planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:11 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Should the UK remain in the EU?
In 67%  67%  [ 26 ]
Out 33%  33%  [ 13 ]
Total votes : 39
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7705
j man wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
j man wrote:
Jimbox01 wrote:
EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

140,475 signatures and counting...

Even as someone who voted for Remain, I find this ridiculous. Repeating the vote until you get the result you want is not democracy.

1. This is never an issue that should have been put to a referendum - the EU is a very complicated international treaty on which fundamentally affected our economy

2. The result had less than 4% between each side - if it had been the other way then Leave would have been demanding another referendum very soon.

3. The consequences of the result have already been devastating.

4. Leave have already admitted they won't keep their promises, and as such many of the people voted based on lies.

1. I see no problem with bigger issues being put to a referendum. UKIP's rise in popularity showed that the EU issue had started to dominate the general election and people were voting for parties based solely on their EU stance and ignoring everything else they might have to offer. The Conservatives also promised a referendum in their general election campaign and no one raised this concern then, rather they ended up with a majority of the vote. If the general population are not well informed enough to make this decision then you have to ask why. I'd see this as a failure of the political class to properly educate and inform the electorate, rather than a failure of the democratic process.

2. Probably yes, particularly as I imagine UKIP's popularity would have continued to rise and they would have been making similar noises as the SNP have been since the Scottish independence vote.

3. Indisputably yes, and it very much concerns me. Even the Leave campaign conceded that a short term hit was inevitable. However the long term impact of this is very much unknown (incidentally the primary reason why I voted Remain - I was quite satisfied with the status quo and saw no reason to vote for change) and I think a lot of the Remain arguments were based on the EU continuing as it were post-Brexit, but I don't believe this to be case. We can only wait and see how this pans out.

4. There were plenty of lies, propaganda and spin from both campaigns. I feel a Remain vote would have been based at least partially on lies as well.



This is up to well over a million now. What is the point at which it can not be ignored?

Many people on local radio claiming they voted out as a protest and never imagined it would win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6651
On the people regretting it/ protest votes thing, I see no reason to believe it's a significant number but if you fancy getting really angry at some very stupid people watch these:





Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
Asphalt_World wrote:
trento wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
trento wrote:

Take it easy. It's just short term financial loss. Give it a few years, Britain will be more prosperous than ever.

Have you forgotten how countries like Germany and much of Europe could rebuild themselves after a terrible war?

How is it Britain cannot do the same?

Transitions are never easy but you will look back years later and realise it's the right choice to leave.

First. The economic repercussions are the least of my concern on this issue, I even made the point of stressing that fact

Second. Rebuilding from a war is very different from rebuilding from an act of deliberate economic suicide.


Yes, but war is a far more difficult problem to overcome.

It's not economic suicide. It's just taking a different route. The EU isn't going to stop trading just because of Brexit.


I think you'll find that 99.9% of the population wanted Britain rebuilt after the war. Only a tiny bit more than half of us want to build a none EU Britain.


But that's how democracy works. Are you suggesting the 48% should get what they want?

There's a graphic on the BBC website which shows that 60% of the French want to leave the EU too.

Personally I don't think it's as cut and dried as everyone thinks. I think there will probably be a second referendum, and with the EU ramping up project fear to epic proportions I think they will get the 'right' result this time.

I think the way the vote went the way it did is partly because we don't believe Cameron when he assures us that Turkey won't be joining the EU. We don't buy it when he tells us what an awesome deal he got from Europe, and we don't believe that Europe isn't heading for a United States of Europe with a central undemocratic government. Europe was fine when it obeyed it's own rules and principles, but as soon as it started letting in countries that were financially unviable and more importantly forcing them to adopt the Euro (thank Christ we never went down that route) it started shooting itself in the foot big time.

The other thing is that I don't think anybody actually believes that Europe can be 'reformed' from inside. It's only now that we've had our referendum and Europe is shocked into action that they start talking about reform. And I think we also realise that the organization is money and power hungry and wants more and more of both.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
ALESI wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
trento wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
trento wrote:

Take it easy. It's just short term financial loss. Give it a few years, Britain will be more prosperous than ever.

Have you forgotten how countries like Germany and much of Europe could rebuild themselves after a terrible war?

How is it Britain cannot do the same?

Transitions are never easy but you will look back years later and realise it's the right choice to leave.

First. The economic repercussions are the least of my concern on this issue, I even made the point of stressing that fact

Second. Rebuilding from a war is very different from rebuilding from an act of deliberate economic suicide.


Yes, but war is a far more difficult problem to overcome.

It's not economic suicide. It's just taking a different route. The EU isn't going to stop trading just because of Brexit.


I think you'll find that 99.9% of the population wanted Britain rebuilt after the war. Only a tiny bit more than half of us want to build a none EU Britain.


But that's how democracy works. Are you suggesting the 48% should get what they want?


No, that's not got anything to do with the comment I was replying to. :?

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
moby wrote:
j man wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
j man wrote:
Jimbox01 wrote:
EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

140,475 signatures and counting...

Even as someone who voted for Remain, I find this ridiculous. Repeating the vote until you get the result you want is not democracy.

1. This is never an issue that should have been put to a referendum - the EU is a very complicated international treaty on which fundamentally affected our economy

2. The result had less than 4% between each side - if it had been the other way then Leave would have been demanding another referendum very soon.

3. The consequences of the result have already been devastating.

4. Leave have already admitted they won't keep their promises, and as such many of the people voted based on lies.

1. I see no problem with bigger issues being put to a referendum. UKIP's rise in popularity showed that the EU issue had started to dominate the general election and people were voting for parties based solely on their EU stance and ignoring everything else they might have to offer. The Conservatives also promised a referendum in their general election campaign and no one raised this concern then, rather they ended up with a majority of the vote. If the general population are not well informed enough to make this decision then you have to ask why. I'd see this as a failure of the political class to properly educate and inform the electorate, rather than a failure of the democratic process.

2. Probably yes, particularly as I imagine UKIP's popularity would have continued to rise and they would have been making similar noises as the SNP have been since the Scottish independence vote.

3. Indisputably yes, and it very much concerns me. Even the Leave campaign conceded that a short term hit was inevitable. However the long term impact of this is very much unknown (incidentally the primary reason why I voted Remain - I was quite satisfied with the status quo and saw no reason to vote for change) and I think a lot of the Remain arguments were based on the EU continuing as it were post-Brexit, but I don't believe this to be case. We can only wait and see how this pans out.

4. There were plenty of lies, propaganda and spin from both campaigns. I feel a Remain vote would have been based at least partially on lies as well.



This is up to well over a million now. What is the point at which it can not be ignored?

Many people on local radio claiming they voted out as a protest and never imagined it would win


100,000

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Last edited by Asphalt_World on Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
j man wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
j man wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
huggybear wrote:

UKIP's stronger now than ever, and when it turns out leaving the EU doesn't stop political refugees from seeking asylum, but there are magically no doctors or nurses, they'll bait and switch and blame the refugees. Joe Public's already shown that they are willing to risk economic ruin for a slice of jingoism, and it'll only get worse as the economic strain on public services get bigger.


They'll have 350 million extra a week to sort public services won't they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA3XTYfzd1I
Maybe not! Slippery little git, taking a matter of a few hours to backtrack out of that one. Disgusting human being.

I'm no UKIP supporter but to be fair Farage was never affiliated with the official Leave campaign and therefore had nothing to do with that poster. He is also not an MP and his party has no influence on government economic policy so he is in no place to be making guarantees about how this money will be spent.


He has stood in front of the poster, he has pointed at it, he has quoted it on TV debates.

Did he create the poster? No. Has he been happy to be associated with it. Bloody hell yes.

Did he distance himself from it prior to the referendum? No
Does his distance himself from it about 4 hours after the result of the referendum? Yes.

Come on!

Well I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to what posters he's been stood in front of (aside from THAT one with the queue of migrants on it) or what he's been quoting in debates. I tend to ignore the man. But I suppose he's not going to debunk something that might further his cause.


He was given the opportunity to discuss that specific claim about the NHS windfall post Brexit and choose to ignore it and talk about something else. Whilst you can argue that people can avoid debunking something for their own benefit, it was one of the main claims the Brexit lot stood behind to convince people to vote their way. It took 4 hours for him to backtrack on it post referendum.

Utterly disgusting.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
j man wrote:
Jimbox01 wrote:
EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

140,475 signatures and counting...

Even as someone who voted for Remain, I find this ridiculous. Repeating the vote until you get the result you want is not democracy.

The result is what it is. In absolute numbers the majority was 1.3 million in favour of Leave which is far from insignificant, and outside of London and Scotland the result looks quite one-sided.

Personally I'm disappointed that this has happened but I don't think it's the disaster that I've seen so many people claiming on social media. The UK still holds a significant presence on the world stage and London remains one of the major financial centres in the world. We've seen already that there'll be a short term hit but I've no doubt that long term we can make this work.

I do wonder about the future of the EU though, I wouldn't be surprised if this is only the first in/out referendum we see across the continent. I think the Scots need to be careful, in a decade or so the EU may not be a union worth staying in.


Given the investment and prestige of London, not to mention all the rich and powerful people who have billions upon billions of pounds invested in property there, can we really see it being allowed to fail? The pressure will be on the Government to hold another vote until they get the 'right' result, from a lot of rich and powerful people. There's already a petition for London to become a separate entity (yeah right!).

Nobody seems to be taking into account that the EU without us is a significantly weaker entity. I honestly think there will be a wave of referendums now and the EU will probably collapse. The Scots will still be bleating on about staying in and not having to take the Euro (yes you will), not having border controls (yes you will) and telling us to get our dirty nuclear submarine bases out (fine, Wales can have them). As for Ireland I'm not entirely sure why we want to keep part of it anyway?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
mac_d wrote:
But then consider that of eligible voters it was about 37.5% who actually went for Brexit.


Or to put it another way, only 35% of eligible voters voted to Remain...!

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2496
Location: UK
ALESI wrote:
j man wrote:
Jimbox01 wrote:
EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

140,475 signatures and counting...

Even as someone who voted for Remain, I find this ridiculous. Repeating the vote until you get the result you want is not democracy.

The result is what it is. In absolute numbers the majority was 1.3 million in favour of Leave which is far from insignificant, and outside of London and Scotland the result looks quite one-sided.

Personally I'm disappointed that this has happened but I don't think it's the disaster that I've seen so many people claiming on social media. The UK still holds a significant presence on the world stage and London remains one of the major financial centres in the world. We've seen already that there'll be a short term hit but I've no doubt that long term we can make this work.

I do wonder about the future of the EU though, I wouldn't be surprised if this is only the first in/out referendum we see across the continent. I think the Scots need to be careful, in a decade or so the EU may not be a union worth staying in.


Given the investment and prestige of London, not to mention all the rich and powerful people who have billions upon billions of pounds invested in property there, can we really see it being allowed to fail? The pressure will be on the Government to hold another vote until they get the 'right' result, from a lot of rich and powerful people. There's already a petition for London to become a separate entity (yeah right!).

Nobody seems to be taking into account that the EU without us is a significantly weaker entity. I honestly think there will be a wave of referendums now and the EU will probably collapse. The Scots will still be bleating on about staying in and not having to take the Euro (yes you will), not having border controls (yes you will) and telling us to get our dirty nuclear submarine bases out (fine, Wales can have them). As for Ireland I'm not entirely sure why we want to keep part of it anyway?

Yes, a lot of the Remain argument was based on the assumption that the EU post-Brexit would continue on in its current form as if nothing has happened, and I doubt this will be the case. Indeed if it does fragment back into 28 separate states I imagine we could do very well out of it. However I still feel that it's a leap into the unknown that we didn't need to take.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5023
I've seen a lot of 'proud of the English, and apparently that makes me a racist' type posts on social media today.

This annoys me a lot, because a lot of the people I've seen on tv or quoted in the media who voted for out, did so because they wanted to make Britain Britain again and a big reason was immigration (EU or otherwise, because most of them seem to not understand the difference) and they want to stop anyone from coming here.

I am proud to be British, but that is because I grew up in what I believed to be a fair country, which didn't discriminate against other nationalities, religions, ethnicity etc and welcomed and helped those of other cultures to live with us. My mum's first job as a teacher in London in the 50's was basically a class where half the children were that of European refugees from the war, most of which didn't speak English, but their patents came here to escape the war, made it their home and their descendants are still here now.

Yes, Britain may have f*cked over half the world in the past, but it has also learnt from it's mistakes and grew into a fair society.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
Whilst I'm not convinced there should be a second referendum, Farage said in May that if it was a close as a 52-48% split with IN winning, he would campaign for a second referendum.

Oops!

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4478
I'm surprised that something of this import would be decided with a simple majority. Is there a specific reason why it wasn't something more like a 60% majority to pass?

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5023
RaggedMan wrote:
I'm surprised that something of this import would be decided with a simple majority. Is there a specific reason why it wasn't something more like a 60% majority to pass?

I wondered that same thing. Especially when with the turnout, as good as it was, it is roughly only 37% of the electorate that voted out.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7705
RaggedMan wrote:
I'm surprised that something of this import would be decided with a simple majority. Is there a specific reason why it wasn't something more like a 60% majority to pass?



Especially as (to my mind) many of those that voted leave probably can not read properly or count reliably. Or they would not have voted to go


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
To the 52%, whatever national identity you feel you have got back I want no part of it. If you consider this to be "British" then I do not wish to be British and at the first opportunity to obtain a new nationality I will renounce this one and adopt another.

You have hurt me and everyone I care about immeasurably. Not just financially, not just in terms of future prospects but in terms of reputation and legacy.

The Britain I identify with is not the one that revealed itself to the world last night. Whether through xenophobia, ignorance or just plain stupidity the message sent out was insular, selfish and misinformed.

I have friends from all over the world, and quite rightly many of them are angry and dismayed at what you have done. But they can never be as angry or as dismayed with you as I am.

To have behaved so irresponsibly is incredulous. The irresponsibility of a government to put such an important and complicated issue to a national vote. The irresponsibility of the campaigns and the press to deliberately misinform. And the irresponsibility of voters to allow themselves to be so blinkered and ignorant.

Whatever victory you think you have won here you have not. You have not sent out a message of strength. You have sent out one of distrust and hate. You have made the rest of the world feel unwelcome. You have shown yourselves willing to trigger a global financial crisis on the whims of specious nationalistic jingoism.

This attitude does not gain friends. Nor does it gain respect. All it attracts is anger and pity.

If this is what you wanted, and this is what you consider to be British, then I don't know what I am, but I know that I am not British.


Then maybe you should er..... Leave?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2941
RaggedMan wrote:
I'm surprised that something of this import would be decided with a simple majority. Is there a specific reason why it wasn't something more like a 60% majority to pass?

Exactly. The whole cry by Brexiters of "We won, you lost. Get over it" is incredible.

This isn't the final of Britain's got talent.


Asphalt_World wrote:
Whilst I'm not convinced there should be a second referendum, Farage said in May that if it was a close as a 52-48% split with IN winning, he would campaign for a second referendum.

Oops!

I agree with Farage. Had it been a leave of 48% remain of 52% then it would have warranted a further discussion of the issue as it would show half the country was not happy with the arrangement.

A 75-25 result would have been conclusive. Even a 60-40 result would have shown a firm direction (but still for every 3 people wanting to leave, 2 would have wanted to stay).

But this has less than 4% difference, with over a million Brits in the EU not allowed to vote (which Gilbratar shows would have probably been around 95% remain) - people whose futures have been decides with zero say in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2941
ALESI wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
To the 52%, whatever national identity you feel you have got back I want no part of it. If you consider this to be "British" then I do not wish to be British and at the first opportunity to obtain a new nationality I will renounce this one and adopt another.

You have hurt me and everyone I care about immeasurably. Not just financially, not just in terms of future prospects but in terms of reputation and legacy.

The Britain I identify with is not the one that revealed itself to the world last night. Whether through xenophobia, ignorance or just plain stupidity the message sent out was insular, selfish and misinformed.

I have friends from all over the world, and quite rightly many of them are angry and dismayed at what you have done. But they can never be as angry or as dismayed with you as I am.

To have behaved so irresponsibly is incredulous. The irresponsibility of a government to put such an important and complicated issue to a national vote. The irresponsibility of the campaigns and the press to deliberately misinform. And the irresponsibility of voters to allow themselves to be so blinkered and ignorant.

Whatever victory you think you have won here you have not. You have not sent out a message of strength. You have sent out one of distrust and hate. You have made the rest of the world feel unwelcome. You have shown yourselves willing to trigger a global financial crisis on the whims of specious nationalistic jingoism.

This attitude does not gain friends. Nor does it gain respect. All it attracts is anger and pity.

If this is what you wanted, and this is what you consider to be British, then I don't know what I am, but I know that I am not British.


Then maybe you should er..... Leave?

As soon as I am able to - assuming this vote leaves me able to - I will.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
moby wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
I'm surprised that something of this import would be decided with a simple majority. Is there a specific reason why it wasn't something more like a 60% majority to pass?



Especially as (to my mind) many of those that voted leave probably can not read properly or count reliably. Or they would not have voted to go


Or maybe they can read and count but feel completely disenfranchised and ignored by the elitist London brigade? Why should people in towns with massive unemployment vote to protect people who couldn't care less for them.

Also, it's all very well saying all this but look at the map, if this was a general election this result would have been a landslide victory.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6651
ALESI wrote:
Also, it's all very well saying all this but look at the map, if this was a general election this result would have been a landslide victory.

Which IMO highlights a flaw in our general election process, like the massive under representation of UKIP relative to the percentage of the electorate that voted for them last year.

But that's another matter and not really on topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Also, it's all very well saying all this but look at the map, if this was a general election this result would have been a landslide victory.

Which IMO highlights a flaw in our general election process, like the massive under representation of UKIP relative to the percentage of the electorate that voted for them last year.

But that's another matter and not really on topic.


Exactly.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1082
The Leave side preyed on the emotional 'Britain for Brits and our way of life' argument, which the Remain side should've ideally countered with hard facts rather than generic, condescending doom & gloom fear-mongering, but most politicians seem to think the general populace is too dumb to handle facts. The fear-mongering unwittingly played into the Leave narrative, resulting in people voting without completely understanding what they're doing, and making a global mess consequently.

If everybody made a well-informed choice and Leave still prevailed, fair enough, because the people would've knowingly chosen what happens to them. This ended up more like a frenzied mob-lynching, the victim being the nation and generations that don't want anything to do with the result, ironically including some (a lot?) who actually voted for the result.

I just hope the same doesn't play out elsewhere, esp. US where Trump is playing by the same exclusionist, divisive, hate-mongering playbook.

What I also find interesting is nobody seems to be seriously considering a very real future issue, brain drain.

Given a majority of younger Brits voted to remain with the EU and given most young people usually aren't skeptical of emigrating for better opportunities, will Britain actually lose a chunk of its best talent that a lot of Leave voters seem to have presumed will take on the enormous rebuilding ahead?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7705
ALESI wrote:
moby wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
I'm surprised that something of this import would be decided with a simple majority. Is there a specific reason why it wasn't something more like a 60% majority to pass?



Especially as (to my mind) many of those that voted leave probably can not read properly or count reliably. Or they would not have voted to go


Or maybe they can read and count but feel completely disenfranchised and ignored by the elitist London brigade? Why should people in towns with massive unemployment vote to protect people who couldn't care less for them.

Also, it's all very well saying all this but look at the map, if this was a general election this result would have been a landslide victory.



Because now there are no worthwhile trade unions, and without EU rules, those unemployed will be offered scraps and day-to-day employment. Or more likely hour by hour employment with no sick pay holidays premium for working 2 til 5 at night on Sunday etc. They are the very people who should be pro EU

BTW, I do not live in London, or a city. I (did) intend to move to Spain in a couple of years, but that may well be out now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
I don't disagree that a lot of people probably voted 'against' London rather than pro 'Leave', but is that any real surprise given the divide between London and everywhere else? I can't remember who it was, but someone a few years ago said that the UK's major problem was that Birmingham and Manchester are too small and London is too big relative to the rest of the country. From what I remember he said that most countries obviously have a capital city but the disparity in those countries between that city and the second and third cities isn't anything like as huge. The problem is the wealth radiates around London but with that being so far South and no other city capable of providing the same halo effect higher up, to all intents and purposes the 'prosperous' parts of the UK might as well be in another country for some people.

Did being in the EU stop zero hours contracts? No.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
London's close proximity to the English channel and therefore Europe is thought to be the main reason London is so much bigger than other UK cities.

Now there's a thought!

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2941
ALESI wrote:
Did being in the EU stop zero hours contracts? No.

No, but being in the EU did bring about mandatory minimum holiday entitlement.

It meant your employer could not force you to work more than 48 hours per week without your written and signed consent.

It set lots of standards for rest periods and minimum periods between shifts. There was a lot of workers protections built into EU law.

You can't blame the EU for failing to prevent your own government from trying their hardest to exploit workers despite the rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1082
The petition is upto ~1.5 million signatures now. 8O

Looking at some of the comments being made by public officials, it's pretty baffling how most people didn't seem to bother researching such a critical and far-reaching issue before casting their votes.

The Council of Cornwall is apparently now demanding confirmation their funding grants won't be affected after the region voted 'Leave' overall. Err, weren't they supposed to ask the question before voting?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7705
chetan_rao wrote:
The petition is upto ~1.5 million signatures now. 8O

Looking at some of the comments being made by public officials, it's pretty baffling how most people didn't seem to bother researching such a critical and far-reaching issue before casting their votes.

The Council of Cornwall is apparently now demanding confirmation their funding grants won't be affected after the region voted 'Leave' overall. Err, weren't they supposed to ask the question before voting?



Passed 2 million now (2.2) if this keeps up there wil be more people on the petition than actually bothered to vote :]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6651
Ok here's a question for the more knowledgeable:

So one of the options for the UK post-exit is a Norway style deal where we would have (probably pay for) access to the free market, and as a result to quote an EU official "have to abide by EU rules", particularly free movement.

I also believe in the official Leave campaign speech, after the result was announced, Gove said a free market deal would happen. I may be misremembering that though.

So my questions:

- Would the UK have to follow all EU rules?

- Would the UK be able to have access to the free market and also be able to organise free trade deals with other nations?

- And finally (this may have been answered by the answers to the other two) would a Norway style deal basically be the equivalent of staying in the EU but without having a say in the rules?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2941
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Ok here's a question for the more knowledgeable:

So one of the options for the UK post-exit is a Norway style deal where we would have (probably pay for) access to the free market, and as a result to quote an EU official "have to abide by EU rules", particularly free movement.

I also believe in the official Leave campaign speech, after the result was announced, Gove said a free market deal would happen. I may be misremembering that though.

So my questions:

- Would the UK have to follow all EU rules?

- Would the UK be able to have access to the free market and also be able to organise free trade deals with other nations?

- And finally (this may have been answered by the answers to the other two) would a Norway style deal basically be the equivalent of staying in the EU but without having a say in the rules?

Norway has to still pay membership fees, I don't know if they are less or more than if it was an EU member but I believe they are certainly comparable. It gets NO say in EU rules.

Norway has to allow the free movement of people.

Norway did not join because of its oil and fishing industry - they are a fundamental part of their economy and allowing other EU member states access to them would have been a huge hit.

While the UK does have a fishing and oil industry, they are insignificant compared to the benefits of full membership. With Norway it makes sense not to join for those reasons.

As for the rules and laws it follows, there are some exceptions, but it has to follow the majority of them.

The basic difference between what Norway has and full membership is exchanging voting power on rules in order to have a monopoly on resources within its borders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1082
@Black_Flag_11

Would the UK have to follow all EU rules? Depends on the negotiated exit terms, but YES would be a likely answer.

- Would the UK be able to have access to the free market and also be able to organise free trade deals with other nations? Unrestricted and tax-free access to the EU market will definitely have a price. Ability to make individual trade deals with specific EU-members won't be as straightforward as from within EU. One critical point to note is any free-market deal will work both ways, effectively negating the whole immigration/border control scenario. No free market without free borders.

- And finally (this may have been answered by the answers to the other two) would a Norway style deal basically be the equivalent of staying in the EU but without having a say in the rules? EU isn't really governed entirely by elected representatives, that's exactly why 'not having a say in the rules' was one of the key factors in the Leave campaign. That being said, Britain will definitely have a disadvantage by not having a seat at tables where collective decisions are made affecting EU members, because their relationships with EU members will be entirely economic, not administrative.

Long story short, a lot on the Leave side of the campaign seem to have simply assumed they can keep the good bits and dump the bad bits by renouncing EU membership, which is almost sure to backfire spectacularly. What is the point of being an EU member if there are no/minimal repercussions to leaving?

Sure other EU nations need Britain, but Britain needs the others equally if not more and that point seems to have been lost on a good chunk of British public and public officials bent on reclaiming their country, whatever that means.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6651
chetan_rao wrote:
- And finally (this may have been answered by the answers to the other two) would a Norway style deal basically be the equivalent of staying in the EU but without having a say in the rules? EU isn't really governed entirely by elected representatives, that's exactly why 'not having a say in the rules' was one of the key factors in the Leave campaign. That being said, Britain will definitely have a disadvantage by not having a seat at tables where collective decisions are made affecting EU members, because their relationships with EU members will be entirely economic, not administrative.

Thanks both of you for the answers, pretty much as I understood it when I read about it.

One point I wanted to query was the above.

I'm aware that the commission isn't directly elected. My understanding is that the president is elected by MEPs (who we do elect) and then the other 27 members are chosen by the president and the heads of state.

However it was my understanding that the MEPs have to vote on any of the laws put forward by the commission (?). So while it's accurate to say it's not entirely democratic, it's a bit far to say that we don't get a say. Or rather, those that we elect don't get a say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1082
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
- And finally (this may have been answered by the answers to the other two) would a Norway style deal basically be the equivalent of staying in the EU but without having a say in the rules? EU isn't really governed entirely by elected representatives, that's exactly why 'not having a say in the rules' was one of the key factors in the Leave campaign. That being said, Britain will definitely have a disadvantage by not having a seat at tables where collective decisions are made affecting EU members, because their relationships with EU members will be entirely economic, not administrative.

Thanks both of you for the answers, pretty much as I understood it when I read about it.

One point I wanted to query was the above.

I'm aware that the commission isn't directly elected. My understanding is that the president is elected by MEPs (who we do elect) and then the other 27 members are chosen by the president and the heads of state.

However it was my understanding that the MEPs have to vote on any of the laws put forward by the commission (?). So while it's accurate to say it's not entirely democratic, it's a bit far to say that we don't get a say. Or rather, those that we elect don't get a say.


Yes, it is a stretch to claim members have no say in legislation governing the EU, but politicians aren't alien to stretching the truth if it suits them, are they? ;)

That being said, EU is an undeniably complex organisation, both in its component parts and distribution of powers/responsibilities. While I would recommend at least a cursory reading of how the whole organisation and its SEVEN constituent institutions work for better understanding, here's a very relevant quote from the EU Wikipedia entry:

Quote:
The Commission was set up from the start to act as an independent supranational authority separate from governments; it has been described as "the only body paid to think European". The members are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. However, they are bound to act independently – neutral from other influences such as those governments which appointed them. This is in contrast to the Council, which represents governments, the Parliament, which represents citizens, the Economic and Social Committee, which represents organised civil society, and the Committee of the Regions, which represents local and regional authorities.


As is evident even from the limited quote above, it's not a straightforward case of 'we'll send representatives and they'll take care of our interests'. Bringing such a diverse group of nations and people under a single umbrella means some compromises are inevitable for the greater good. What Britain (at least a slight majority) seems to have done is NOT weigh all pros & cons rationally before jumping to conclusions. While this may still work out for the best eventually, it's pretty obvious that the recent referendum was more a blind leap of misguided faith than a well-calculated move.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4478
Sounds like some would like to make it rough on the UK to discourage others from breaking away.

Huffington Post UK wrote:
German newspaper Handelsblatt has got a leaked internal German finance ministry document that shows how much is at stake. It says Berlin has drawn up secret plans for a new EU relationship with Britain of the kind already in place with Albania, Serbia and Turkey. The UK should be offered an “association agreement” for close co-operation but no concessions that would tempt other states to quit the EU. It “should not offer too much leeway to Great Britain in gaining access to the European Union’s internal market”. And it named other countries that might want to leave the EU: Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Hungary and France. Yes, France. If that happens, the EU really is over.


I hope nobody's bothered by my posting here despite me not being a Brit. I just find it very interesting and not trying to post any opinions since I don't really have any either way.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
Cameron resigning has ruined it for Gove and Johnson. As Cameron is now not going to pull the plug on the EU, it's down to whoever takes over and the repercussions this brings with it.

I'm not convinced either of them really wants to be the person who takes over and signs on the dotted line. Who would? Farage aside but he's not Tory of course.

Therefore, whoever takes over and signs the breakaway documents has to deal with the possible second referendum for Scotland to break away and remain in the EU, the possible massive change to Northern and the Republic of Ireland, the promises of so many benefits that they told us about in the build up to the vote, the massive discussions needed to try to broker a trade contract with all the EU countries individually, the possible huge financial hole that could appear in the coming months/years, plus the simply mammoth task of changing everything from car number plates, passports and goodness knows what other documentation that will need changing is unimaginable.

Can you imagine the costs involved? I'm assuming they would expect ALL passports to be renewed free of change. Why would we have to pay for them? What about all the cars that have the EU flag on them with GB underneath? They would nee changing at some point, again not at the cost of the owner. These seem small things, but they all add up.

Cameron has left the next Tory leader in a truly frightening position.

When someone takes over, they have to face one of the most unenviable tasks a British PM has ever had. Either than or the new PM and their cabinet have to admit that it's not practical to exit the EU. Remember, the referendum result is technically only advisory, not compulsory.

I can now see the reason he resigned so quickly.
Good man!

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3545
RaggedMan wrote:
Sounds like some would like to make it rough on the UK to discourage others from breaking away.

Huffington Post UK wrote:
German newspaper Handelsblatt has got a leaked internal German finance ministry document that shows how much is at stake. It says Berlin has drawn up secret plans for a new EU relationship with Britain of the kind already in place with Albania, Serbia and Turkey. The UK should be offered an “association agreement” for close co-operation but no concessions that would tempt other states to quit the EU. It “should not offer too much leeway to Great Britain in gaining access to the European Union’s internal market”. And it named other countries that might want to leave the EU: Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Hungary and France. Yes, France. If that happens, the EU really is over.


I hope nobody's bothered by my posting here despite me not being a Brit. I just find it very interesting and not trying to post any opinions since I don't really have any either way.


The existing EU would be over, a new one would probably start to build over a generation!

By the way, it's great to hear from non British and indeed EU citizens in this thread.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7705
Asphalt_World wrote:
Cameron resigning has ruined it for Gove and Johnson. As Cameron is now not going to pull the plug on the EU, it's down to whoever takes over and the repercussions this brings with it.

I'm not convinced either of them really wants to be the person who takes over and signs on the dotted line. Who would? Farage aside but he's not Tory of course.

Therefore, whoever takes over and signs the breakaway documents has to deal with the possible second referendum for Scotland to break away and remain in the EU, the possible massive change to Northern and the Republic of Ireland, the promises of so many benefits that they told us about in the build up to the vote, the massive discussions needed to try to broker a trade contract with all the EU countries individually, the possible huge financial hole that could appear in the coming months/years, plus the simply mammoth task of changing everything from car number plates, passports and goodness knows what other documentation that will need changing is unimaginable.

Can you imagine the costs involved? I'm assuming they would expect ALL passports to be renewed free of change. Why would we have to pay for them? What about all the cars that have the EU flag on them with GB underneath? They would nee changing at some point, again not at the cost of the owner. These seem small things, but they all add up.

Cameron has left the next Tory leader in a truly frightening position.

When someone takes over, they have to face one of the most unenviable tasks a British PM has ever had. Either than or the new PM and their cabinet have to admit that it's not practical to exit the EU. Remember, the referendum result is technically only advisory, not compulsory.

I can now see the reason he resigned so quickly.
Good man!



And your Driving license, it is a European license, it says in the top left corner. What about the EU medical insurance etc.
plus Airport and port areas where things are set for Europeans to enter with chipped passports? They will now be foreigners, as will we when arriving there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: Los Angeles, California
Read on Reuters that world stocks lost $2 trillion yesterday. 8O

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: Los Angeles, California
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
On the people regretting it/ protest votes thing, I see no reason to believe it's a significant number but if you fancy getting really angry at some very stupid people watch these:





Such an odd b*st*rd, voting when he thinks his vote won't matter. :?

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1082
Given a referendum is non-binding, is it still possible Britain might see sense, do nothing about it and just stick with the EU? Isn't triggering the exit still in their own hands, given it's upto them to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:06 pm
Posts: 834
Surprised to read that Bernie is pro Brexit. I thought elites would want to remain.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group