UK EU Referendum [In or Out?]

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/brexit-how-britain-stays-in-the-eu-214005

 

Thoughts?

You do realized the top two people likely to be PM both said they would not back off on Brexit...and most people still don't wanna back out

 

Thoughts? Not gonna happen

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He'll run after the next guy had to do all the hard stuff. I've been expecting this course of events. 

 

Except from an outside perspective if one nation can get only good stuff from the EU, why would the people of the nation accept any of the harder stuff? It doesn't matter if England has more negotiating power than they do - It will encourage more nations to have there own referendums which is the last thing the EU wants to have right now. It's a matter of perception, not fairness. Given the rise of Euro-scepticism, the EU has to show to the people within the EU nations that staying in the EU is the better choice, that you can't pick and choose what parts of the EU you want. 

 

They can't do that by telling England 'It's okay you guys can have all the financial benefits without any of the migrant issues so many people are blaming'. 

Why? Simple math, they aren't nearly the economic powerhouse that the UK is. That's like saying the US and Mexico should be treated the same in negotiations

 

And it seems like people in the EU agree

 

Already, way before formal negotiations, the largest German industrial lobby says it would be “very, very foolish” to hinder free trade with the UK. French politicians, too, urged on by their ferocious export lobby, are showing signs of playing nice. “Ah, but the rules of the single market mean giving up border controls,” we constantly hear from Remain campaigners. Well, we’ll see. Yes, I know that’s what Norway accepted, but our economy is nine-times bigger and we’re a front-ranking strategic and military power. As for Brussels’ “rules”, they’re words on pieces of paper, subject to whatever political interpretation is subsequently agreed. The sacred “stability and growth pact” – limiting each country’s budget deficit to 2pc once the euro was launched – that lasted less than two years. The “no bail-out” clause protecting members from bankrolling other nations – torn up once the euro started to collapse. It could well be the same with the single market and open borders. Yes, there’s a link in theory. But, in practice, if politics needs to break it, it will break. For many Leave voters, this Brexit referendum wasn’t about stopping, but controlling immigration. To remain a tolerant, outward-looking society, the UK needs to restore public confidence and consent, with our own elected government – no one else – setting and enforcing annual immigration limits, providing the skills and labour the economy needs, while also planning in terms of required public services and infrastructure.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/02/when-it-comes-to-a-brexit-deal-the-uk-can-call-the-shots/

Outside of a Frexit happening, not sure what other country can make UK sized demands and be justified in it. The EU doesn't wanna split, yes, but Brexit hurts them more than England, if they want to keep their game up, they might as well try to get as close to the original deal as they can...which is an open market w/o the free-travel

 

Think of it this way, yes the UK set a bad precedent, but you know what will kill the EU, the EU having a huge loss in productivity..which would happen if they try to snub the UK

 

 

Edit

 

At the time of writing, the FTSE 100 index of leading shares is at a  10-month high. The FTSE 250, more representative of UK-focused companies, has also recovered most Brexit losses. Markets go up and down, and I maintain my long-standing concerns about the fragility of the global financial system.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Winter, you are missing the point. I'm not saying that it's impossible for the UK to get a favourable deal from the EU negotiations. In terms of the economics it makes perfect sense because we contributed a lot. But whether it's possible or not doesn't change that the EU doing it is an awful move for the long term. 

 

But the issue is, the EU is facing a massive wave of sceptism across it's membership. A UK favoured deal on immigration say makes people in every other nation go 'Well why not us?' The economic argument makes sense to those in power, but you can't have a politician go 'Well no way in hell we can get that since we are just sheet compared to the UK', it will encourage more referendums and give them more power, and potentially create a chain effect of nations leaving one after another. 

 

The actual negotiating power of the nations involved is irrelevant compared to the perception of the issues - Because most people in the EU won't know that and won't care about it when voting. As we have shown the electorate as a whole is generally poorly educated on the issues that matter: The people will wonder why they are getting a bum deal being in the EU when another nation can be outside, get the same benefits, and more freedoms on the things they care about. 

 

As Brexit showed, the economics of the situation are not the most important thing to a large portion of the electorate. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36702468

 

Nigel Farage has resigned as UKIP leader. He will stay on as the English MEP. This is just the shitshow that keeps on giving. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Winter, you are missing the point. I'm not saying that it's impossible for the UK to get a favourable deal from the EU negotiations. In terms of the economics it makes perfect sense because we contributed a lot. But whether it's possible or not doesn't change that the EU doing it is an awful move for the long term. 

 

But the issue is, the EU is facing a massive wave of sceptism across it's membership. A UK favoured deal on immigration say makes people in every other nation go 'Well why not us?' The economic argument makes sense to those in power, but you can't have a politician go 'Well no way in hell we can get that since we are just sheet compared to the UK', it will encourage more referendums and give them more power, and potentially create a chain effect of nations leaving one after another. 

 

The actual negotiating power of the nations involved is irrelevant compared to the perception of the issues - Because most people in the EU won't know that and won't care about it when voting. As we have shown the electorate as a whole is generally poorly educated on the issues that matter: The people will wonder why they are getting a bum deal being in the EU when another nation can be outside, get the same benefits, and more freedoms on the things they care about. 

 

As Brexit showed, the economics of the situation are not the most important thing to a large portion of the electorate. 

Damn, you ninja'd me.

 

Ok, so lets go with your argument. The EU can't allow any quarter if they wish to quell the rebellion, so they harshly hammer the UK with the new trade deal. As one of the largest trading partners of the EU, the UK stands to lose less from a poor deal. So now the EU has flex'ed its muscle and put down the rebellious UK. Now what, a poor deal hurts them and their quarterly will look poorer for it. You've won a battle and lost the war in showing that the EU is failing. Outside of Frexit happening, a exit of a smaller country would be less drastically painful to the EU than a poor deal with the UK

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/686038/New-trade-deals-lined-up-for-Britain-after-brexit

 

England won't have any shortage of Trade partners, the US for one will might even rely more on them. The US isn't so lucky with TPP and others looking increasingly unpopular here. 

 

And isn't the FTSE 100 looking really good as of recently? There should be the expected housing decline for a short period soon, not sure if that happened yet, but outside of that, Brexit honestly helped England more than it hurt it.

 

Now lets get to the second point. Yes, I realize that. And that's what worries me. Economics is the most objective mesure of Brexit you can take, yet people are going after other views. If the poorly educated wants to walk off the cliff, so be it. Let another smaller country leave the EU, and watch them crumble when they realize that unlike the UK they cannot sustain themselves. Instead of making an example out of a country, let the country make an example out of itself.

 

While we're talking about poorly educated, for a more "cosmopolitan" generation, we're not doing that much better are we. The vast majority of our generation did vote remain, and seemingly a vast majority of that same generation couldn't care/understand the economic benefits. You cannot just brush aside that fact, because it's a major funking flaw. Sure more of us go to college, but I'm really starting to think that the vast majority of us don't learn much there.

 

As for Nigel, good, this should be a time of unity. UKIP did it's part. Boris kinda surprised me, but you're probably right on his motives. Wonder if UKIP will just re-merge with the conservative party now.

[Aerion Brightflame]

The biggest issue to people who voted remain was the economics. That's a fact - It was economics for those who remained and sovereignty and immigration for those voted leave. Obviously not everyone's issue, my Dad voted Leave say because as a solicitor he's aware of a lot of sheet about the EU like the fact in something like 15 years they've never gotten an accountant to sign off the EU's books. Which is quite funny. 

 

Anyway, people's concern specifically wasn't the potential economic gains for Brexit 10 or 15 years down the line (That's all it is, it's potential gain, just as there is potential loss, it's not absolute in either direction. And won't be clear for a decade or two, don't act like it's only benefit in the long term). It was the immediate economic fallout, worries for the City of London as the banking capital of the World, the figures released consistently by the Bank of England talking about how we'd be worse off individually when we leave (No one gives a funk about how much more profitable the nation as a whole is, we care about how much better we the people are), because for the youngest generation, one that's essentially only known a sheet financial situation, we don't want to hear that this choice will make us be even more poor in essence. 

 

So we don't care about the economic benefits, because they are only theorised benefits compared to things we definitely lose out on from the EU. We have no faith in our government to distribute the money that we gain from that to those who really need it because we are a generation that has been shat on by our government for a decade or two now in some form or another. So most people I know of my age actually have more faith in the EU benefiting us, because relative to Westminster it has. Westminster raised our tutition fees, Westminster drove our education system into the ground with constant constant testing, Westminster are the ones allowing 'appretinships' for half the minimum wage at supermarkets, Westminster are the ones who are starving the NHS, starving the army, starving the police, starving our social programs, helped see the Housing market skyrocket out of our-reach by easing restrictions, who haven't built enough homes, who continue austerity, and who don't seem to represent us at all. 

 

We care about the economics of the situation, but not the economic benefits because odds are we never see it. It may work out well for some corporations but those benefits never trickle down to the rest of us, and never will. But we do know already that leaving is going to see more austerity and more tax rises to combat it, George Osbourne has promised it already. 

 

Neither the US or the UK are especially big exporters  - I don't know about the US breakdown but the UK is almost entirely a luxury goods exporter, which is not a solid foundation for vastly expanding trade deals. We need necessities from them, they want luxuries from us. Like if an Lambo we import to the EU goes up by £2 from the new deals it bothers them a lot less than if the fruit we get from them goes up by £2.  

 

That's nothing to do with college education and everything to do with education as a whole. The education system in Britain is sheet. It also a no point does anything to do with politics or economics unless you specifically pursue such avenues, so no sheet most people have no idea about any of it. It does mean that the small fraction of our generation who vote on this sheet are the ones who cared enough to look into the issues (That portion just happens to be a minority of us, since again 18-25 turnout is sheet). 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/686239/German-Wolfgang-Schaeuble-says-George-Osborne-ASKED-him-to-condemn-Brexit/amp?client=safari#

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/685671/EU-referendum-Poland-Angela-Merkel-punishing-Britain-destroy-Brussels-Jaroslaw-Kaczynski

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/686038/New-trade-deals-lined-up-for-Britain-after-brexit

 

Circles in circles.

 

Tom, I'll address your post in depth after I get home and get a computer

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The biggest issue to people who voted remain was the economics. That's a fact - It was economics for those who remained and sovereignty and immigration for those voted leave. Obviously not everyone's issue, my Dad voted Leave say because as a solicitor he's aware of a lot of sheet about the EU like the fact in something like 15 years they've never gotten an accountant to sign off the EU's books. Which is quite funny. 

 

Anyway, people's concern specifically wasn't the potential economic gains for Brexit 10 or 15 years down the line (That's all it is, it's potential gain, just as there is potential loss, it's not absolute in either direction. And won't be clear for a decade or two, don't act like it's only benefit in the long term). It was the immediate economic fallout, worries for the City of London as the banking capital of the World, the figures released consistently by the Bank of England talking about how we'd be worse off individually when we leave (No one gives a funk about how much more profitable the nation as a whole is, we care about how much better we the people are), because for the youngest generation, one that's essentially only known a sheet financial situation, we don't want to hear that this choice will make us be even more poor in essence. 

 

So we don't care about the economic benefits, because they are only theorised benefits compared to things we definitely lose out on from the EU. We have no faith in our government to distribute the money that we gain from that to those who really need it because we are a generation that has been shat on by our government for a decade or two now in some form or another. So most people I know of my age actually have more faith in the EU benefiting us, because relative to Westminster it has. Westminster raised our tutition fees, Westminster drove our education system into the ground with constant constant testing, Westminster are the ones allowing 'appretinships' for half the minimum wage at supermarkets, Westminster are the ones who are starving the NHS, starving the army, starving the police, starving our social programs, helped see the Housing market skyrocket out of our-reach by easing restrictions, who haven't built enough homes, who continue austerity, and who don't seem to represent us at all. 

 

We care about the economics of the situation, but not the economic benefits because odds are we never see it. It may work out well for some corporations but those benefits never trickle down to the rest of us, and never will. But we do know already that leaving is going to see more austerity and more tax rises to combat it, George Osbourne has promised it already. 

 

Neither the US or the UK are especially big exporters  - I don't know about the US breakdown but the UK is almost entirely a luxury goods exporter, which is not a solid foundation for vastly expanding trade deals. We need necessities from them, they want luxuries from us. Like if an Lambo we import to the EU goes up by £2 from the new deals it bothers them a lot less than if the fruit we get from them goes up by £2.  

 

That's nothing to do with college education and everything to do with education as a whole. The education system in Britain is sheet. It also a no point does anything to do with politics or economics unless you specifically pursue such avenues, so no sheet most people have no idea about any of it. It does mean that the small fraction of our generation who vote on this sheet are the ones who cared enough to look into the issues (That portion just happens to be a minority of us, since again 18-25 turnout is sheet). 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like a remain vote is more of a vote against the current establishment rather than one with regards to the actual Brexit. Westminster isn't serving your needs properly so you're perfectly fine shipping off the duty to care to some foreign entity with numerous interests other than you. This is utter folly in my eye.

 

If Westminster isn't to your liking, rebel against them to replace them with more agreeable people. Like I was honestly touched by the number of common people that rallied around Corbyn even after he lost the vote of confidence. Do that! Make your voice heard, and replace the people that don't care about you at home. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face and sell your country to the EU. That's just a really poor choice in the grand scheme of things.

 

I get that most leave people didn't exactly draw out graphs and decide, yup, free migration is bad, but you can feel economics to a degree. You can see jobs dissipating and such. You don't need to waste 4 years learning about it in a classroom like me to understand that much. It might look like Xenophobia on the outside, but there is a rationale behind it. In contrast the remain vote seems more like the protest vote that you in opposition to. 

 

Now as for future-gains vs current gains. The 350 Million £ as you noted wasn't an entirely honest number. Due to the rebates you get back. But Gove has 100% pledged 100 Million £ to the NHS a week. That's a start and a 100 Million that wasn't there before. 350? unlikely, but you can certainly haggle upwards if enough pressure is put on Westminster. 

 

You noted that the housing market was skyrocketed out of control, well now it's dirt cheap. Just today the housing market finally gave it's expected tumble w/ the FTSE 100 dip. People who were complaining about that price jump should be all over the drop right? But nobody mentions that. Instead people are packed in the thousands trying to get a 2nd referendum instead of trying to take advantage of the crops the nation has sown currently. That's not a strong argument to make for a so called oppressed people. People like the "us" you described are never going to see any of the Brexit bump because they aren't looking into how to profit from it. 

 

I looked Tom, in the days after Brexit, you had to extend the "more headlines" TWICE before you got to the WSJ article on how to profit from Brexit. The 5 points they had there seemed pretty basic to me, but I'm not even sure if the common person would look that far. If you read the papers that people like soros and Buffet put out and do a little research, people would have realized that instead of futilely praying for a second referendum, they should have taken advantage of the far likely chance of 1) The EU's inability to be harsh to England 2) the economic uncertainty.

 

The US isn't a net exporter yet, but we can certainly be so in terms of Oil and Produce if we go at it the right way. Something that Trump hinted at, but hasn't been talking about recently for w/e reason. I must confess I'm ignorant of the net exports ratios of the UK, but Ill look into it in my free time and try to point out what areas it could happen in.

 

And finally, that gets to the last para. Something which I have addressed my concerns and frustrations about repeatedly. The minority that voted isn't cosmopolitan. They're not educated enough as you noted, so the talk about the racists leaves stole the youth's future is a bunch of pig sheet. Brexit IS has a much higher chance of being profitable for the UK, which with proper representation and education our generation CAN take advantage off.  The way to fix your education system is not to sell your country to the lowest bidder.  

 

Finally you said the benefits are long run? Not so my freind, the FTSE 100 upward trend (till the housing which we all knew was going to happen) and the number of countries lined up to give the UK a favorable trade deal should demonstrate that it wasn't all something off in the horizon. Our generation has a chance to reap the gains, but for that you need to change how you're approaching this gift you've received in brexit. Just accepting that we're not educated in the relevant matters helps only those who are more educated than we are

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/687286/Brexit-bounce-back-FTSE-up-mortgages-down-pensions-up#

 

Brexit bounce-back begins: FTSE UP, mortgages DOWN, pensions UP in bright post-EU future

 

let's hope they remember to put their mortgages into fixed rates. Take a lesson from america's 2008 crash, if the mortgage is low, keep it low. don't gamble your life for a meager penny when you're already sitting on a goldmine. also, it's all getting peachy now, but there's nothing stopping it from all going to hell in the near future. invest in something solid, and don't waste what you gain from this phase. if any of you in this thread have the opportunity, get what you can, and hold onto it, this is the best time to advance your status in life. the time to buy stocks has passed, but it's not yet too late to reap the benefits. some negatives are still on the horizon, such as more discrimination based upon national pride, and likely a spike i violence from people getting a bit too giddy, but they aren't likely to last all that long, and are more social problems than economical, Scotland (or was it Ireland) is still likely to want to separate, so if you're old enough, keep some cash in pocket just in case, because if they do, regardless of the result, there'll be another stock drop from people panicking, and you're liable to grab something valuable for cheap by keeping a close eye on them. those of you in Britain looking for new jobs will also likely have a bit more luck in the fishing, production, and UK sectors, because a breaking deal hasn't been completely reached yet, so keep your eyes open, and your resume ready.

[Aerion Brightflame]

The Second Referendum got shot down. Which is a shame, but not that big a deal. Parliament can still find a way to weasel out of it at some point along the process. Or just never initiate the process.  

 

Still can't believe people make the 'anti-democratic' argument though. It's a hilariously self defeating argument. 

 

And reports on Hate Crimes are up 42% in the wake of Brexit. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-stats-spike-police-england-wales-eu-referendum-a7126706.html

[vla1ne]

The Second Referendum got shot down. Which is a shame, but not that big a deal. Parliament can still find a way to weasel out of it at some point along the process. Or just never initiate the process.  

 

Still can't believe people make the 'anti-democratic' argument though. It's a hilariously self defeating argument. 

if your statement is about enacting brexit, then i have to ask, if 52% of the population had voted remain, a second referendum had been shot down, and Parliament decided to weasel out and leave anyways, would you still be as nonchalant as you appear now about it?

 

from what i know, it was made known from the start that there would be no second vote. if that is the case, then the attempt at a second vote was doomed from the start no matter what side attempted it.

 

as for the hate crimes, that's to be expected. it'll likely calm down in a month or so. i'm willing to bet that new policies are placed, or at least proposed to prevent such actions in the near future.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The Second Referendum got shot down. Which is a shame, but not that big a deal. Parliament can still find a way to weasel out of it at some point along the process. Or just never initiate the process.  

 

Still can't believe people make the 'anti-democratic' argument though. It's a hilariously self defeating argument. 

 

And reports on Hate Crimes are up 42% in the wake of Brexit. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-stats-spike-police-england-wales-eu-referendum-a7126706.html

FTSE 100 is also up though. It's not all gloom and doom

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't think Parliment would do that for Leave. Because we can have another Referendum to Leave in 5 years or 10 years and the end result will be similar if we chose to Leave then. The same isn't true for Remain - If we voted to Leave now, and enacted Article 50, if we decided it was a terrible choice in 5 years or 10 years and wanted back into the union, we would likely lose all of the exceptions we currently have. 

 

Whilst neither is exactly status quo because the EU will continue to change, the time constraints for Remain are more demanding, because the decision to Leave is more finite than the decision to stay. 

 

It was verbally stated that the result of the referendum was finite, but there were never fully defined terms behind it. Cameron saying 'The referendum is final' doesn't mean it would be - Imagine if the result had been .1% in favour of either side with 50% turnout? To take that as binding would be scandalous. There should have been clearly defined and written terms beforehand to eliminate all doubt about the idea of a second referendum - Because saying 'There will only be one' is an assumption around a somewhat clear margin. And I think that stems from the government never believing they would actually lose (Reinforced by the knowledge Westminster actively told departments not to plan contingencies for the event of Brexit). 

 

Hence why I have the sincere belief they will find some loophole, some backroom deal, some other certain legal precedent to ensure we don't actually leave whilst saving face. 

 

If it were the other way around, and Parliament chose to ignore the referendum and initiate article 50 - I would be more pissed yes. But it's well within Parliaments rights to do so, the referendum isn't binding in any form. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait another 5 years, pack the electorate with more legalized immigrant. It's the same strawman as the one the US faces currently. Unless we cut the head off the serpent now, we won't be able to put it down regardless of reason later on

Lol ok

[vla1ne]

in the case of remain, if you choose to remain, and the EU collapses 5 to 10 years down the line, the same logic would apply. the UK was one of the power dollars behind the EU, and while the rest of the EU might have ignored all of your proposals, they all knew it. the choice to leave is exactly as powerful as the choice to remain would have been. the EU was literally forcing the UK to accept immigrants, nonstop, refusing to allow UK to deport foreign criminals, paying businesses to take immigrants over citizens, cutting into UK's national waters, enforcing trade and production rules that hurt small businesses. and ignoring any and all protests against such actions. in addition they are forming an army, collapsing many of the smaller countries within it, and growing more corrupt as the days pass. time constraints for remain mean nothing in the face of what the EU was, and is still becoming, which is essentially a power base that the people cannot touch, and is steadily growing harder to control from the outside. sure, you can leave now, but what if those in the eu decide 5 yers down the line that nobody gets to leave? they're already amassing enough power to enforce such laws, what is there to say they wouldn't be able to enact them? hindsight is 20/20.

 

if they were confident enough in their victory to say it would e final, then it is their responsibility to see it through no matter the result. the leave side won by 4%, not a large margin, but definitely a noticeable margin, asking for, or indeed allowing a recount is in and of itself dishonest under those conditions. regardless of margin, and them not planning for contingencies was due to their own arrogance, it is a problem, but it is not a fault of the people, it is the fault of those who believed they would never lose the vote. if they do find some loophole, and back out of the decision, then they do themselves, and all those who voted, whether they voted remain, or leave, a disservice. it would be far worse to back out than to carry on at this point. the UK's already at the financial hurdle, and they're doing splendidly, with new options for trade, control over their own borders, potential to regain their own waters, ect.

 

why would any citizen of the UK disregard the will of over 50% of the people, just so long as their side can get what it wants? that trampling would be permissible because it's the parliament? that doesn't fly, when you ask the people, and the result has one side over another, then to ignore that majority would be to spit in the face of the very thing democracy was established for, the right of the people to vote upon matters. it would be far worse than following through, yeah, hate crimes are up, but who really didn't predict that? it's the aftereffect of the vote, but it'll be gone in a month or so, just hang on and just appeal to reason to prevent it. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

To quote myself on reddit:

 

Representative Democracy.

The people have no legislative power, only elected officials do. We have the power to elect said officials to act in our interests, using both the opinions of the people and there own judgments to come to decisions. Parliament chooses to refer the decision to the people through a referendum. But the referendum requires Parliament to decide and enact legislature.

As such Parliament has every legal right to not act upon the result of the referendum if they feel in there own judgment that it is not in the best interests of the nation or the people.

 

Parliament could ignore the decision and it not be anti-democratic because we don't abide by direct democracy. 

 

in the case of remain, if you choose to remain, and the EU collapses 5 to 10 years down the line, the same logic would apply. the UK was one of the power dollars behind the EU, and while the rest of the EU might have ignored all of your proposals, they all knew it. the choice to leave is exactly as powerful as the choice to remain would have been. the EU was literally forcing the UK to accept immigrants, nonstop, refusing to allow UK to deport foreign criminals, paying businesses to take immigrants over citizens, cutting into UK's national waters, enforcing trade and production rules that hurt small businesses. and ignoring any and all protests against such actions. in addition they are forming an army, collapsing many of the smaller countries within it, and growing more corrupt as the days pass. time constraints for remain mean nothing in the face of what the EU was, and is still becoming, which is essentially a power base that the people cannot touch, and is steadily growing harder to control from the outside. sure, you can leave now, but what if those in the eu decide 5 yers down the line that nobody gets to leave? they're already amassing enough power to enforce such laws, what is there to say they wouldn't be able to enact them? hindsight is 20/20.

 

Were those genuine arguments against the EU, or hyperbole to make a point? Since if you mean immigration within EU sure, they technically force that because every EU state has free movement rights. Just as the British are allowed to migrate to the rest of Europe and live and work there. If you mean outside the EU, we have every control over that border, and we accepted like less than 5,000 people (I think can't remember the exact number, it's like 20x less than Belarus has despite the relative size of our two nations) from the massive influx of the refugee's the EU brought in. The EU prevents us from automatically deporting Foreign criminals, it still happens so long as the individual case is compelling. I've never seen any legislation that the EU is forcing or coercing companies to hire immigrants over citizens so I'd love a source for that. The restrictions sure are a genuine concern, but a lot of them are in place due to safety concerns or allowing equal competition across Europe, both of which are some benefit to us. It is worth noting however that the UK government agreed with something like 98% of EU regulations imposed upon us - The major exception being the Human rights which our government changed to give us less than Europe wanted to. 

 

There's no evidence the EU is forming an army - It's a pipe dream of Junker and a speculative scare story run by tabloids and the Leave campaign. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-to-create-an-eu-armyThe EU already has extensive military co-operation as it stands, it doesn't need a formal army, and there's no official plan to form one as far as anyone not intimately linked can know. That article is a little dated but it was the only non-tabloid source I could find on it, so if you know anything more recent do post. Source on the collapsing small nations? Again not heard anything about that, so it's interesting if true. Corruption is valid though, there's never been an accountant willing to sign off the EU's books. Which is impressive, you would have thought they'd be able to pay someone off to do it at some point. 

 

The thing about international waters is kinda silly I think? No one owns international waters, and frankly we have fairly good control of the waters that's relevent for us - Like the English border is the French side of the channel for goodness sake. That's something that will change no doubt, which meansno more migrant camps in Callis, looks like it's the british beaches and Isle of Wight.

 

And we don't have control of our own borders anymore than we do. I again doubt we will have more control, because no doubt we end having to allow free movement for EU countries to get access to the free market, it's how the EU negotiates, no one had gotten one without the other, and as I've debated with Winters it's against the interests of the EU to allow us that exception. We haven't gained any sovereignty yet, and the most likely path we will take will have us actually lose some in effect. It also makes the argument 'Oh the finances are only looking up' just as insane as the immediate post brexit worries - Nothing has changed, we have no indication as to whether leaving is a financial benefit or not, simply speculation. 

 

Which is another argument for why they might back out - If they just go 'The best we can hope for is exactly the same case as we have now, except surrendering any rights we have to veto the restrictions the EU is placing on us'. Which would make going ahead with it insane. Backing out would be parliament excersizing there own judgement as they are legally allowed to do so. 

 

And the EU can't decide 5 years down the line to prevent anyone from leaving. Unless they change the legislature, which is something that would require unanimous approval of nations I believe, article 50 is written into the treaties that every nation abides by. It's not as simple as them going 'Lol nope'. 

 

But if you want other points about not knowing anything - We have no idea what's going to happen to all the EU funding for infrastructure in the poor parts of the country. No idea of what we are negotiating towards. No idea what's going to happen to all the research grants the EU gives, or what the state of our worker rights will be. No idea for all of the EU citizens currently living in the UK, or the trade deals small businesses can get. Or simple things like moving about with the EU. We don't even have a f***ing clue who'll be leading the negotiations, or leading either f***ing party. Nothing is clear about this result on either side, and it's a really shitty situation for our nation to be in. And I am a little sick of people going 'Oh but financially you guys will be better off, and at least you took back control' when currently neither of those are true, and there's so much more to worry about. I don't want to know the benefits we might get in 5 years - I want to know what the plan is so we can actual plan something. This last paragraph is a rant more than an argument, so feel free to discount it. Just me a little tired of having the argue the same thing all the time on this issue and seeing how funking incompetent Westminster has been about this. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't get it. You don't care about benefits in 5 years. Sure. That's a long time and I'll give you that.

 

You don't care about benefits now either? It may be temporary, or maybe the FTSE growth will last. But why jabroni about it when you can take advantage of the boom currently.

 

If both 5 years in the future and the current is invalid, then when IS valid for you.

 

As for the EU deal. If we assume that the average voter isn't educated and also can't feel economics (complete bollocks of a assumption) then yes, your point stands. But even if the avg dude doesn't know what a solow growth model is, he can feel the effects of it happening. The EU cannot afford to give a bad deal to England cause again. Nothing would speak louder for the EU incompetence if they decide to make "an example" out of England and subsequently suffer more for it (which will happen).

 

Meanwhile the UK has trade deals lined up for a independent UK. Today. Not five years from now. Not something that could vanish in an hour. Real. Concrete. Lucrative Trade Deals.

 

The EU cannot afford to cut off its nose to spite it's face

 

Westminister isn't up to the mark? Go vote. Oust the people who don't do enough for you. Brexit has delivered it's promised boom, and will likely continue to do so (hell the housing bubble healed a lot faster than I expected). Stop hoping for everything to fall in your lap on a silver platter and go do your guys share.

 

Or...keep jabroniing about how the world cheated you

[Aerion Brightflame]

If I was in a position to benefit from anything happen currently, maybe I would care. But I'm not, I'm a 20 year old unemployed student. I have no investments, I have no property, and the number of job opportunities has actually shrunk since the announcement due to the uncertainty and investors freezing immediate investments into the UK. None of it benefits me right now, and by the time I graduate everything will still be uncertain. 

 

Do you have an exact financial breakdown of all those trade deals, detailing exactly how much better the working and middle class will be once they take effect? No? Then it's still meaningless to me,and to most people. And how about all the other trade deals we've still yet to arrange that will matter to people? It's actually a fair assumption that most people can't feel the effects of economics, because the majority of economic gains only effect people at the top. Iirc half of britain hasn't seen an increase in living standards (I.E. Money left after paying bills and good ect ect) in well over a decade, despite the finances apparently looking up for us as a nation. 

 

I'm not arguing the whole 'The EU can't make an example of the UK' point again, we've beaten that to death. I feel that it's against the EU's interests to give the UK a deal where we don't get free movement but still get free market access because of the political turmoil. I also don't think that would class as making an example of the UK - It just shows them abiding by there principles. You feel the opposite, we aren't going to reconcile, and if I have to argue it anymore I am going to be personal instead of objective, so I am not arguing the point anymore. 

 

Hell, to draw a parallel to a situation - You remember the financial crash in 2008? That thing that set the world into a global recession essentially? There were a lot of people who made money off of that, because it was a golden opportunity. It actually widened the wealth gap in the UK and the US. It's a great example of the fact that in situations like this the people who benefit are the people who are already rich. Because the rich can afford to gamble money on stocks, can afford financial advisers to tell them how to invest and advise them on an opportunity like this. And I view Brexit as the same deal currently - If you are rich you are probably going to be even better off. If you're poor nothing changes or it becomes worse, that just seems to be life in the 21st century. 

 

We still have 3 years or so before a new general election, so we can't vote out the people we dislike. And it won't happen even when the election comes about. 

 

Anyway, I have to stop posting in this because it's remaining really hard to be impartial - I will just say that Winter: I don't care about the short term or the long term financial benefits because I'm cynical they'll ever actually effect people who need them. I get that you are a big supporter of capitalism and the idea people can make the best from this situation, but that's never close to the reality of the world nowadays. A nation being financially successful doesn't means it's people are, and I care more for the people than the country. So until I see this financial benefit manifest itself in higher wages or lower taxes, I will remain sceptical of it till the end of my days. 

[vla1ne]

-snip-

holy f*** this took a while to type

in case you forgot, border countries accept outside immigrants, and turkey is likely to be accepted within the EU as well soon, in addition, the EU sets caps on how many citizens you have to accept, and according to these( http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/636319/Britain-could-be-open-to-more-migrants-as-EU-expected-to-scrap-asylum-arrangement-- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3409334/Calais-migrants-win-human-right-live-here.html -- http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/03/10/leaving-eu-affect-immigration-britain/#.V4G0BfkrLRY) then you would have even more immigrants and natural migrants to deal with daily. who cares about non foreign visitors? they at least plan to go back to their home countries. the immigrants that the EU accepts are permanent, and become members of one of the countries within the EU, meaning again, your ability to refuse them is approximately 0 until you hit the cap required by  the EU. and above that, yeah, you can deport them, but it takes time, isn't always guaranteed, and is more work than you need were they treated like normal foreign criminals, and above even that, again, your country has no say in what the EU does (as evidenced by your track record voting.), so any legislation comes up with in regards to your rights to refuse, wouldn't matter. you've never successfully turned over a major bill to this day in the EU. i don't see how you'd expect that to change were you to stick with them.

 

 

as for the source on the EU paying employers to hire immigrants: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379477/Brussels-offers-UK-firms-1-000-cash-bribes-hire-foreign-workers.html 

came out before this article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8467a2e6-47ee-11e4-ac9f-00144feab7de.html#axzz4DyD4FyTV

and as you can see in the second article, the amount of foreign hires begins to spike a bit earlier than, but still around the same time that the first article was written. meaning that even if the employers aren't lying their asses off, there is a clear correlation between them lining their pockets, and them hiring foreign workers. in other words, it was increasing the lack of skilled labor within your borders, while pulling in all manner of labor skill from outside. regardless of intent, the effect is that many youths, and even a portion of adults, would have had to contend with foreign labor in terms of skill AND incentive. it's not directly related, but i would be damn surprised if the sudden burst in hate crimes wasn't at least remotely linked to this particular issue. how exactly did you expect those who had been disadvantaged to react once they realized that that particular form of discrimination was no longer an issue. it does not justify their actions, but it does grant context to them, which is why i said it will not be permanent. these crimes might not be acceptable, but they are easy to understand.

and if that weren't enough: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Firms-in-UK-hiring-non-EU-workers-may-face-1000-pound-fee/articleshow/50644839.cms

in other words, not only was the EU providing incentive to hire outside workers from the EU, it was clearly attempting to discourage employers from hiring those outside of the EU as well. in other words, it was attempting to control the flow of business, and in doing so, was stepping over every toe possible in the UK that wasn't an 'EU' immigrant. can you call that equal competition? they're essentially saying that if you want a new job, you have to leave Britain. why should Brits let that fly? and did they agree to those proposals, or did they simply get browbeaten into accepting them. there and if they accepted them, then why exactly can't they impose them outside of the EU? because as I've said before, the UK never has much say in the choices of the EU. 

and on top of that:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/10/david-cameron-accused-failing-uk-steel-industry-blocking-eu-lesser-duty-proposal

there have been blocks accepted by your politicians that harm your own industries. can you call that fair? 

 

 

as far as the army: https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/there are definitely proposals that have been put forth, it is true that it is optional, and that it can be withdrawn down the line, that much was wrong on my part, but it does remain that the proposal is there, and it was placed forth, which is at the very least, enough evidence to support the fact that there are those within the EU who truly support the idea of it becoming a militarized power. it isn't as bad as the initial articles made it out to be though, i have to admit that much, and my own statement was incorrect.

 

it's not silly at all, Britain has more to gain and lose from the fishing industry, seeing as they are an island nation. now, fishing quotas are all good, but restricting the waters of Britain, while good for the marine economy, is not going to be as helpful at all for the British economy in regards to possible jobs, the ability to fish in alternating waters, ect. now, implementing quotas is agreeable, but i ask in that case, why can't Britain implement them itself?  it's not something that it needs the EU to either implement or practice. and being in the EU diminishes their overall control of their waters. if those in the UK believe that some of the rules of the EU were good for the UK, then what exactly prevents them from implementing those rules in a more UK-friendly manner? that way they have the rules specialized for their population, and everything becomes more flexible, and easier to control (also less prone to outside interference)

 

why would you need to do that? i mean, in regards to immigration, that is not the same as trade,  you are already set to bounce back strong, you are already in a prime position to bargain and set limits, and you even have new trade deals opening up outside the EU already, that would be like the US making the UK accept immigrants just so they can open trade, it's little more than a strong arm tactic that would only work if every single member of your parliament was a jellyfish. even after the economy is already beginning to show a new shine. you have new trade deals opening up outside of the EU, and many sectors of Britain are beginning to benefit, including small business, the national working class, the housing industry, the steel industry, and potentially the fishing industry, are all gaining, from the decision. why would you need to accept the immigration terms of the EU? there's enough good going on that you can set your own terms at this point.

if you leave the EU, then the EU has no rights to place restrictions upon you, at least not in any sense that would harm you drastically. they aren't your only trade partner, and if they attempt to enforce it or back out of trade, then they end up shooting their own feet in the process. by leaving, the absolute worst that can happen in regards to trade at this point would be the exact same conditions as when you were in the EU, and those conditions would only apply to trade with the EU.

 

true, they cannot, but they can continue to ignore the UK, and generally undermine all efforts of the UK the way they have already been doing. they would be fools to shoot themselves in the foot over something like this past brexit, but if the UK remains, they'll be the laughingstock of the rest of the world. cowed back in line after asserting independence. how much would you see them lose before their voice ever mattered again in the EU?

 

the poorer parts of your country are now your own countries responsibility. and considering the potential boost in jobs, an increase in the infrastructure division is incredibly likely, especially after events like: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/10/david-cameron-accused-failing-uk-steel-industry-blocking-eu-lesser-duty-proposalhave happened. your country can now change it's steel regulations to improve the benefit to the British steel industry. and considering they're already hammering out new trade deals with china, it wouldn't be surprising to see them fix the steel trade in the process, but that's assuming they still have common sense. you don't need to know what you are negotiating towards, take it one or two steps at a time, place safeguards, give each step time to solidify, and set aside plans for potential future errors, it's not rocket science. speaking of science, research grants are a worry indeed, but at that same time, it would not be difficult to work it into the new deal with the EU, scientific research benefits all humanity when implemented, and other forms of politics should not interfere with that. it might be cut in the future, that is not a guarantee. even so, it would not be impossible to fund it within your own borders. it would be reduced funding, but if the goal is higher funding, and the response is spite, then that's gonna be one of the sacrifices of leaving. it will be bad, and it will likely cause a few job losses in the development sector, but private funding is a potential option, so not all is lost. worker rights can be decided by the workers. make noise if it matters to you, there's enough people arguing for another vote, if they put that energy into keeping the favored rights they held in the EU, then i would be willing to say that you'd be fine, but it appears many people are more willing to lament their loss than  improve their current position. for external citizens, there is enough time to grant a visa deal for them at the absolute least you could easily make noise about that as will, instead of a second vote. it seems people only get riled up when it's the absolute wrong issue to fuss about.  it's doubtful that the external UK citizens would be deported off the bat, but again, it's up in the air. small businesses were the ones suffering the most under EU regulations, at least now they have to stress their production less, and can partner with larger shipping groups to stabilize their trade outside the UK and EU. anybody with a grain of business sense would already be doing that, so i can assume those running smaller businesses would already be working towards that end, which would increase the internal synergy of businesses within Britain, while increasing jobs for all citizens due to the increased needs for shipping and production. same as moving about in the US, place the same conditions. you're not gonna get deported for being British, that's a silly worry. i suggest Nigel Farage, or somebody on his team if he himself doesn't want the position, the man seems like the strongest choice if you want the peoples voices to be heard across the board. your nations only in a shitty situation because your leaders never thought their choice could lose. if you want to blame anybody, blame the people who didn't come up with a contingency plan and failed basic leadership. it's not too late though, and if you capitalize now (as in search for jobs related to shipping and logistics), you'll have less to do, and less damage overall, down the road.

 

of course there's a lot to worry about, when is there not a lot to worry about, but the smartest option is to search through the pile, and make logical decisions about the situation. it's in your best interests to search for the kinds of gaps that will make you at least middle class. yeah, the gap widened in the 2008 crash, but that crash was caused by the very people who profited, and there are still people calling for their heads to this day, this particular gap/crash. whateveryoumaywishtocallit is caused by actual turmoil among the people, alongside financial instability from potentially shifting polices giving rise to new opportunities and newly closed doors alike. there is no plan, there are only chances, and if you waste your time worrying you're going to miss the chances for jobs, homes and potential advancements when they come your way.

 

i get it, you are more concerned for keeping the status quo because to you, that's the safest, and most currently stable option. but that time has already passed, and unless you want to personally repeat the mistake of your parliament (no contingency plan) you had best start looking around you. this isn't the 2008 crash, there is a concrete reason, and a concrete chance, being presented here. i know, i make it sound easier than it is, but you are making it sound far worse than it is. right now, voters (especially those who voted leave) need to put their work clothes on, and prove that they can handle themselves on their own. there are opportunities, and while some of them might be less than enjoyable, they are all still there, all the same. you are in a position to benefit, you don't need investments (although they would help), you don't need property (although it would help), and I've listed off enough areas that will be expected to have growth that unless you're claiming none of them are logically sound, you do have job opportunities. uncertainty is to be expected, but this is base upon a decision of the masses, it is within your power to take advantage of this moment. so i advise that you do so.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

 

Not sure if anyone has posted or discussed this, but the successor has been chosen and it's happening this week. So, seems Brexit talks may start sooner than expected.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Suprised Tom didn't mention it. There's a way to bypass a locked parliament to inact A50 called a Royal Perogative, which is in the hands of the PM.

 

May has been pretty firm on Brexit means Brexit, so she could pull that lever if she wanted to

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Suprised Tom didn't mention it. There's a way to bypass a locked parliament to inact A50 called a Royal Perogative, which is in the hands of the PM.

 

May has been pretty firm on Brexit means Brexit, so she could pull that lever if she wanted to

Well, I got my hands on it minutes after it was posted online. And I think Cameron knows that, but he didn't want to pull the trigger due to his stance on it from what I can tell.

[Aerion Brightflame]

It's the Queen's power, not the PM's. The Queen generally stays out of politics beyond what is absolutely nessicary for her position so I doubt that would be done. It is usually done at the advisement of the PM who is accountable to parliament save for issues directly pertaining to the Royal Family. 

 

It's not really a way to get it done if parliament were truly locked on the issue, because it's a middle finger from the PM to the rest of parliament, which is a bad thing for them to do. Especially given that invoking article 50 is likely to be the end of the United Kingdom as we know it, I truly doubt the Queen will want to be the one to do that if Parliament isn't in a form of majority agreement. 

 

Royal Prerogative isn't technically a bypass in legal terms (I think, I'm not massively antiquated with the issue so I am probably wrong). To my understand the Queen still officially holds a lot of power, she just never exercises it. Parliament makes choice which she signs into effect and those signing things into effect are royal prerogatives. It's not some unique legal loophole. 

 

It may be one of the only situations where the Queen acts against the wishes of the Prime Minister (And parliament) if May forces the issue without consensus. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sorry, I stand corrected then, I must have misunderstood:

 

"Government lawyers believe the decision to begin the process of leaving the EU can be made using an executive order from the new Prime Minister, a minister has said.

 

Cabinet Office minister John Penrose told the Commons Parliament will nonetheless “have a role” in triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, formally starting the process of Brexit"

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-brexit-eu-referendum-urgent-question-house-of-commons-leave-europe-a7130851.html%3famp?client=safari#

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/brexit-can-go-ahead-without-parliament-vote-article-50-government-lawyers-say

 

IK you're cynical about the Economics, but more good news on that front atleast https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jul/11/george-osborne-us-britain-brexit-stock-markets-sterling-business-live

[Aerion Brightflame]

May won't initiate article 50 as the first thing she does - She'd be funking insane for her very first act to be something without any form of parlimentary constent. Her stuff will be new cabinet, her second will delegating who gets the job of negotiating. Then we need to have a rough idea of what we want to negotiate towards (Which is probably a few weeks off). Then we get article 50 after a few discussions in Common.

 

She'd be insane to start the process without at least trying to reassure the concerns of those in parliament, particularly the Scots. Because she's the unelected (By the general populace) successor to Cameron in a time of heavy unrest particularly about concerns of our democracy and such. She can't start by alienating all the opposing party members and a portion of her own. 

 

Whilst she probably does have the legal power to do so, I really don't think she'll push for it as an executive order for a while.