more inherently "emotional" about voting leave: taking back control; restoring Britain to some sort of globe-trotting glory.

I say only "some" remain voters because a lot of the voted remain in a sort of "hard-headed" way - they would probably be emotional leavers, but thought economics/risks were such that they really should vote remain. (Its the same in Scotland where a lot of "No" voters would actually vote yes if they thought the economics was balanced).

But the relative strength/rationality of remainers arguments doesn't necessarily mean they are right - they just tended to be more consistent with things like: the economics of trade; the legal and political workings of the EU, and the wider world, etc. With people like Donald Trump about, and the rise of China, its possible that the rules of the game are changing, and maybe Leavers have cottoned on to that sooner than the rest of us.

One of the best arguments I've heard about leaving the EU is that the economic and monetary union is fundamentally misconceived and will collapse; that this will drag down the whole of the EU; and more generally the world is going to become more insular and nation-state led again. Now even if you think thats a bad thing (I certainly do!), you can make the case that its better for the UK to get out the EU before the collapse, so that theres less chance of us losing money in bail outs etc. And we can start preparing for that more mercantalist world better outside the EU. To be honest, I'm not sure I buy this argument given the rising power (China's) growing interest in globalisation, given the centrality of global supply chains to its own prosperity. So even if the US starts to pull back, China will push forward on globalisation. And I'd rather be negotiating with them as a bigger bloc (the EU) than as smaller units, which they can divide and rule.

The other good argument I've heard is about how the EU allows the UK government to be less accountable. Thats because the media and people don't really take enough interest in what happens in Europe and quite a few important things in relation to the economy, workers rights, environment are taken in the EU. Now quite often, the British Govt is in the vanguard of supporting controversial decisions in these areas: such as the decision in 2015 to not apply big tariffs to chinese steel. But thats because this is all rather opaque in the EU, and issues don't get the same public debate and scrutiny as if they are happening in Westminster. So the British Govt can get away with stuff that they couldn't get away with if the decisions were being taken in the UK parliament. Again, I think there is a counter-argument: the solution to this is a much better media that properly holds policymakers and decisions taken at a European level to account, not pulling out of the EU!

I must say, most of the other arguments I've heard don't seem to stack up to me:
- We can do more trade with the rest of the world like China: I don't see Germans struggling to trade with China in the EU, and we'd get less good trade deals given our smaller size
- We can spend more money on things here given our EU contribution will stop: thats only true if the impact on the economy is less than 0.5%, and in the long-term still virtually every analyst/researcher thinks it will be quite a bit more than that
- Migration is taking jobs and hurting public services; migrants are a source of demand for products/services as well as extra labour; they also pay more money in tax than receive in benefits and public services, so the real problem is under-investment in public services not migrants.

And unfortunately you hear some absolute tosh:
- the EU money was spent badly (thats our fault not theirs!)
- people in 1066 wouldn't have put up with unelected rule!!! (That was some lady from Hastings saying why she voted leave)

And finally, Paul. Just because a lot of remainers continue to point our problems, potential pitfalls, etc, does not mean they don't want things to turn out well. Its for two things:
(1) Some think there is genuinely a chance to stop Brexit, if they can persuade people its going to be bad, and if people start seeing intractable negotiations, etc.
(2) Many more think that its important to be forwarned of the potential problems lying ahead, in part so the more giddy sort of leavers (and there are quite a few in Westminster) don't get carried away and do damage to the country's interests by patronising our EU neighbours, thinking through consequences, etc.

Ok you obviously have great knowledge on this and your opinions on the reason that leaving is the wrong choice may all end up being correct. BUT we are leaving - we're on our way! All we can do now is see what happens in the future - anyone who doesn't want it to workout good for the UK is now the idiot - even if they believe it to be wrong. I just don't particularly want this forum to turn into another debate on the subject as it will end up - or indeed start with insults being traded (that's happened already!) So, No I don't want it here but as I said I will leave it until this get's nasty as it likely will.

Here's my two pence worth....

The EU funding got spent on rail lines and roads that instead of creating economic wealth in deprived areas, suck the talent and jobs out cause its now quicker and easier to get to Cardiff. The same has happened in other countries and across the EU as a whole.
The amount of money that has been spent in poorer parts of Wales over the years on technology parks that after the grants run dry the tumble weed moves in.
The reason for the valleys was coal and iron, sadly this is gone and many wonder what is the point of throwing good money after bad. If on the other hand you want dormitory towns with a few retail parks at key road intersections and next to no industry or farming sectors then keep shovelling the money in, even after we leave the EU

I voted Leave because I think that Brussels is as bad as Westminster for Wales. Although, having been involved in Welsh politics, I have little doubt that an independent Wales would be as corrupt as anywhere else.

Then again, a goverment with Leanne, Rhun, Adam and Stefan in charge would have three formidable intellects and one very genuine, big-hearted person steering Wales in the right direction. As long as a certain bullying w@nker was kept away from government - preferably booted out of the country - Wales could do ok under a Plaid administration.

Looking at the ranking of the top 20 countries for GDP (PPP) per capita, one thing is apparent - all but two of them have populations smaller than the U.K.

1 Qatar $132,870
2 Luxem'bg 99,506
3 Singapore 85,382
4 Brunei 79,508
5 Kuwait 70,542
6 Norway 68,591
7 United Arab Emirates 67,217
8 Ireland 65,806
9 San Marino 62,938
10 Switzerland 58,647
— Hong Kong 56,878
11 United States 56,084
12 Saudi Arabia 53,802
13 Netherlands 49,624
14 Bahrain 49,601
15 Sweden 48,199
16 Australia 47,644
17 Austria 46,986
18 Germany 46,974
— Taiwan 46,833
19 Denmark 45,723
20 Iceland 45,666

Many of them have populations similar in size to that of Wales. If Iceland and Ireland can be rich and independent, why not Wales? In the long run I believe that Wales would prosper outside of the EU and the UK. I'd imagine that Wales GDP PPP per capita would be around $33,000 right now, ranking us alongside Cyprus and Trinidad and Tobago.

As our figure in Wales is around half of Ireland's per capita, and Ireland has been in the EU for exactly the same length of time as Wales, it seems that something has gone severely wrong for our country. In 1973 GDP per capita in Ireland was lower than in Wales, so for the Irish to have pulled so far ahead of us indicates to me that neither Brussels nor Westminster has allowed us to prosper. Devolution has been a flop too. No primary lawmaking powers till 2011, no control over the real levers of the economy (monetary, taxation, trade, foreign policy) and one-party rule.

We need independence now from Brussels and Westminster and now is the time to seize the initiative.

I await the Unionists' responses with keen anticipation.

Ireland might be independent, but it's certainly not rich and has suffered enormously over the decades with a terrible boom and bust cycle. The last financial crash (2009) saw just about everyone under the age of 30 leave Ireland to look for work. They flooded into Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK.

Ireland's economy is heavily dependent on the UK. We are their largest trading partner and they've been able to attract large numbers of US companies to base the EU operations there for a few simple reasons:
1) The Irish diaspora link.
2) They speak English.
3) Low corporation tax.
4) Being in the EU enables them to do business easily in the UK.
It’ll be interesting to see how these arrangements fair in the post-Brexit world.

Regarding Welsh independence, I certainly think that it’s possible and indeed many small countries do proposer. But an awful lot would need to change for that to happen.

There are some key problems:
-We have practically no financial sector. A few buildings societies, Julian Hodge bank and few foreign companies with back offices is about as much as we can muster. A strong financial sector is essential for any independent state.
-There is such little entrepreneurial spirit. We don’t have enough of these wealth creators.
-Our best and brightest leave and will continue to leave for better opportunities. The Dark Star (London) will continue to such in all, independence or not. When people do come back, they’re knocked down at every turn. Look at the problems Sir Terry Matthews has faced.
-We are a one political party country and I fail to see how independence will change that.
-We do not have a proper independent legal system. The criminal justice system needs to be devolved and embedded in Wales and allow that to grow.
-We do not have a good independent press that will keep the government to account. The quality of journalism in Wales is appalling.

Whilst the debate in Scotland rages about whether or not the country would be better off financially with independence, at least they are in a practical position to go for it. Wales lags behind in so many ways that comes from being attached to England for some much longer. As the late historian, John Davies once asked: “When was Wales?” Seriously, when was Wales a fully independent country with all of the laws and governance that go with a nation state? When did Wales have a unified identity of itself and its people?

Scotland was a country and has maintained many of its characteristics and ancient institutions from pre-1707. Ireland was administered as a separate entity and therefore many institutions remained separate, making its break easier.

Wales is so far behind and we have a long way to go before we can seriously consider independence. It’s not impossible and I’m not going to say that it wouldn’t bring prosperity. But it’s a long way off.

Regarding the EU, to me it was ultimately one simple question:
Do you want Britain to become a state within the United States of Europe?

Far fetched? UKIP propaganda? I don’t think so, I think it would be an economic necessity. Resulting from our exit, we will see this United States of Europe become a reality, because it was largely Britain that was putting the breaks on such moves.

The EU member states are committed to “ever closer union”. That is a fact. This commitment has become a necessity for those in the Eurozone, as it’s taken them near financial disaster to appreciate that you cannot have a currency union without a political union. Other federations figured this out long ago (USA, Canada, Australia) but apparently not the EU. Some cynics (based upon reading previously classified Cabinet papers in the National Archives) new this was alway the intention and the Eurozone was almost set up to fail to push closer union.

So where did that leave Britain (and the likes of Denmark), sitting on the side line with our own currency. Would our views really be taken into account when conflicting with those of the Eurozone and the need for financial stability? It’s questionable.

Other issues were also coming to the front, as the EU wanted to maximise its impact on the world stage. Juncker was already calling for an EU army, a common defence policy, a common foreign policy etc. There were also calls for both Britain and France to give their permanent seat on the UN security council over to the EU.

In reality, Britain’s previous position in the EU was untenable. Had we voted to remain we would have seen further integration whether you agreed with that or not. The vote was not a vote for the status quo.

Contrast the EU’s “ever closer union” with the UK’s approach to devolution. In England devolution is being extended down to city level. It’s not perfect, a lot needs to be done, but it’s a lot better than the increasing centralisation of power in Brussels where all the serious decisions are made.

1 Qatar $132,870
2 Luxem'bg 99,506
3 Singapore 85,382
4 Brunei 79,508
5 Kuwait 70,542
6 Norway 68,591
7 United Arab Emirates 67,217
8 Ireland 65,806
9 San Marino 62,938
10 Switzerland 58,647
— Hong Kong 56,878
11 United States 56,084
12 Saudi Arabia 53,802
13 Netherlands 49,624
14 Bahrain 49,601
15 Sweden 48,199
16 Australia 47,644
17 Austria 46,986
18 Germany 46,974
— Taiwan 46,833
19 Denmark 45,723
20 Iceland 45,666

Just back from the pub and I can't find the UK on this list , probably due to me being a bit tipsy, I know for a fact that we are the 5th or maybe 7th richest country in the world, so I am confused!!

No I have worked it out they are all Tax havens or places where dodgy money flows through

1 Qatar $132,870
2 Luxem'bg 99,506
3 Singapore 85,382
4 Brunei 79,508
5 Kuwait 70,542
6 Norway 68,591
7 United Arab Emirates 67,217
8 Ireland 65,806
9 San Marino 62,938
10 Switzerland 58,647
— Hong Kong 56,878
11 United States 56,084
12 Saudi Arabia 53,802
13 Netherlands 49,624
14 Bahrain 49,601
15 Sweden 48,199
16 Australia 47,644
17 Austria 46,986
18 Germany 46,974
— Taiwan 46,833
19 Denmark 45,723
20 Iceland 45,666

Just back from the pub and I can't find the UK on this list , probably due to me being a bit tipsy, I know for a fact that we are the 5th or maybe 7th richest country in the world, so I am confused!!

No I have worked it out they are all Tax havens or places where dodgy money flows through

The list is Gross Domestic Product at Purchasing Power Parity per capita - how much wealth is produced, taking account of the purchasing power of each country's currency, per head. The Uk figure on that list is $41499 - in 25th place. The figures are from 2015 so the drop in sterling's value since then will have affected the ranking, I'd imagine.