Brexit Discussion Thread.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No wonder you call yourself "Donut"!

[Merging Cultures]

@@FIF we did have pr

Do you want to stay? yes/no

There weren't additional choices!!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Any party that decides not to invoke article 50 after this will see their chances of getting into power disappear for a generation.

We've lost, and it's only when the full consequences of this have been realised - that the UK has suffered a brain drain due to the loss of EU funding which has for so long propped up the criminal under-investment in research in this country, and the financial hub is under threat due to the loss of passporting rights (You may have union jack underpants but when it comes to businesses, access to 500m will outweigh access to 60m) - will the leave campaign realise they've lost too.

That depends on whether the UK is given a long enough period to delay invoking article 50 - AND - retains an option to reverse this decision. If the UK had a horrible 6 months and the effects were felt across the country, it wouldn't be too inconceivable to think the countries mood on the topic would have changed significantly and there would be growing pressure to think again.

Naturally there are some key variables in this but one area that could be quite influential is the future of Junker - if he was to go and placed with a more conciliatory reforming president (and not out of the question in my mind), I could see the UK remaining in Europe.

Naturally we can only be sure on all of this over time, but maybe something leave supporters should consider - we're not out, until we're out and the longer it's left the more doubtful the position will become.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

It is Sunday morning and I was musing on what has occurred.

Is Farage secretly gutted?

Now that we are out of the EU unless some last minute shenanigans occur he and UKIP have become largely irrelevant.

If you had watched the BBC's political debate this morning, the word was, from political correspondents, that UKIP will now pose a major threat to the other parties!

[Guest]

You couldnt vote in the referendum? I got my postal vote (too late).

Many places require insurance for travel, it may become the same for living in a place too. Not a terrible thing, unless you are on limited means obviously. I do think the Government will sort out the health aspect. It may be cheaper to treat someone in Spain than the UK for instance.

 

I couldn't vote as I haven't resided in England for 23 years - the cut off was 15 I think. Despite being a British citizen and having property and bank accounts in England.

 

In France we have to top up our medical with insurance (not obligatory but stupid not to) that is the same if you are French or English. I sincerely hope that the UK agrees to pay the amount that the French system does and things carry on in a similar manner but I wouldn't count on it. If we are moved into a U.S. style medical cover there are going to be a lot of old Brits in the shit and having to move back to the UK.

 

I sold my last house in England a few years ago but I'm now actively looking for an exchange of my largest house over here for a foothold in England again, despite having no intention of working over there. So if anyone wants a large 10 bed property with business potential (in fact already earning cash) 30 metres from long sandy beaches in a very pleasant area in the SW France, send me a PM and maybe we can sort out an exchange / part exchange of your British dwelling.

[theessexfox]

Not sure how people can cast such solid judgements on the implications of Brexit when it's been 2 days...

The result can, and must, be overlooked.  
 
The grounds for this is that the result was by no means conclusive.  It was a very narrow majority, and it was not unanimous across the United Kingdom.
 
Scotland wants to remain. As does Northern Ireland. A four percent overall majority is not enough to override the concerns of Scotland and Northern Ireland and break up the United Kingdom.
  
The UK now needs a bold leader with a vision to acknowledge and reject the result of the vote, taking into account the broader interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.  The result of this referendum, if acted on, will break up the United Kingdom, but it was not a referendum on that, and therefore gives no mandate for that outcome.  The UK remaining together is more important than the membership of the EU.

Let me get this straight - the result was too narrow a victory for the majority, so we need to be sensible and go for the vote of the minority instead?

[Merging Cultures]

I'm just chatting about this with my wife and I came to a few realisations as to why I am anti Europe.

Both Grandad's were involved in WW2. One was a driver and the other designed tanks and was involved in the design of radio. My great Uncle was squadron leader for the bombing of the bridge over the river Kwai (the movie isn't correct). They fought to give us independence, against a 'ever closer union' with Europe.

I think that influences me, whether Brexit would be their preference or not.

[Guest]

What if the Scottish Parliment vetoed the position? There is a suggestion any UK Parliment decision on this also needs the consent of Holyrood.

I also wonder if this is too contrived, but maybe England and Wales easiest exit would be to effectively give Scotland it's place in the EU.

 

I can't see it being that easy - nor can I see the EU 27 agreeing.

 

Unless of course Scotland can keep paying in the money that the UK was 

[The Guvnor]

They had long enough to realise the magnitude.

 

They had their chance.

 

Now work with what you have - it's still a lot.

 

And that includes the Brussels elite, so ask yourselves what did they do in face of adversity................. the square root of fcuk all, packed Cameron off with a boot toe up his arse trot on David we don't care if you leave the EU oh and  don't slam the door on the way out.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The nation has made it's choice so time to move on now with a strong pro Brexit leader and for me there is only one candidate, Andrea Leadsom, she came across extremely well in the Brexit debates and I think she would be perfect to move us forward. 

Yes, a very able politician

[Guest]

Well, not really because there's still 48% of the population behind them not to mention Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. It wasn't a majority win. There's practically 1 in every 2 people pissed off either way. 

 

It was a majority win. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can start to heal.

 

@@FIF we did have pr

Do you want to stay? yes/no

There weren't additional choices!!

 

 

I would've voted Remain. I don't like many things about the EU but the idea is very solid, the things needing change needed to be changed from the inside - that's the only way of course - The UK are not the only country that is unhappy with the current set-up. Most citizens are and especially those from France and Germany. Change would have come because the extremist parties in all countries were gaining a great following because of EU problems, the mainstream parties can see this and must react. Sadly the UK reacted by pulling out and not attempting to change what is an exceptional idea. hopefully other countries will react by changing things within the EU and firstly executing Junker and his type

 

That depends on whether the UK is given a long enough period to delay invoking article 50 - AND - retains an option to reverse this decision. If the UK had a horrible 6 months and the effects were felt across the country, it wouldn't be too inconceivable to think the countries mood on the topic would have changed significantly and there would be growing pressure to think again.

Naturally there are some key variables in this but one area that could be quite influential is the future of Junker - if he was to go and placed with a more conciliatory reforming president (and not out of the question in my mind), I could see the UK remaining in Europe.

Naturally we can only be sure on all of this over time, but maybe something leave supporters should consider - we're not out, until we're out and the longer it's left the more doubtful the position will become.

 

The theory is nice but you don't go through several months of "discussion" and then have a clear majority vote in order to ignore it. That would be so undemocratic the country would deserve the riots it would get (from the hooligans not the voters). The only way this could be possible is if all sides agree to another "confirmation" vote before finally invoking. That's very unlikely - why have the vote in the first place if you are going to do that? 

 

I think things will be bad for the UK and for the advanced european countries but things will still not be as bad as they are in weaker european countries or other countries in the world. This is not a question of "survival" just a question of worse austerity and a step backwards.

 

Of course a terror attack in the UK due to lack of coherent cooperation could change things. 

[ithuriel]

If you had watched the BBC's political debate this morning, the word was, from political correspondents, that UKIP will now pose a major threat to the other parties!t

We'll see, fact is UKIP was a protest party that fulfilled its purpose, the correspondence who are saying it is a major threat are probably the same ones who predicted we would not leave or that the last election would be closer than what it was.

[Guest]

And that includes the Brussels elite, so ask yourselves what did they do in face of adversity................. the square root of fcuk all, packed Cameron off with a boot toe up his arse trot on David we don't care if you leave the EU oh and  don't slam the door on the way out.

 

You are too extremist for me to discuss with. I don't think you understand "the brussels elite" simply by your use of that term. So it's better that we don't waste time getting into a back and forth. You are so fixed in your view that you will stay with it until you shatter.

[Guest]

We'll see, fact is UKIP was a protest party that fulfilled its purpose, the correspondence who are saying it is a major threat are probably the same ones who predicted we would not leave or that the last election would be closer than what it was.

 

It needs to re-define itself now.

 

Will it become anything else than the BPL type party it really is?

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

I'm just chatting about this with my wife and I came to a few realisations as to why I am anti Europe.

Both Grandad's were involved in WW2. One was a driver and the other designed tanks and was involved in the design of radio. My great Uncle was squadron leader for the bombing of the bridge over the river Kwai (the movie isn't correct). They fought to give us independence, against a 'ever closer union' with Europe.

I think that influences me, whether Brexit would be their preference or not.

My father fought in WWII. It was nothing do with against an 'ever closer union' with Europe but fighting against domination and tyranny by a brutal, racist Fascist regime that exterminated millions. The very reason the EU in its then guise as a steel and coal community was set up post-war was to help stop that happening again. Europe needs change but we needed to be in it to shape that not isolated to our own detriment.

[The Guvnor]

You are too extremist for me to discuss with. I don't think you understand "the brussels elite" simply by your use of that term. So it's better that we don't waste time getting into a back and forth. You are so fixed in your view that you will stay with it until you shatter.

 

 

Ha ha and you're very liberal with your comments FIF, you know nothing about me but are making judgemental comments, show's you're ignorance more than mine.

[lifted*fox]

My father fought in WWII. It was nothing do with against an 'ever closer union' with Europe but fighting against domination and tyranny by a brutal, racist Fascist regime that exterminated millions. The very reason the EU in its then guise as a steel and coal community was set up post-war was to help stop that happening again. Europe needs change but we needed to be in it to shape that not isolated to our own detriment.

 

I was going to reply in a similar vein. To come to the conclusion that any grandfather fighting in WW2 was doing so to avoid 'ever closer union with Europe' is mind-boggling because fighting the Third Reich was actually to protect Europe and the greater World. 

 

Mind blowing. 

 

Your grandparents fought in WW2 to protect humanity, to protect other humans and to preserve everyone's freedom.

[Countryfox]

You are too extremist for me to discuss with. I don't think you understand "the brussels elite" simply by your use of that term. So it's better that we don't waste time getting into a back and forth. You are so fixed in your view that you will stay with it until you shatter.

That's a bit high handed FIF. It was how DC was treated that led to him coming back here and allowing the vote to go ahead and ultimately the result.. If he had come back with more concessions then this might not have happened. The EU must shoulder some responsibility for this.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Only 26% of the younger people bothered to vote, so they obviously are not bothered one way or the other. This knocks on the head, the theory that some 75% of young people in this country, voted to leave. 75% of 26% is around 19% of those eligible to vote.

 

So only 19% of the eligible younger generation voted to leave!

[lifted*fox]

 

 

Who Is to Blame for Brexit’s Appeal? British Newspapers

 

LONDON — No one should be surprised that Britain could vote to leave theEuropean Union on Thursday. For decades, British newspapers have offered their readers an endless stream of biased, misleading and downright fallacious stories about Brussels. And the journalist who helped set the tone — long before he became the mayor of London or the face of the pro-Brexit campaign — was Boris Johnson.

I know this because I was appointed Brussels correspondent for The Times of London in 1999, a few years after Mr. Johnson reported from there for another London newspaper, The Telegraph. I had to live with the consequences.

 

Mr. Johnson, fired from The Times in 1988 for fabricating a quotation, made his name in Brussels not with honest reporting but with extreme euroskepticism, tirelessly attacking, mocking and denigrating the European Union. He wrote about European Union plans to take over Europe, ban Britain’s favorite potato chips, standardize condom sizes and blow up its own asbestos-filled headquarters. These articles were undoubtedly colorful but they bore scant relation to the truth.

 

Mr. Johnson’s dispatches galvanized the rest of Britain’s highly competitive and partisan newspaper industry. They were far more fun than the usual dry, policy-driven Brussels fare. Editors at other newspapers, particularly but not exclusively the tabloids, started pressing their own correspondents to match Mr. Johnson’s imaginative reports.

 

By the time I arrived in Brussels, editors wanted only reports about faceless Eurocrats dictating the shape of the cucumbers that could be sold in Britain, or plots to impose a European superstate, or British prime ministers fighting plucky rear-guard actions against a hostile Continent. Much of the British press seemed unable to view the European Union through any other prism. These narratives reflected and exploited the innate nationalism, historical sense of superiority and disdain for Johnny Foreigner of many readers.

 

Articles that did not bash Brussels, that acknowledged the European Union’s achievements, that recognized that Britain had many natural allies in Europe and often won important arguments on, say, the creation of the single market, were almost invariably killed.

 

 

The European Union can be meddlesome, arrogant and incompetent, but seldom if ever was the ordinary British reader told how it had secured peace on the Continent, embraced the former Communist countries of Central Europe, broken up cartels or forced member states to clean up their rivers and beaches.

 

British newspapers’ portrayal of the European Union in the lead-up to the referendum on June 23 has likewise been negative. The Financial Times and The Guardian have backed the Remain campaign, but they have relatively small circulations and preach largely to the converted. The Times has been evenhanded, though it finally declared on June 18 that it favored staying in the European Union. But the biggest broadsheet (The Telegraph), the biggest midmarket paper (The Daily Mail) and the biggest tabloid (The Sun) have thrown themselves shamelessly behind Brexit.

 

They have peddled the myths that Britain pays 350 million pounds a week (about $500 million) to the European Union; that millions of Turks will invade Britain because Turkey is about to be offered European Union membership; that immigrants are destroying our social services; and that post-Brexit, Britain willenjoy continued access to Europe’s single market without automatically allowing in European Union workers.

 

Some samples from recent Daily Mail headlines give the flavor: “We’re from Europe: Let Us In!”; “Ten Bombshells the E.U.’s Keeping Secret Until After You’ve Voted”; “Greediest Snouts in the E.U. Trough.” These are from The Sun: “We’ll Get Stuffed by Turkey”; “Checkpoint Charlies: Euro Judges Open Floodgates to Illegals”; “Eur All Invited.” Formally endorsing Brexit on June 13, The Sun, a mainstay of the xenophobic press, declared: “If we stay, Britain will be engulfed in a few short years by this relentlessly expanding German-dominated federal state.”

 

Loughborough University’s Center for Research in Communication and Culture has calculated that 82 percent of newspaper articles about the referendum favor Brexit when circulation and “strength of papers’ endorsements” are taken into account. InFacts, a pro-Remain group that campaigns for accurate journalism, has filed 19 complaints with the Independent Press Standards Organization, Britain’s print media watchdog, leading to five corrections, including one against a headline in The Sun that proclaimed, “Queen Backs Brexit.” The watchdog has yet to rule on the rest.

 

It is often said that newspapers no longer matter. But they do matter when the contest is so close and shoppers see headlines like “BeLeave in Britain” emblazoned across the front pages of tabloids whenever they visit their supermarket. They matter if they have collectively and individually misled their readers for decades.

 

The upshot is that Mr. Johnson and his fellow Brexit proponents are now campaigning against the caricature of the European Union that he himself helped create. They are asking the British people to part with a monster about as real as the one in Loch Ness. Mr. Johnson may be witty and amusing, but he is extremely dangerous. What began as a bit of a joke could inflict terrible damage on his country.

[Countryfox]

 

 

 

Who Is to Blame for Brexit’s Appeal? British Newspapers

 

LONDON — No one should be surprised that Britain could vote to leave theEuropean Union on Thursday. For decades, British newspapers have offered their readers an endless stream of biased, misleading and downright fallacious stories about Brussels. And the journalist who helped set the tone — long before he became the mayor of London or the face of the pro-Brexit campaign — was Boris Johnson.

I know this because I was appointed Brussels correspondent for The Times of London in 1999, a few years after Mr. Johnson reported from there for another London newspaper, The Telegraph. I had to live with the consequences.

 

Mr. Johnson, fired from The Times in 1988 for fabricating a quotation, made his name in Brussels not with honest reporting but with extreme euroskepticism, tirelessly attacking, mocking and denigrating the European Union. He wrote about European Union plans to take over Europe, ban Britain’s favorite potato chips, standardize condom sizes and blow up its own asbestos-filled headquarters. These articles were undoubtedly colorful but they bore scant relation to the truth.

 

Mr. Johnson’s dispatches galvanized the rest of Britain’s highly competitive and partisan newspaper industry. They were far more fun than the usual dry, policy-driven Brussels fare. Editors at other newspapers, particularly but not exclusively the tabloids, started pressing their own correspondents to match Mr. Johnson’s imaginative reports.

 

By the time I arrived in Brussels, editors wanted only reports about faceless Eurocrats dictating the shape of the cucumbers that could be sold in Britain, or plots to impose a European superstate, or British prime ministers fighting plucky rear-guard actions against a hostile Continent. Much of the British press seemed unable to view the European Union through any other prism. These narratives reflected and exploited the innate nationalism, historical sense of superiority and disdain for Johnny Foreigner of many readers.

 

Articles that did not bash Brussels, that acknowledged the European Union’s achievements, that recognized that Britain had many natural allies in Europe and often won important arguments on, say, the creation of the single market, were almost invariably killed.

 

 

The European Union can be meddlesome, arrogant and incompetent, but seldom if ever was the ordinary British reader told how it had secured peace on the Continent, embraced the former Communist countries of Central Europe, broken up cartels or forced member states to clean up their rivers and beaches.

 

British newspapers’ portrayal of the European Union in the lead-up to the referendum on June 23 has likewise been negative. The Financial Times and The Guardian have backed the Remain campaign, but they have relatively small circulations and preach largely to the converted. The Times has been evenhanded, though it finally declared on June 18 that it favored staying in the European Union. But the biggest broadsheet (The Telegraph), the biggest midmarket paper (The Daily Mail) and the biggest tabloid (The Sun) have thrown themselves shamelessly behind Brexit.

 

They have peddled the myths that Britain pays 350 million pounds a week (about $500 million) to the European Union; that millions of Turks will invade Britain because Turkey is about to be offered European Union membership; that immigrants are destroying our social services; and that post-Brexit, Britain willenjoy continued access to Europe’s single market without automatically allowing in European Union workers.

 

Some samples from recent Daily Mail headlines give the flavor: “We’re from Europe: Let Us In!”; “Ten Bombshells the E.U.’s Keeping Secret Until After You’ve Voted”; “Greediest Snouts in the E.U. Trough.” These are from The Sun: “We’ll Get Stuffed by Turkey”; “Checkpoint Charlies: Euro Judges Open Floodgates to Illegals”; “Eur All Invited.” Formally endorsing Brexit on June 13, The Sun, a mainstay of the xenophobic press, declared: “If we stay, Britain will be engulfed in a few short years by this relentlessly expanding German-dominated federal state.”

 

Loughborough University’s Center for Research in Communication and Culture has calculated that 82 percent of newspaper articles about the referendum favor Brexit when circulation and “strength of papers’ endorsements” are taken into account. InFacts, a pro-Remain group that campaigns for accurate journalism, has filed 19 complaints with the Independent Press Standards Organization, Britain’s print media watchdog, leading to five corrections, including one against a headline in The Sun that proclaimed, “Queen Backs Brexit.” The watchdog has yet to rule on the rest.

 

It is often said that newspapers no longer matter. But they do matter when the contest is so close and shoppers see headlines like “BeLeave in Britain” emblazoned across the front pages of tabloids whenever they visit their supermarket. They matter if they have collectively and individually misled their readers for decades.

 

The upshot is that Mr. Johnson and his fellow Brexit proponents are now campaigning against the caricature of the European Union that he himself helped create. They are asking the British people to part with a monster about as real as the one in Loch Ness. Mr. Johnson may be witty and amusing, but he is extremely dangerous. What began as a bit of a joke could inflict terrible damage on his country.

 

 

I suppose he voted remain then ...

[Merging Cultures]

My father fought in WWII. It was nothing do with against an 'ever closer union' with Europe but fighting against domination and tyranny by a brutal, racist Fascist regime that exterminated millions. The very reason the EU in its then guise as a steel and coal community was set up post-war was to help stop that happening again. Europe needs change but we needed to be in it to shape that not isolated to our own detriment.

For me. The reason why I'm out.

[Guest]

Ha ha and you're very liberal with your comments FIF, you know nothing about me but are making judgemental comments, show's you're ignorance more than mine.

 

Fair enough. I haven't said that I'm not ignorant. I just say what I feel and usually get banned for it. I thought my restraint was admirable 

 

That's a bit high handed FIF. It was how DC was treated that led to him coming back here and allowing the vote to go ahead and ultimately the result.. If he had come back with more concessions then this might not have happened. The EU must shoulder some responsibility for this.

 

DC couldn't stop the vote going ahead whatever happened he had promised it in his manifesto. 

 

On top of that he was incredibly weak when he went there and he asked for very little which wouldn't / didn't change anything in the minds of the Brits.I was appalled with how pathetic he was. If I didn't know better I'd have thought he was a brexiter.

 

If he had actually asked for what the exiters wanted - full control over immigration, the right to veto any laws they don't agree with, greater power for UK MEPs etc... I'd have more respect for him. Margaret Thatcher would never have asked for nor come back with so little. He was more Neil Kinnock than MT.

[bovril]

Britain went to war in 1914 1939 (and most other times) because of they complied with a series of treaties. The same would happen tomorrow if Russia invaded Estonia, even if we weren't in the EU.

[The Guvnor]

Fair enough. I haven't said that I'm not ignorant. I just say what I feel and usually get banned for it. I thought my restraint was admirable 

 

 

DC couldn't stop the vote going ahead whatever happened he had promised it in his manifesto. 

 

On top of that he was incredibly weak when he went there and he asked for very little which wouldn't / didn't change anything in the minds of the Brits.I was appalled with how pathetic he was. If I didn't know better I'd have thought he was a brexiter.

 

If he had actually asked for what the exiters wanted - full control over immigration, the right to veto any laws they don't agree with, greater power for UK MEPs etc... I'd have more respect for him. Margaret Thatcher would never have asked for nor come back with so little. He was more Neil Kinnock than MT.

 

 

Just to show no hard feelings I thought I would reply . Maybe just maybe he knew he had zero chance of anything other than the very basic concessions being met hence my previous comments, the total intransigence on the part of Junker et al and he didn't even achieve those so absolutely zilch chance of those concessions you have quoted and there FIF lies the problem.