Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Webbo]

What we wanted was mainly special reforms for the UK the reforms on Competitiveness were the most well received as they were about the EU as a whole and Cameron, according to the BBC, got more than he was asking for. All the other reforms he got less than originally wanted as they were all specific to giving Britain an advantage.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

 

 

The EU can be reformed, but not by 1 country wanting to distance itself from the principles of the EU.

Those quotes are very vague and not at all specific.

[Thracian]

We are in a weaker position as a single nation, than as a massive conglomerate of nations, but leaving the EU gives us flexibility and choice, we will just have to wait and see if that is just the choice in how we get fvcked over by other nations who will already have trade deals with the EU and will be able to continue to deal with our European competitors on favourable terms while we hurry to get deals done. The fact that we haven't negotiated a trade deal for years and are having to draft in foreign negotiators to negotiate with the EU doesn't fill me with confidence that we will be able to quickly negotiate beneficial trade deals with the EU and every other nation on the planet.

 

 

It would be interesting to see if that happened.

 

This was what frustrated me so much about the pathetic reforms Cameron tried to negotiate, small minded small term concessions to try and appease the masses who rightly disregarded them as bollocks, they were hardly mentioned in the remain campaigning.

 

It should have been going to the EU looking at reforms to the EU as a whole and not just getting "special benefits" for Britain. One would be a restructuring of the European Parliament to at least give people the chance to vote for the EP party/voting block they want, and not be forced to only vote for a UK party none of which are members of the biggest voting block in the EP. Making our votes largely irrelevant. Another would have been to negotiate freedom of movement terms for the whole EU and not just some benefit related bollocks specific to the UK and a some new eastern European EU members. For example basing the benefits model on the Healthcare model, any benefits taken by EU residents in the UK is claimed back from that person's country of birth and offset against benefits claimed by UK citizens in said country (and possibly income tax taken from migrants a portion of which goes into the EU pot).

 

Larger reforms to make the EU better for everyone rather than trying to make Britain "special"

 

 

 

So LanguedocFox would have us ignore the emphatic democratic referendum result on the basis of proposing a group of reforms which actually ignore some of the main reasons voiced as to why people voted the way they did! Would someone please explain how that would help? if there was any chance of real reform - of the real addressing of people's concerns - then there'd have been no need for the referendum or any chance of an "Out" vote.        

[Captain...]

It's frankly bizarre anyone can still bang the "reform" drum.

 

We tried to get reform, even with close polling and a threat to leave we couldn't get anything close to meaningful reform, the idea we would have tried to work towards it after giving the EU a big thumps up doesn't even pass the straight face test, let alone any serious political point.

 

The people preaching this are the ones who were clinging onto deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

The reforms we tried to get were pathetic, the EU needs reform whether we are in it or not that is clear, it is a shame that Cameron didn't push for real reforms and that poor attempt at negotiating contributed to the referendum result.

[Guest MattP]

Cameron didn't even get what he said he was going to ask for?

How on earth was he going to push for "real reform?

[Captain...]

So LanguedocFox would have us ignore the emphatic democratic referendum result on the basis of proposing a group of reforms which actually ignore some of the main reasons voiced as to why people voted the way they did! Would someone please explain how that would help? if there was any chance of real reform - of the real addressing of people's concerns - then there'd have been no need for the referendum or any chance of an "Out" vote.        

 

He didn't say he wanted that, but he speculated that May could do it.

 

If real reforms were agreed with the EU and the offer of joining the EFTA was put on the table that would be sufficient to call another referendum, in my opinion. An AV Referendum where you have a second choice in case no option wins a 50% majority.

 

EU with Reforms

EFTA with freedom of movement

OUT the EU and no to EFTA

[Captain...]

Cameron didn't even get what he said he was going to ask for?

How on earth was he going to push for "real reform?

 

By not looking to get special treatment for the UK, but getting the EU to change as a whole, addressing the freedom of movement issues for everyone and the burden on services for every country that is has a positive net migration from EU countries (eg adjusting the EU rebate based on net migration). Addressing the benefits concern for everyone (eg charging benefits claimed by immigrants back to their country of birth). Tackling the bureaucracy and complexities of the EU. Getting backing/support from other countries to do these things. Reform from within and as a whole not just trying to get things for the UK.

[Guest MattP]

By not looking to get special treatment for the UK, but getting the EU to change as a whole, addressing the freedom of movement issues for everyone and the burden on services for every country that is has a positive net migration from EU countries (eg adjusting the EU rebate based on net migration). Addressing the benefits concern for everyone (eg charging benefits claimed by immigrants back to their country of birth). Tackling the bureaucracy and complexities of the EU. Getting backing/support from other countries to do these things. Reform from within and as a whole not just trying to get things for the UK.

 

But there is no desire whatsoever to do this, even now Schulz and Juncker are both on record as saying freedom of movement is non negotiable and that's after Brexit, let alone before it! As for benefits, again there is no desire to change this, the Eastern European countries are certainly not going to agree to having huge Western welfare payments charged back to them, they can barely afford to be in the Union now without this, as for bureaucracy, that's what the project actually enjoys, it makes them relevant and unaccountable in a way that it needs to survive, we are talking about an organisation here that moves everything for a few days tp Strasbourg as huge expense for pretty much no reason whatever.

 

You are a very bright guy but on this issue you seem to have totally lost your senses, you are asking people to achieve things here in hindsight that were never possible then and probably not even possible now. Cameron had to go to Europe and get a deal which is could proclaim was a success and so important he had campaign to remain after the nonsense he gave us about "anything being on the table", he came back with such thin gruel even loyalists in his own party couldn't support it. He couldn't even get a temporary break in migration from them, let alone start to address freedom of movement as a whole.

 

You need to accept what the EU is and stop chasing these fantasy.

[Captain...]

But there is no desire whatsoever to do this, even now Schulz and Juncker are both on record as saying freedom of movement is non negotiable and that's after Brexit, let alone before it! As for benefits, again there is no desire to change this, the Eastern European countries are certainly not going to agree to having huge Western welfare payments charged back to them, they can barely afford to be in the Union now without this, as for bureaucracy, that's what the project actually enjoys, it makes them relevant and unaccountable in a way that it needs to survive, we are talking about an organisation here that moves everything for a few days tp Strasbourg as huge expense for pretty much no reason whatever.

 

You are a very bright guy but on this issue you seem to have totally lost your senses, you are asking people to achieve things here in hindsight that were never possible then and probably not even possible now. Cameron had to go to Europe and get a deal which is could proclaim was a success and so important he had campaign to remain after the nonsense he gave us about "anything being on the table", he came back with such thin gruel even loyalists in his own party couldn't support it. He couldn't even get a temporary break in migration from them, let alone start to address freedom of movement as a whole.

 

You need to accept what the EU is and stop chasing these fantasy.

 

But this is the problem with his negotiating with the EU, he went with demands and offered nothing, just a threat to leave that he didn't believe would happen.

 

The whole benefits thing was a smokescreen anyway, EU immigrants claiming benefits is not the problem, but any concession on benefits would have appeased those that believed that immigrants were coming here and taking benefits. Any real cost for Eastern European would have been offset with other changes, or the costs would have been absorbed by the EU. Coming back with something that addressed the fears of the people rather than the "thin gruel" he came back with would have helped.

 

We both agree that Cameron did a piss poor job in negotiating any sort of real reforms, which is disappointing and if, as Languedoc Fox proposed, May wanted to go and negotiate real reform there is scope there to do it and a will from the people of Europe, if not the politicians, to reform the EU. Any serious attempts at reforming the EU from Cameron could have found a groundswell of support and a refusal from the EU to react on that would have pushed even more people to the leave side, here and on the continent, and made people feel more comfortable about leaving the EU. Cameron came with piss poor requests and they were given the treatment they deserved.

 

I can't accept your view of what the EU is because it wasn't properly challenged by Cameron nor Farage.

 

If May, with an actual mandate to leave, attempted to negotiate proper wide reaching sensible and universal reforms, not just pissy little concessions for the UK and the EU just refused then I would be happy to leave, if they seemed open to negotiations then I would be happy to have another referendum. My biggest frustration over this whole process is that the arrogance and short sightedness of Cameron and the majority of the Remain campaign has meant a massive opportunity was missed to challenge the EU and to address the fears of the nation which lead to a horrible campaign and an outcome that will most likely leave a lot of people disappointed and unhappy in the short, medium and long term.

[The Guvnor]

The reforms we tried to get were pathetic, the EU needs reform whether we are in it or not that is clear, it is a shame that Cameron didn't push for real reforms and that poor attempt at negotiating contributed to the referendum result.

 

 

I have mentioned this on previous posts but if anyone doesn't think there are discussions behind closed doors ,phone calls with various parties before declaring you're reform choice to the UK then you are extremely naïve. The reason he didn't proceed with reforms of any substance was because he knew he had no chance. Some people have said we should have waited, reform would have happened spontaneously, well it may have, and if it does now, that would probably be due to us leaving. The PM chose the date for the referendum, the EU new there was a chance, although I suspect they didn't envisage an out vote, of us leaving but still didn't offer, suggest any meaningful reform and that is why myself, and I suspect millions of others voted out.

[Guest MattP]

But this is the problem with his negotiating with the EU, he went with demands and offered nothing, just a threat to leave that he didn't believe would happen.

 

The whole benefits thing was a smokescreen anyway, EU immigrants claiming benefits is not the problem, but any concession on benefits would have appeased those that believed that immigrants were coming here and taking benefits. Any real cost for Eastern European would have been offset with other changes, or the costs would have been absorbed by the EU. Coming back with something that addressed the fears of the people rather than the "thin gruel" he came back with would have helped.

 

We both agree that Cameron did a piss poor job in negotiating any sort of real reforms, which is disappointing and if, as Languedoc Fox proposed, May wanted to go and negotiate real reform there is scope there to do it and a will from the people of Europe, if not the politicians, to reform the EU. Any serious attempts at reforming the EU from Cameron could have found a groundswell of support and a refusal from the EU to react on that would have pushed even more people to the leave side, here and on the continent, and made people feel more comfortable about leaving the EU. Cameron came with piss poor requests and they were given the treatment they deserved.

 

I can't accept your view of what the EU is because it wasn't properly challenged by Cameron nor Farage.

 

If May, with an actual mandate to leave, attempted to negotiate proper wide reaching sensible and universal reforms, not just pissy little concessions for the UK and the EU just refused then I would be happy to leave, if they seemed open to negotiations then I would be happy to have another referendum. My biggest frustration over this whole process is that the arrogance and short sightedness of Cameron and the majority of the Remain campaign has meant a massive opportunity was missed to challenge the EU and to address the fears of the nation which lead to a horrible campaign and an outcome that will most likely leave a lot of people disappointed and unhappy in the short, medium and long term.

 

You still aren't taking note of the fact that there is no desire for these reforms, as I said Juncker, Schultz etc keep saying now that things like freedom of movement are non negotiable, as the Guvnor says in his post anyone who doesn't think there are discussions behind closed doors, etc and phone calls with various parties before declaring you're reform choice to the UK then you are extremely naïve, of course these things happened, you don't seriously think Cameron turned up with a few threats to demand do you expecting an argument and concession? He went with a list of exactly what he knew could get, he knew benefits (glad we agree that's so trivial) were a goer but anything to do with the single market wasn't, he knew the "opt out" of ever closer union would pass but the jurisdiction of the British courts would have been laughed at, he got exactly what he was told he would be given and tried to present it as a success to a more informed public than he realised, you are kidding yourself if you think that another leader would have came back with anything better.

 

Theresa May has already stated article 50 will be invoked and I have no reason to believe she won't do so, the idea she's going to go to now get another referendum on the back of more serious reforms (again which they have no intention of giving) is laughable because for a start it would cost her her job immediately with the Tory backbenches and membership, although in a way I hope it happens just to see the likely hilarity of a UKIP majority and Farage coming back to be Prime Minister in the next general election.

 

Please stop with this "second referendum" nonsense - It's so undemocratic for a start and becoming very tiresome, you lost by 1.3 million when you had 9million of taxpayers money advantage, the whole civil service, banks, business and celebrities behind you and even the leader of the opposition not making the Socialist case for Brexit when he wanted too, the gap would most probably be even wider next time and even if it wasn't the can of worms you would open would be something the country would probably never recover from. Every election we ever had in the future would be awash with accusations of foul play and the demand for re runs. (It's this ridiculous naviety that's starting to annoy me on the left, it started with the belief Miliband was on his way to number 10 and now it's the same people telling is Corbyn is going to be PM)

[Captain...]

I have mentioned this on previous posts but if anyone doesn't think there are discussions behind closed doors ,phone calls with various parties before declaring you're reform choice to the UK then you are extremely naïve. The reason he didn't proceed with reforms of any substance was because he knew he had no chance. Some people have said we should have waited, reform would have happened spontaneously, well it may have, and if it does now, that would probably be due to us leaving. The PM chose the date for the referendum, the EU new there was a chance, although I suspect they didn't envisage an out vote, of us leaving but still didn't offer, suggest any meaningful reform and that is why myself, and I suspect millions of others voted out.

 

Then Cameron should have exposed it for being the closed shop, undemocratic gravy train that some people believe it to be. To go with such piss poor reforms and not even get them made him and the UK look foolish and not the EU. If there were all these behind closed doors dealings undermining our position then it could have been exposed, but I think that Cameron didn't really know or understand what the people wanted and why. Some piffle about a handful of immigrants not getting benefits immediately didn't satisfy anyone.

[Guest MattP]

Would you support making it so no one could leave the EU captain?

Just negotiation after negotiation after referendum after concession after referendum until you get the result you want?

As for your question on Cameron, of course he was never going to show up the EU, the project is a fantastic thing for national government to blame for there own failings whether it's immigration the economy or anything else.

One of the reasons I'm certain most MPS supported staying in was because them and only them will be held responsible for actually governing now, it's no coincidence all the serious reformers of government were on the side of leaving.

[The Guvnor]

Then Cameron should have exposed it for being the closed shop, undemocratic gravy train that some people believe it to be. To go with such piss poor reforms and not even get them made him and the UK look foolish and not the EU. If there were all these behind closed doors dealings undermining our position then it could have been exposed, but I think that Cameron didn't really know or understand what the people wanted and why. Some piffle about a handful of immigrants not getting benefits immediately didn't satisfy anyone.

 

 

With all due respect Captain you have just answered your own question.

[Captain...]

You still aren't taking note of the fact that there is no desire for these reforms, as I said Juncker, Schultz etc keep saying now that things like freedom of movement are non negotiable, as the Guvnor says in his post anyone who doesn't think there are discussions behind closed doors, etc and phone calls with various parties before declaring you're reform choice to the UK then you are extremely naïve, of course these things happened, you don't seriously think Cameron turned up with a few threats to demand do you expecting an argument and concession? He went with a list of exactly what he knew could get, he knew benefits (glad we agree that's so trivial) were a goer but anything to do with the single market wasn't, he knew the "opt out" of ever closer union would pass but the jurisdiction of the British courts would have been laughed at, he got exactly what he was told he would be given and tried to present it as a success to a more informed public than he realised, you are kidding yourself if you think that another leader would have came back with anything better.

 

The principle of free movement is not negotiable because it is a founding principle of the EU, they are not saying they will not negotiate on anything  just that is one thing that they will not negotiate on, it doesn't mean discussions cannot be had on how it is managed and handled and how we can alleviate the burden on the UK that has (arguably) reached capacity. 

 

 

Theresa May has already stated article 50 will be invoked and I have no reason to believe she won't do so, the idea she's going to go to now get another referendum on the back of more serious reforms (again which they have no intention of giving) is laughable because for a start it would cost her her job immediately with the Tory backbenches and membership, although in a way I hope it happens just to see the likely hilarity of a UKIP majority and Farage coming back to be Prime Minister in the next general election.

 

I was responding  directly to Languedoc fox's comment about May having the possibility to not invoke article 50 and negotiate proper reforms with the EU, I was not saying she will or even should do it. My frustration is with the missed opportunity of Cameron to do something worthwhile, either get proper reforms or expose the EU to be exactly what you think they are.

 

Please stop with this "second referendum" nonsense - It's so undemocratic for a start and becoming very tiresome, you lost by 1.3 million when you had 9million of taxpayers money advantage, the whole civil service, banks, business and celebrities behind you and even the leader of the opposition not making the Socialist case for Brexit when he wanted too, the gap would most probably be even wider next time and even if it wasn't the can of worms you would open would be something the country would probably never recover from. Every election we ever had in the future would be awash with accusations of foul play and the demand for re runs. (It's this ridiculous naviety that's starting to annoy me on the left, it started with the belief Miliband was on his way to number 10 and now it's the same people telling is Corbyn is going to be PM)

 

Why is a second referendum undemocratic? If there is a second referendum and people vote to stay in the EU then that is just as democratic as the first one, democracy doesn't mean having one vote and never being able to change your mind (I know there is a practicality issue here of never ending referendums, but there is enough evidence that a vote now would be one for remain*). There would be other circumstances, which in my opinion should trigger a second referendum. One would be a fundamental change to the EU, another would be the offer of EFTA on the principles of Free trade and free movement, another would be on the proposed exit strategy for the EU if it is not EFTA.

 

Is it democratic to ask people if they want something (the EU) and when they say no give them something else and not let them have any say in it?

 

*Wales is now saying they would now vote remain: https://www.rt.com/uk/349705-bregret-wales-brexit-referendum/

7% of leave voters would change their vote now which would swing it to remain: http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/02/bregret-1-2million-brexit-backers-regret-voting-to-leave-the-eu-5980332/

the reality seems to be that many people are waking up to the lies of the leave campaign and the reality of Brexit (uncertainty in the housing and jobs market, no guarantee of funding being sent where it was promised, no changes to fishing and agriculture quotas and no actual cap on immigration) not to mention the fact that the people they voted for to take us out of Europe, Johnson/Farage have all thrown in the towel and now we will most likely get May who didn't want Brexit to negotiate the terms.

[Webbo]

 

The principle of free movement is not negotiable because it is a founding principle of the EU, they are not saying they will not negotiate on anything  just that is one thing that they will not negotiate on, it doesn't mean discussions cannot be had on how it is managed and handled and how we can alleviate the burden on the UK that has (arguably) reached capacity. 

 

 

 

I was responding  directly to Languedoc fox's comment about May having the possibility to not invoke article 50 and negotiate proper reforms with the EU, I was not saying she will or even should do it. My frustration is with the missed opportunity of Cameron to do something worthwhile, either get proper reforms or expose the EU to be exactly what you think they are.

 

 

Why is a second referendum undemocratic? If there is a second referendum and people vote to stay in the EU then that is just as democratic as the first one, democracy doesn't mean having one vote and never being able to change your mind (I know there is a practicality issue here of never ending referendums, but there is enough evidence that a vote now would be one for remain*). There would be other circumstances, which in my opinion should trigger a second referendum. One would be a fundamental change to the EU, another would be the offer of EFTA on the principles of Free trade and free movement, another would be on the proposed exit strategy for the EU if it is not EFTA.

 

Is it democratic to ask people if they want something (the EU) and when they say no give them something else and not let them have any say in it?

 

*Wales is now saying they would now vote remain: https://www.rt.com/uk/349705-bregret-wales-brexit-referendum/

7% of leave voters would change their vote now which would swing it to remain: http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/02/bregret-1-2million-brexit-backers-regret-voting-to-leave-the-eu-5980332/

the reality seems to be that many people are waking up to the lies of the leave campaign and the reality of Brexit (uncertainty in the housing and jobs market, no guarantee of funding being sent where it was promised, no changes to fishing and agriculture quotas and no actual cap on immigration) not to mention the fact that the people they voted for to take us out of Europe, Johnson/Farage have all thrown in the towel and now we will most likely get May who didn't want Brexit to negotiate the terms.

The Bregret is down to the widely forecasted but hysterically overstated economic bad news we've had since the vote. Everybody, including the leave side , said this would happen.

[Strokes]

The principle of free movement is not negotiable because it is a founding principle of the EU, they are not saying they will not negotiate on anything  just that is one thing that they will not negotiate on, it doesn't mean discussions cannot be had on how it is managed and handled and how we can alleviate the burden on the UK that has (arguably) reached capacity. 

 

 

 

I was responding  directly to Languedoc fox's comment about May having the possibility to not invoke article 50 and negotiate proper reforms with the EU, I was not saying she will or even should do it. My frustration is with the missed opportunity of Cameron to do something worthwhile, either get proper reforms or expose the EU to be exactly what you think they are.

 

 

Why is a second referendum undemocratic? If there is a second referendum and people vote to stay in the EU then that is just as democratic as the first one, democracy doesn't mean having one vote and never being able to change your mind (I know there is a practicality issue here of never ending referendums, but there is enough evidence that a vote now would be one for remain*). There would be other circumstances, which in my opinion should trigger a second referendum. One would be a fundamental change to the EU, another would be the offer of EFTA on the principles of Free trade and free movement, another would be on the proposed exit strategy for the EU if it is not EFTA.

 

Is it democratic to ask people if they want something (the EU) and when they say no give them something else and not let them have any say in it?

 

*Wales is now saying they would now vote remain: https://www.rt.com/uk/349705-bregret-wales-brexit-referendum/

7% of leave voters would change their vote now which would swing it to remain: http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/02/bregret-1-2million-brexit-backers-regret-voting-to-leave-the-eu-5980332/

the reality seems to be that many people are waking up to the lies of the leave campaign and the reality of Brexit (uncertainty in the housing and jobs market, no guarantee of funding being sent where it was promised, no changes to fishing and agriculture quotas and no actual cap on immigration) not to mention the fact that the people they voted for to take us out of Europe, Johnson/Farage have all thrown in the towel and now we will most likely get May who didn't want Brexit to negotiate the terms.

It would be undemocratic to hold a second referendum without acting on the result of the first.

[Captain...]

Would you support making it so no one could leave the EU captain?

Just negotiation after negotiation after referendum after concession after referendum until you get the result you want?

 

I strongly believe in greater union and co-operation across borders is the only way we can tackle the biggest problems faced by the world today, and I see being part of the EU as part of that. I hate the idea of throwing that away because of campaign based on fear and lies...

 

...but if it is to the detriment of our country being in the EU then I would support leaving, I could have got behind the leave campaign if the alternative was EFTA, or even if a coherent plan was proposed, but no actual alternative being proposed made the whole leave campaign just pie in the sky, promising the world and not having to deliver anything and having no chance of going back when they fail to deliver. You give me an alternative to the EU and I might back it, and I would respect the results of a referendum on choice but not one on fear and lies.

 

You breakdown the desires of the leave voters and you will find that they have very different reasons for voting to leave and not all of them can be satisfied with the outcome, being a part of the EU is the will of 16 million + voters, I can guarantee that what we end up with in 2 years time will not be supported by all 17 million leave voters. You yourself have said that you don't think you will get the exit that you want from the EU.

 

As for your question on Cameron, of course he was never going to show up the EU, the project is a fantastic thing for national government to blame for there own failings whether it's immigration the economy or anything else.

One of the reasons I'm certain most MPS supported staying in was because them and only them will be held responsible for actually governing now, it's no coincidence all the serious reformers of government were on the side of leaving.

 

That is probably true, but that is no reason to leave just a reason to get a better set of politicians in, in the debates a lot of issues brought up being attributed to the EU around housing, schools, NHS etc were nothing to do with the EU but down to mismanagement by the government.

[Captain...]

It would be undemocratic to hold a second referendum without acting on the result of the first.

 

Why? If you realise you have made a mistake you stop doing it as soon as you realise, you do not see it out until the bitter end and then try and fix it.

 

We may not have left the EU but the consequences of voting to leave have already been felt, Cameron gone, Johnson not running, Gove out the race, insecurity in housing, financial and job markets. People are a lot more aware of the consequences of Brexit then they were 2 weeks ago.

 

Democracy is giving people a voice not lying to them until they speak and then shutting them up as soon as they have spoken.

[Strokes]

Why? If you realise you have made a mistake you stop doing it as soon as you realise, you do not see it out until the bitter end and then try and fix it.

 

We may not have left the EU but the consequences of voting to leave have already been felt, Cameron gone, Johnson not running, Gove out the race, insecurity in housing, financial and job markets. People are a lot more aware of the consequences of Brexit then they were 2 weeks ago.

 

Democracy is giving people a voice not lying to them until they speak and then shutting them up as soon as they have spoken.

I'm yet to meet anyone who thinks they have made a mistake voting leave, I think bregret is fabricated nonsense. Nothing has happened that wasn't broadly known, if anything it's been slightly better. How many referendums do we have until satisfied?

[The Guvnor]

Why? If you realise you have made a mistake you stop doing it as soon as you realise, you do not see it out until the bitter end and then try and fix it.

 

We may not have left the EU but the consequences of voting to leave have already been felt, Cameron gone, Johnson not running, Gove out the race, insecurity in housing, financial and job markets. People are a lot more aware of the consequences of Brexit then they were 2 weeks ago.

 

Democracy is giving people a voice not lying to them until they speak and then shutting them up as soon as they have spoken.

 

 

The insecurity in the markets was expected so no secret there, unfortunately the scaremongering brought on mainly by the media becomes self perpetuating which will not help, everyone needs to calm down the world is not going to end, well maybe with the exception of JC.

[GaelicFox]

God damn it! My vote was wasted

And my wife's !

[Thracian]

The reforms we tried to get were pathetic, the EU needs reform whether we are in it or not that is clear, it is a shame that Cameron didn't push for real reforms and that poor attempt at negotiating contributed to the referendum result.

 

 

There was no-one listening - nor ever intending to listen. Free movement and incomer overload is a nonsense. Nations should be able to decide their own incomer quotas according to their needs, concerns and ability to cope. There might also be consideration for the nations losing their populations, their skilled personnel and, consequently, their GDP and ability to offer their own services and develop their own economies .

 

I remember visiting Varna (Byala) in Bulgaria. Hardly anyone drove inland from the main centres at night because the roads weren't of such poor quality and there was a considerable danger of being held up. Large inland houses with lots of land could be purchased for £5000-£8000 but the infrastructure was awful.

 

Young people in the tourist areas spoke English but everyone who later moved to another country meant an even harder battle for their native country to lift itself out of the mire.

 

If they came here and were found casual or seasonal work by the equivalent of an agent or gangmaster they'd probably be illegally undercutting native British based workers which simply isn't fair and shouldn't be encouraged.

 

If they found a full-time job like a nurse or doctor it meant the loss of a vital worker in their own country which only emphasised what an unlikely marriage of different economies are being so unnaturally married under the EU umbrella and how free movement really isn't the utopian answer to anything, either for people considering the effect on other people, or for countries who all need to retain the skilled workforce they've trained - at least long enough to show a return on their investment.

 

Poland, Romania and Portugal have lost the greatest proportion of their populations. I've chosen figures from Poland to show how their national population has gradually been decimated with "more to come" after the dates of the figures to hand with Germany opening up its Labour market to Polish nationals. Presumably other countries - like Romania and Bulgaria - have suffered similarly but I can't be bothered to check all the figures. My point is that free movement creates problems as well as benefits and needs to be controlled. Cheap labour might benefit the big economies but it doesn't necessarily help the poorer ones.       

 

 http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/eu-migrants-other-eu-countries-analysis-bilateral-migrant-stocks

[Thracian]

I'm yet to meet anyone who thinks they have made a mistake voting leave, I think bregret is fabricated nonsense. Nothing has happened that wasn't broadly known, if anything it's been slightly better. How many referendums do we have until satisfied?

 

 

I've just read optimistic figures regarding expected manufacturing output in the next two years - I'll stand correcting but I think it was a two percent growth in two years time.

 

With the £'s fall making exports competitive I can only see that being maintained or even improved on.

 

Indeed there's already talk of a renewed commitment to manufacturing and that's reassuring because some of the shit they're importing just now is diabolical.

 

Maybe we'll even start building ships again if there's enough skilled labour left and they can stop Corbyn and his anti-capitalist, Marxist-communist, class-war zealots fouling everything up.   

[Thracian]

Why? If you realise you have made a mistake you stop doing it as soon as you realise, you do not see it out until the bitter end and then try and fix it.

 

We may not have left the EU but the consequences of voting to leave have already been felt, Cameron gone, Johnson not running, Gove out the race, insecurity in housing, financial and job markets. People are a lot more aware of the consequences of Brexit then they were 2 weeks ago.

 

Democracy is giving people a voice not lying to them until they speak and then shutting them up as soon as they have spoken.

 

 

 

Are all you "Remainers" such bad losers? The referendum was simple and unambiguous. Remain lost by 1.2 million votes. Not by a few hundred or even thousands but by 1.2 million from an exceptionally good turnout. In terms of areas, Remain lost by a proverbial distance.

 

All the things you mention were referred to in the public arena along with far worse and often indefensible scaremongering on top. If Remain had won, none of their supporters would be pressing for a second referendum to reflect on a possible "mistake".

 

What have you got to reflect on? We haven't left the EU yet so can how the referendum result possibly be seen to be wrong?

 

I've seen lots of positives expressed that never seem to appear in the BBC coverage.

 

I can't even remember seeing them mention Switzerland's formally ending their application to join the EU on hearing of Britain coming out. Or mention of Iceland's suggestion of a trading get-together involving Norway as well.

 

And where's the mention of the optimistic manufacturing outlook I mentioned which is published today in one of the nationals?

 

Or the big bail-out Italy might be needing any time now?.

 

I don't labour these things because I recognise there'll be downsides too. But I do know this. The EU is a house of cards which is deaf in both ears.

 

I'm happy for the UK to continue being a friend of Europe.

 

But not as some on-the-nod lackey playing lip service to the likes of Juncker; not as a nation which has been fast selling its soul to the EU obsession with federalism; not as a nation which has to put EU incomers ahead of those from Commonwealth countries or people we might need or prefer at the time.

 

Not as a nation which can't say we've got enough incomers for now or "we only have 2000 spaces this year and will make our choice according to our needs and our wishes."  

 

I've always valued our sovereignty and independence and would never willingly have surrendered any of it, let alone through the shameful deceits (over war and levels of immigration) of someone who many believe should be in court answering some very serious questions.               

 

Even with the vote for Conservative PM they're trying to avoid having a genuine Brexiteer steering the ship and some have shown they'll go to all sorts of shady lengths to do that.

 

Yet still the bias continues with May getting the big push from the media and Leadsom being reduced to fewer column inches and lesser-impact images, at least in the pages I read.

 

Consequences?  What consequences? Cameron was quitting anyway. Johnson found himself snookered and Gove fell victim to his own stupidity, treachery and dirty tricks. Big deal.

 

And what are these desperate "consequences" of Brexit you talk of?

 

And how do they make the slightest difference to the wishes of the UK people  in a democratic referendum? Democracy wasn't just about giving people a voice, but a vote and all sorts of voices night by night on television from both sides.

 

The democratic process was massive. 

[The Guvnor]

Are all you "Remainers" such bad losers? The referendum was simple and unambiguous. Remain lost by 1.2 million votes. Not by a few hundred or even thousands but by 1.2 million from an exceptionally good turnout. In terms of areas, Remain lost by a proverbial distance.

 

All the things you mention were referred to in the public arena along with far worse and often indefensible scaremongering on top. If remain had won none of their supporters would be pressing for a second referendum to reflect on a possible "mistake".

 

What have you got to reflect on? We haven't left the EU yet so how the referendum result possibly be seen to be wrong?

 

I've seen lots of positives expressed that never seem to appear in the BBC coverage.

I can't even remember seeing them mention Switzerland's formally ending their application to join the EU on hearing of Britain coming out. Or mention of Iceland's suggestion of a trading get-together involving Norway as well.

 

And where's the mention of the optimistic manufacturing outlook I mentioned which is published today in one of the nationals?

 

Or the big bail-out Italy might be needing any time now.

 

I don't labour these things because I recognise there'll be downsides too. But I do know this. The EU is a house of cards which is deaf in both ears.

 

I'm happy for the UK to continue being a friend of Europe. But not as some on-the-nod lackey playing lip service to the likes of Juncker, not as a nation which has been fast selling its soul to the EU obsession with federalism, not as a nation which has to put EU incomers ahead of those from Commonwealth countries or people we might need or prefer at the time. Not as a nation which can't say we've got enough incomers for now or "we only have 2000 spaces this year and will make our choice according to our needs and our wishes."  

 

I've always valued our sovereignty and independence and would never willingly have surrendered any of it, let alone through the shameful deceits (over war and levels of immigration) of someone who many believe should be in court answering some very serious questions.               

 

Even with the vote for Conservative PM they're trying to avoid having a genuine Brexiteer stering the ship and some have shown they'll go to all sorts of shady lengths to do that. And still the bias continues with May getting the big push from the media and Leadsom being reduced to fewer column inches and lesser-impact images, at least in the pages I read.

 

Consequences?  What consequences? Cameron was quitting anyway. Johnson found himself snookered and Gove fell victim to his own stupidity, treachery and dirty tricks. Big deal.

 

What are these desperate "consequences" of Brexit you talk of? And how do they make the slightest difference to the wishes of the UK people  in a democratic referendum? Democracy wasn't just about giving people a voice, but a vote and all sorts of voices night by night on television from both sides.

 

The democratic process was massive. 

 

 

  You tell em Thrac.