Brexit or Bust !!

Razor posted:

Either Osborne or Cameron (can't remember which) said voting for Brexit would make us a more selfish country. I voted for Brexit because I want us to be more selfish. I do not want people to be allowed into the country if they will be difficult, expensive (because they do not pay their own way), or have loads of kids.

OK, but being selfish will almost certainly result in the country being worse-off economically (It's already happening). Is that price worth paying, just to keep out the sort of people you don't like? Is it worth restricting the options of UK citizens in terms of their ability to live, work and travel in Europe? Is it worth the price of enabling and emboldening  the racists and bigots?

Apart from your dream of having to see fewer people who aren't like you (and you're going to be mightily disappointed there, too),  are there other tangible benefits you envisage?

kuma posted:

jlarsson posted:

 

Taking on immigrants is a good investment - and as all investments the better you care for it the better the return will be.

 

As I read UK's unemployment rate is low, you need immigrant workers to sustain. A country has to have a right vetting process tho. You can just let anyone in without checking background. Hope the UK has that in check.

Actually the UK could have implemented the EU-regulations regarding freedom of movement of labour. Instead the UK government decided to have more or less open borders.

The EU-regulation say you can go to any country looking for work. You will be required to register on entry  and you have 90 days to find a job that can sustain your family. Else you will be asked to leave the country. This is the base-level, each country can choose to open up more but many dont go further than the base level.

All other types of immigration is up to each member-state to deal with.

rodwsmith posted:

That is precisely what he is saying. When it becomes established that the ‘will of the people’ is wrong, was misguided (almost certainly illegally) and is going to lead to disastrous consequences, it is time for right-thinking people to call for a reassessment the will of the people, by asking them again. Even the most ardent brexit-person cannot begin to suggest that the situation has not changed in the last two years. The pound in your pocket is worth 10% less for a start, with all the implications for commerce in every way that this entails. What could possibly be described as undemocratic about a second referendum?

Capital punishment is wrong. But if it were put to the UK electorate in a referendum, then it would be, at best, a close-run thing. Sometimes, the ‘will of the people’ is best ignored.

The “will of the people” is wrong because they voted leave? And had they voted to remain, then the “will of the people” becomes correct? I assume “right-minded” people hold opinions matching yours? Of course they do - what else would they think! (Oops - silly me ...).

Rod, your arrogant assertions mirror those of the political/corporate elites who are determined to maintain the status quo because it suits their vested interests. Your views have no connection with democracy whatsoever - quite the opposite actually. You would be quite at home living in a one party state where democratic freedom is a concept that is not allowed to exist and the “will of the people” is an irrelevance.

The majority of us, despite the well publicised and innumerable warnings of economic armageddon, voted to leave the EU. The Remain campaign failed to make a winning argument - but let’s ignore the stated will of the majority because they clearly do not know what is best for them and we do. What could possibly be undemocratic about that?

jlarsson posted:

Actually the UK could have implemented the EU-regulations regarding freedom of movement of labour. Instead the UK government decided to have more or less open borders.

The EU-regulation say you can go to any country looking for work. You will be required to register on entry  and you have 90 days to find a job that can sustain your family. Else you will be asked to leave the country. This is the base-level, each country can choose to open up more but many dont go further than the base level.

All other types of immigration is up to each member-state to deal with.

Interesting.  I,  for one, was unaware of that. So if immigration from EU countries really is an issue in terms of them not supporting themselves and instead ‘scrounging, as some have suggested on here, the UK can readily change regulations and fix it. No need for Brexit on that count, only competent government - which is sadly lacking.

Maybe the best answer for quality of life and prosperity in the UK would be to surrender the so-called sovereignty of Westminster completely to Brussels. (Not something I personally desire, but likely less mess than successive recent UK governments have got the country into...) 

Well, I suppose we’ll all find out soon enough. Just a shame that we’re playing with the lives of those about to enter the workplace. I hope that I am proven wrong but I sense this is going to get very ugly.

Thanks for posting that speech Rodwsmith, it is inspiring words and reflects my views.

I am embarrassed by our politicians inability to work collaboratively for the greater good of the many (in the Uk as well as Europe). 

Seeing those drunk  football fans singing “we all voted out” during the Euros was equally embarrassing, it’s not how I want our country to be seen. 

I suspect there are some advantages / disadvantes of both remaining / leaving. At work when investigating a problem I tend to try and prove my current thinking wrong rather than sticking to what I believe is true as it gives me a different prospective and ultimately a better solution. 

I don’t recall who said it but using the same thinking that caused today’s problems to try and resolve them is insane....

I hope we at least pause the Brexit plan and  have a GE to really think through the pros and cons and put a considered set of options out for debate and then make the call. 

I fear we’ll get the same crap thinking that has taken us to the current situation...

The uncertainty is causing pain, in my field of insurance I am having to plan for issuing green cards to those driving in Europe, the inevitable price increases that a fractured supply chain will bring (most windscreens are imported from Europe), reviewing the impacts on travel insurance,  I could go on but what is clear all of this will increase costs. I know it’s not all about costs but at some point the impact of a no deal Brexit (if we go down that route) will be felt by all.....

Gary

ynwa250505 posted:

The “will of the people” is wrong because they voted leave? 

Yes, exactly, yes. Because leaving has been subsequently and comprehensively shown to be an unworkable disaster in the making, and because the electorate was repeatedly fed lies to achieve the result illegally. 

I will not dignify your personal comments with a reply. They say more about you than they do about me. Because you are hopelessly wrong if nothing else.

ynwa250505 posted:

 

The “will of the people” is wrong because they voted leave? And had they voted to remain, then the “will of the people” becomes correct? I assume “right-minded” people hold opinions matching yours? Of course they do - what else would they think! (Oops - silly me ...).

Rod, your arrogant assertions mirror those of the political/corporate elites who are determined to maintain the status quo because it suits their vested interests. Your views have no connection with democracy whatsoever - quite the opposite actually. You would be quite at home living in a one party state where democratic freedom is a concept that is not allowed to exist and the “will of the people” is an irrelevance.

The majority of us, despite the well publicised and innumerable warnings of economic armageddon, voted to leave the EU. The Remain campaign failed to make a winning argument - but let’s ignore the stated will of the majority because they clearly do not know what is best for them and we do. What could possibly be undemocratic about that?

Firstly, whilst I ndeed the majority of those who voted in the referendum voted to leave. Given the appalling lack of, and false, state of information at the time that cannot be regarded as a definitive indication that the people want to leave with whatever deal, or no deal, that may transpire.

Secondly Thirdly, whatever may have been the will of the people 2 1/2 years ago may or may not be the will of the people now. We do not know what the will of the people is now, which is why I believe there should be a confirmatory referendum once Parliament has decided the best that it can. And as I have said before that would be truly democratic.

And thirdly, as has been pointed out many times the referendum was advisory to government and not binding.- Government would be within its rights to decide what is best for the country and do that - but it shout not hide behind calling it the will of the people without another referendum.

rodwsmith posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

The “will of the people” is wrong because they voted leave? 

Yes, exactly, yes. Because leaving has been subsequently and comprehensively shown to be an unworkable disaster in the making, and because the electorate was repeatedly fed lies to achieve the result illegally. 

I will not dignify your personal comments with a reply. They say more about you than they do about me. Because you are hopelessly wrong if nothing else.

The only “unworkable disaster” in this matter has been the Government’s handling of the process. We’ve spent 2 years+ procrastinating on a pointless negotiation when we should have been making preparations/arrangements for implementing the will of the people - which Parliament decided, by a large majority, to proceed with.

As to that old chestnut about lies and illegal results - well show us (and the Police) where the criminality lies. Both sides issued questionable statements/information - c’est la vie ...

ynwa250505 posted:

The only “unworkable disaster” in this matter has been the Government’s handling of the process. 

Well, hurrah, we agree on something! (Although, having relatives in Northern Ireland, I wouldn’t use the word ‘only’.)

But, since it is the government - and only the government - that can ‘work’ it, and as you say, they haven’t, then it is definitely a disaster.

I don’t believe anyone voted for a disaster.

Well this thread has taken an interesting turn in terms of I.T: just as IB's computer has stopped inserting 'confirmatory referendum' every time he presses the full stop key on the last line of his final paragraphs; Rod's, in contrast,  has decided to insert an empty line each time he presses the space bar following a full stop. Strange times we are living in. 

What is the objection to a second referendum? Buying a large household item - and Brexit is analogous to this - is a two-stage process.

Firstly, you decide, in principle, that you like the item. That was Referendum One, the test of principle.

Then you look at the price tag, and on this is your final purchasing decision based. This is Referendum Two, the test of practice.

This should have been a two-referendum undertaking from the start.

Fraser Hadden posted:

What is the objection to a second referendum? 

Apparently the revered leader of the government at the time of the great referendum decreed that there will only be one referendum.  Worshippers of the brexit have taken this utterance as sacrosanct and have somehow expunged from their minds all other promises made at the time.

fatcat posted:

Fraser Hadden posted:

What is the objection to a second referendum? 

Apparently the revered leader of the government at the time of the great referendum decreed that there will only be one referendum.  

....and then he ran away.

Fraser Hadden posted:

What is the objection to a second referendum? Buying a large household item - and Brexit is analogous to this - is a two-stage process.

Firstly, you decide, in principle, that you like the item. That was Referendum One, the test of principle.

Then you look at the price tag, and on this is your final purchasing decision based. This is Referendum Two, the test of practice.

This should have been a two-referendum undertaking from the start.

 

Real life is sometimes even 3-way: you decide what hifi, or upgrade, you think you want, having done the research, trying to see through the marketing-speak and hype (many people being swayed by that), go to a dealer and have an audition, then if you think it is right aphave a confirmatory audition at home. At all times free to change your mind.

It's an Euro tradition to have two referendums, what are we waiting for? 

Fraser Hamden wrote .....”Buying a large household item - and Brexit is analogous to this - is a two-stage process”.

This is erm ....laughable a bit of parody perhaps.....I can imagine Swiss Tony or Partridge saying it very seriously into camera.

It made sense to me, the more knowledge the better the decision. Not sure what’s Patridge like about that......

if you want Patridge like just listen to Nigel & Boris promise millions for the NHS! 

Gary

naim_nymph posted:

It's an Euro tradition to have two referendums, what are we waiting for? 

What this graphic demonstrates very neatly (and effectively) is how undemocratic the EU is and how determined the ruling elites are to hang on to their positions and the status quo.

As an aside, the graphic omits the French 2005 referendum result which voted “non” to the EU constitution - but which (following grand EU tradition) was overturned by a second referendum.

Why are they so scared to let anyone leave?

It's not the EU that votes in a second referendum, it's the people. Voters are perfectly entitled to vote the same way as the first referendum or change their mind. It's up to them and is entirely democratic. We all make mistakes and we all change our mind on second thought. On something as serious as Brexit it won't do any harm to ask the people if they are sure they want out. Parliament can't decide and people are now better informed about Brexit and its consequences. In my opinion it would be undemocratic in these circumstances for the Government to drag us out of the EU regardless.

I would ask why are Brexiteers so scared of a second referendum?

They probably don’t want any other country to go through what we are going through! 

When did ‘elite’ change from compliment to insult?

(Same time as ‘expert’ did I guess.)

Halloween Man posted:

It's not the EU that votes in a second referendum, it's the people. Voters are perfectly entitled to vote the same way as the first referendum or change their mind. It's up to them and is entirely democratic. We all make mistakes and we all change our mind on second thought. On something as serious as Brexit it won't do any harm to ask the people if they are sure they want out. Parliament can't decide and people are now better informed about Brexit and its consequences. In my opinion it would be undemocratic in these circumstances for the Government to drag us out of the EU regardless.

I would ask why are Brexiteers so scared of a second referendum?

Nobody is being dragged anywhere - the electorate voted to leave in a referendum that had been overwhelmingly authorised by Parliament. The referendum result (and therefore our departure) was also overwhelmingly supported by Parliament. So there is absolutely no democratic deficit there whatsoever.

A second referendum? There is no need for one - we’ve already been through a lengthy democratic process, which Parliament has upheld. “We want another referendum” is simply a device that you (et al) are using in an effort to overturn the democratic decision of the electorate because you simply don’t agree with the outcome! So, in the grandest of grand EU traditions, you are determined to exact revenge and make us vote again (and again?) until you get the result you want. Democracy indeed!

thebigfredc posted:

Fraser Hamden wrote .....”Buying a large household item - and Brexit is analogous to this - is a two-stage process”.

This is erm ....laughable a bit of parody perhaps.....I can imagine Swiss Tony or Partridge saying it very seriously into camera.

What is laughable is the ridiculous clinging to what the small majority of the public said in a referendum, with no real indication of what Brexit actually means in practice, as a democratic indication of what the people want now, present tense, when detail is available.

And even mire laughable, or it would be if it wasn’t so downright serious, is the Government”s dogged statement to the effect that the people have spoken and they must produce Brexit, whether soft or hard, no matter what that entails, and without recourse to a double/check with the people that what they actually come up with is what people wanted when that chose to vote to leave. 

ynwa250505 posted:

naim_nymph posted:

It's an Euro tradition to have two referendums, what are we waiting for? 

What this graphic demonstrates very neatly (and effectively) is how undemocratic the EU is and how determined the ruling elites are to hang on to their positions and the status quo.

As an aside, the graphic omits the French 2005 referendum result which voted “non” to the EU constitution - but which (following grand EU tradition) was overturned by a second referendum.

Why are they so scared to let anyone leave?

None of these refrendums were run by the EU.

The EU is there for you. They are sitting there just waiting for Britain to manage to make a decision (for once). Then you are out.

I agree that a second vote in Brexit does not make sense. All the arguments was there in the first referendum. And the english nationalism and protectionism at the bottom of this seem as strong as ever. The mess is in the HoC so a general election would be more appropriate.