I saw this all coming - what were outside investors to think when the guy they went to for advice on what would happen if we leave was basicly saying the economy would be destroyed?
Particularly funny is the moment when the various world leaders realized that was a self-fulfilling prophecy and back-peddled.
I think that things will settle down.
I predict that there will be a slight lull in some scientific research as the various groups apply for funding through different routes.
I think that the euro comission will change some of it's members like tusk and junckers.
I also think that the 'domino effect' talked about in the media will not happen, but may lead to actual reform of the EU to avert that; i recon the CAP will be the first topic.
It's pretty much as I expected, although I did not expect the Leave Campaign to be so unprepared for victory that they don't seem to have any coherent plan or manifesto for what to do with it now that they have it.
They're a bit like a dog that caught the car it was chasing.
On one hand its a shameful and retrograde episode in British history. On the other the timetable for an independent Scotland has been significantly accelerated.
Obviously, I'm American, so my view may be irrelevant, but here goes anyway:
In principle, I find it worrisome that such a significant change in a nation's future is decided by such a slim majority. Can something that only 52% of voters can agree on really be considered "the will of the people"?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Obviously, I'm American, so my view may be irrelevant, but here goes anyway:
In principle, I find it worrisome that such a significant change in a nation's future is decided by such a slim majority. Can something that only 52% of voters can agree on really be considered "the will of the people"?
The alternative is that 48% is regarded as the will of the people.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Obviously, I'm American, so my view may be irrelevant, but here goes anyway:
In principle, I find it worrisome that such a significant change in a nation's future is decided by such a slim majority. Can something that only 52% of voters can agree on really be considered "the will of the people"?
The alternative is that 48% is regarded as the will of the people.
Indeed... Grim though it may be, 52 > 48.
Tbf, Democracies rarely represent the True Will of the People, and rather just go by either one number > other number, or round up a bunch of representatives to decide something. A proper TWotP would be an anarchic society, and I don't really know how that'd work
The problem with the will of the people is that the people have different wills. So to speak. Numerical superiority is the only viable way of calculating the way forward.
I'm in Northern Ireland and I just hope the crazies here don't just use this as an excuse to start chucking petrol bombs around. It's marchin season coming up and tensions are high regardless.
We just don't need this kind of irresponsible unthinking mindless political nonsense going on in Westminster, we have plenty of that in Stormont already!
And that's not to mention the detrimental effect its having on the economy in the Republic of Ireland.
Ketara wrote: Numerical superiority is the only viable way of calculating the way forward.
Or just saying "the people are too stupid, we overrule their bad decision". When you have people saying "I voted to leave, but only because I didn't think it would win" I think it's a sign that the results of democracy can not be trusted.
Ketara wrote: Numerical superiority is the only viable way of calculating the way forward.
Or just saying "the people are too stupid, we overrule their bad decision". When you have people saying "I voted to leave, but only because I didn't think it would win" I think it's a sign that the results of democracy can not be trusted.
The alternative is tyranny. Plato's philosopher king is not a good model of government.
Not that democracy is a good one either, but it's still preferable.
It doesn't help that the complexity of an issue like this is significantly above the head of a lot of voters. Even the smart people who are strongly to one side are confused.
Yeah... Voter fatigue would make a second referendum pale in comparison to the first and any decisive result to the contrary would doubtless carry fewer votes and make a mockery of the whole process. Not that the whole process wasn't a giant farce to begin with.
I think that the euro comission will change some of it's members like tusk and junckers.
Tusk is not a member of the Commission. He is the president of the European Council. It think it is very sad that the vast majority of the people who voted for brexit probably don't even had an idea of what the European Union is or does in the first place.
The Commission is the executive branch of the EU, the Council is the EU's supreme political authority (being made up of the heads of the member states) where the most important decisions are negotiated and which keeps tabs on the Council and Parliament. Here is a flowchart for EU organisation, it really is not that complicated:
Spoiler:
My opinion of brexit is now less positive than before, mostly because of the EU's hard stance so far. I am afraid the brexit is going to create a lot more trouble for Britain than what the brexiteers are expecting. The second thing that has decreased my opinion is the reaction of bremain (and some brexit) supporters. It seems like tensions in the UK will remain high, and I really hope there won't be radicals on one side or another that do something stupid. Civil wars can come extremely swiftly and unexpectedly. Just look at poor Ukraine. No one wanted or expected a war there either.
Ketara wrote: The alternative is tyranny. Plato's philosopher king is not a good model of government.
Not that democracy is a good one either, but it's still preferable.
Then tyranny it is. If the alternative is "let people vote to crash the economy and break up the country" then tyranny is the only acceptable option. Democracy is not supposed to be a suicide pact.
Hang on, where's the box on this flow chart that represents the immigrants coming in from Turkey and the money going out to Brussels? Thats what 52% of voters think is the EU. That's how it was explained to them.
Selym wrote: Has your outlook on Brexit improved since Thursdays Referendum, or do you feel more negative about the UK leaving the EU?
>> Poll only open for two weeks.
Well...
UK diplomacy is deeply weakened and a number of european trade agreements will probably have to be renegociated. The GBP is plummeting. Spain is actively trying to get Gibraltar back. France will let all the refugees cross the Channel. The Scots will soon leave the Union and rebuild the Hadrian's wall.
[frenchman]
Looks pretty positive to me. [/frenchman]
Selym wrote: Has your outlook on Brexit improved since Thursdays Referendum, or do you feel more negative about the UK leaving the EU?
>> Poll only open for two weeks.
Well...
UK diplomacy is deeply weakened and a number of european trade agreements will probably have to be renegociated. The GBP is plummeting. Spain is actively trying to get Gibraltar back. France will let all the refugees cross the Channel. The Scots will soon leave the Union and rebuild the Hadrian's wall.
[frenchman]
Looks pretty positive to me. [/frenchman]
I bloody knew it!
I always suspected that you lot had a parallel to our feeling of "bloody frenches!"
XD
A second referendum is out of the question. The first is valid.
However it is not binding.
There will be consequences for voting it down, but they are likely preferable to ratification.
To answer the OP.
I am more negative over Brexit post referendum because I didn't expect the opinions to be so polarised regionally. This has in hindsight not been so much a referendum on the EU but on the UK.
Economically Brexit is not as bad as pundits think, pound rallies and some UK companies gained value. It could work, but politically its a total disaster, and one that is completely unnecessary.
My country has effectively been destroyed by Cameron's gamble to outmaneuver opponents in his own party without too much fuss for him to deal with at the time.
Orlanth wrote: My country has effectively been destroyed by Cameron's gamble to outmaneuver opponents in his own party without too much fuss for him to deal with at the time.
That's pretty much where most of my regret with voting Leave comes from.
I still believe that, at the time, I made the right choice based on the information I had available, but seeing the fallout of such a vote... I knew it wouldn't be favourable, but it's more ugly than I thought it would be. Friends turning against friends, an entire nation collapsing into infighting whilst Cameron counts his money and picks his next job, probably as some corporate bigwig in the States. There's no banding together to make anything work; there's no feeling of "let's make the best of this mess that we can"; there's just fear, and hatred, and a general picture of social trench warfare. As someone who was ridiculously on the fence, this has just made everything harder to come to terms with. I didn't vote because I thought it wouldn't count; I didn't vote because of 'the imigrunts'; I didn't vote for the Leave campaign's dulcet suggestions; but there's still the fact I'm undeniably responsible, which would be easier to accept if I hadn't been so close to voting Remain.
My reasons for voting Leave are still very much valid in my eyes, which is more than I can say for lies the campaign peddled, but were they valid enough to justify all this? Am I deservedly at fault for helping to cause this? To go back to a comment in the main thread: am I a bad person because I voted Leave?
So yeah, I suppose you could say my opinion post-referendum is rather more negative.
Avatar 720 wrote: Friends turning against friends, an entire nation collapsing into infighting whilst Cameron counts his money and picks his next job, probably as some corporate bigwig in the States. There's no banding together to make anything work; there's no feeling of "let's make the best of this mess that we can"; there's just fear, and hatred, and a general picture of social trench warfare.
I very much agree with this.
The whole nation is split in half. You have remainers blaming old people and the uneducated, while leavers saying the remainers haven't a clue and are a bunch of tree hugging idealists.
Both sides had strong arguments and it was a case for most voters of it being a lesser of two evils, and it was always a damned if you do / damned if you don't referendum. But now its kicked up all kinds of problems such as the SNP threatening to continue the neverendum, the economy taking a hit and so forth.
The face of UK politics has changed and divides have just opened up even more.
I think the dislike of the EU has only been growing over the years across Europe.
Over a decade ago it was seen as a minor issue that nobody really cared much about, now it is quite the opposite. If the EU was actually more willing to go back to being more trade related rather than an imposed 'federation of nations' of sorts, then I don't believe this out vote would have happened.
If Cameron actually got anything worthwhile from his negotiations then I don't think the out vote would have won, and the fact Junker came out a day or two before saying the UK would be getting no negotiation on anything else that sealed it for a lot of voters, especially considering a big chunk of the Remain camp's pull was that they had to be in the EU to get change and negotiate.
Why did anyone think that there would be no repercussions as a result of the vote?
You only had to look to the north and see what happened when Scotland voted. The only reason is didn't get any worse because we all decided it was Englands fault and went back to business as usual.
If parliament refuses to accept the referendum as the will of the people it will only reinforce the idea that the man in the street has no control over his own destiny and that they are answerable to Europe. Sturgeon should of kept her mouth shut over a 2nd independence vote as its not helping either. If she must do it quietly, not announce it to the world.
It's uncharted territory so the market was always going to suffer, same with the value of the pound.
As for me, I still don't like it but we won't see whether it was the right or wrong decision until 2-3 years after negotiations are complete and 10 years when we can get an idea of how the economy and migration rates were affected.
Not being British, I don't really care a great deal either way.
I think the biggest set backs aren't that the vote was to leave, but rather....
1) The amount of fearmongering involved meaning even before negotiations have started people have all got their knickers in a twist. We really have little idea what's going to happen in the coming years.
2) That it was so divisive for the community. If the vote was 70/30 or even 60/40 in either direction it would have been better than 52/48 in either direction.
If I were living in Britain, well, I probably would be better educated on the subject which might swing my vote, but based on my existing knowledge I would have voted leave and I'd still be happy I voted leave but would be disappointed with those 2 points.
The divisiveness is absolutely the worst thing about it.
The UK is a representative democracy, so when the government takes a decision you don't like, you can decide to punish them at the next election by voting for a different party, and maybe there will be a new government.
In this case it is your friends and neighbours who may have made the decision you don't like. You've still got to live with them, even though you think it's irrevocable.
Kilkrazy wrote: The divisiveness is absolutely the worst thing about it.
The UK is a representative democracy, so when the government takes a decision you don't like, you can decide to punish them at the next election by voting for a different party, and maybe there will be a new government.
In this case it is your friends and neighbours who may have made the decision you don't like. You've still got to live with them, even though you think it's irrevocable.
For two years, I've lived with people who voted NO in the Scottish independence referendum, and there was never any trouble in Scotland. For a few days afterwards, there was gnashing of teeth, and a lot of disappointed people, but the country got back to normal.
The UK will get back to normal if people accept the result, and stop saying silly things like people were duped, we need a second referendum etc etc
Opportunistic scumbags like the Lib Dems promising to take us back into the EU, will only make things worst.
Kilkrazy wrote: The divisiveness is absolutely the worst thing about it.
Sadly, it's already here. It's too late. And the rift is serious after this disastrous campaign from both sides. From what I have seen, the agressivity and the blatant lies (it seems the Brexit side admitted they were lieing on a core argument for their campaign not so long ago) were quite high on this one.
People are left totally confused with the consequences of their actions. Of course, some may have anticipated them (maybe knew them from the start) and these people obviously don't care at all about the others as long as their own rear is safe.
What is really disgusting is that it will be the poor and weak who will pay the full price, again. But hey, I know some people here just don't care about that.
I think we, as a collective population, could be forgiven for not listening to Clegg, given that he betrayed his beliefs and the people
VoteLeaveDerbyshire has it wrong. I don't think Leave has ever said 'we will stop immigration', I think it's more 'we will limit immigration to manageable levels'. Sadly the media and/or people have misinterpreted that to mean 'no more ruddy immigrants'.
Or maybe they just didn't get enough retweets on their first tweet
Selym wrote: Not to be a rules lawyer, but leave's exact words were:
"Control Immigration"
You could actually double the immigration rate without lying under that statement.
Most certainly they could. There was discussion of adopting Australia's points system. Remain's counter argument is that Australia actually accepts more migrants than the UK (but obviously Australia has more control over who they allow entry to).
Selym wrote: Not to be a rules lawyer, but leave's exact words were:
"Control Immigration"
You could actually double the immigration rate without lying under that statement.
Most certainly they could. There was discussion of adopting Australia's points system. Remain's counter argument is that Australia actually accepts more migrants than the UK (but obviously Australia has more control over who they allow entry to).
Yea, but Australia only accepts more migrants than the UK as it is a far more desirable place to live, with far more opportunities and more accepting society. Clearly the best way to reduce immigration is to make our country a hell hole that no one would want to live in!
I'm sure the voters who voted leave to stop immigration will appreciate the subtle differences and semantic get out clauses Vote Leave left for themselves.
As a leaver I haven't changed my opinion on my voting preference. I am concerned by other things post the vote.
The media has had a large part in the negativity running upto and after the vote.
On both sides of the coin bias and sensationalist reporting has seen the news turn into something more suitable for a prime time entertainment slot.
Politicians are as guilty, their policies appear to be derived from their own soundbites rather than the opposite. I think they think they are in a reality TV show and act accordingly.
Da Boss wrote: I'm sure the voters who voted leave to stop immigration will appreciate the subtle differences and semantic get out clauses Vote Leave left for themselves.
I'm not entirely sure it's that subtle... I mean in the actual speech the outline of the plan was given.
"We have a glorious opportunity, to pass our laws and set our taxes entirely according to the needs of the UK, we can control our borders in a way that is not discriminatory but fair and balanced and take the wind out of the sails of the extremists and those who would play politics with immigration[. Above all, we can find our voice in the world again, a voice commensurate with the fifth biggest economy on earth. Powerful, liberal, humane, an extraordinary force for good in the world. "
Da Boss wrote: I'm sure the voters who voted leave to stop immigration will appreciate the subtle differences and semantic get out clauses Vote Leave left for themselves.
All the people I work with voted out. The reason being they wanted the Muslim immigrants out, I got the p*ss taken out of me, when I tried to explain that coming out of Europe,
Would have no effect on commonwealth immigration. Most people don't see the difference between EU migrants, and commonwealth migrants.
People don't like sharia law in england, and all the anti muslim fear mongering, has finally come home to roost. Well done ukip.
Da Boss wrote: I'm sure the voters who voted leave to stop immigration will appreciate the subtle differences and semantic get out clauses Vote Leave left for themselves.
I'm not entirely sure it's that subtle... I mean in the actual speech the outline of the plan was given.
"We have a glorious opportunity, to pass our laws and set our taxes entirely according to the needs of the UK, we can control our borders in a way that is not discriminatory but fair and balanced and take the wind out of the sails of the extremists and those who would play politics with immigration[. Above all, we can find our voice in the world again, a voice commensurate with the fifth biggest economy on earth. Powerful, liberal, humane, an extraordinary force for good in the world. "
I'm not sure that people were paying quite so much attention to that, as the lies plastered on buses and "Take Back Control!"
I'm not really up to snuff on how one leaves the EU. A lot of the talk seems to presume that it's a sudden break with no time to prepare, or to ease out over a number of years to lessen the strain of all the things that have to be done. Is there no way to make a gradual exit that can be managed?
LordofHats wrote: I'm not really up to snuff on how one leaves the EU. A lot of the talk seems to presume that it's a sudden break with no time to prepare, or to ease out over a number of years to lessen the strain of all the things that have to be done. Is there no way to make a gradual exit that can be managed?
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, when enacted, will give the EU and the UK 2 years to sort everything. If both parties agree to, discussions can go beyond the 2 years.
It's a clean break when they separate, but discussions will have gone on before 'divorce day' to ensure a smooth transition and maintain relations.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not really up to snuff on how one leaves the EU. A lot of the talk seems to presume that it's a sudden break with no time to prepare, or to ease out over a number of years to lessen the strain of all the things that have to be done. Is there no way to make a gradual exit that can be managed?
Ideally, the UK will be able to negotiate a gradual exit with the EU. But the problem is that for succesful negotiations, both parties have to agree to everything. And trying to agree something and negotiate with the EU is an absolute nightmare because the EU can never agree on anything with itself in the first place. So far it seems like the EU Commission and a large number of member states want to kick out the UK immediately, while Germany (as always) is urging for everyone to take things easy and would be more favourable to enter into negotiations with the UK for a gradual exit.
Frozocrone wrote: I think we, as a collective population, could be forgiven for not listening to Clegg, given that he betrayed his beliefs and the people
To be fair on the LD and NC they did ensure that the Conservatives did not go completely nuts and it held back some of the more extreme Tory measures. What they really are guilty of is naivety - they wrongly believed that the populace would understand that behind the scenes they ensured some legislation never got off the drawing board. Unfortunately the public never saw this and that the legislation that did go through was blamed on them. Nick Cleggs naivety was to sell LDs soul by not leaving 3 years into the coalition when it was becoming apparent that they were not able to achieve anything. At the beginning though if we had no coalition it would have been a chaotic government with no clear winner with all legislation blocked resulting another quick election (which may not have changed anything).
All the people I work with voted out. The reason being they wanted the Muslim immigrants out, I got the p*ss taken out of me, when I tried to explain that coming out of Europe,
Would have no effect on commonwealth immigration. Most people don't see the difference between EU migrants, and commonwealth migrants.
People don't like sharia law in england, and all the anti muslim fear mongering, has finally come home to roost. Well done ukip.
It's a perfect example of why Parliament should make these decisions not the public, referendums can be used to get the mood of the populace but nothing more. There is X? number of people here that have a made a questionable, and really racist, decision on misleading information versus one persons more understanding world view. This is one example, it raises the question of just how many votes were based on such views and that the consequence could last for decades is staggering.
I have had a complete change of heart. I was basically devastated in the 24th but as time has gone on and the likelihood of Scottish independence has increased I have gotten more and more excited by the prospect to the extent that I don't really care about the Brexitieers now nor even the incoming financial implosion. I do feel sorry for the people who are going to have to live in the aftermath of this gigantic mess though.
I have wanted an independent Scotland since I was a wee boy, it is finally in our grasp and I just can't wait.
My wife is still pretty pissed off though, especially about the 'immigration' elements of the leave campaign.
Re the OP - Other. My opinion of the referendum is someone really, really should have acted on the now much discussed petition before the referendum. BBC says it has been there since 24th May, the Leaver who started it anticipating all this, but from the other side. I presume the Tory tacticians who considered all this (if they ever did) thought any sort of 60% requirement would give Leave a(nother) 'not fair' banner to wave around.
Regards Scotland, I don't how a 2nd vote for Scotland can be refused. The alternative is, 'we told you to stay (at least in part) because if you didn't you would have to leave the EU, and now you have to leave the EU'. A statement which basically needs a 'mwahahaha' at the end of it.
When you do go, please can we in South Lakeland come with? I know you're already pretty well set for mountains, sheep and rain but we're just down the road, we voted Remain and Tim Farron is a very nice man. We could be an embassy or something. Thanks.
Indyref1 was voted on knowing full well that the UK as a whole had an upcoming EURef. Votes to stay were made with an understanding that it risked separation from the EU.
Selym wrote: Indyref1 was voted on knowing full well that the UK as a whole had an upcoming EURef. Votes to stay were made with an understanding that it risked separation from the EU.
Silent Puffin? wrote: I have had a complete change of heart. I was basically devastated in the 24th but as time has gone on and the likelihood of Scottish independence has increased I have gotten more and more excited by the prospect to the extent that I don't really care about the Brexitieers now nor even the incoming financial implosion. I do feel sorry for the people who are going to have to live in the aftermath of this gigantic mess though.
I have wanted an independent Scotland since I was a wee boy, it is finally in our grasp and I just can't wait.
My wife is still pretty pissed off though, especially about the 'immigration' elements of the leave campaign.
Yah think?
If Sturgeon had just kept her mouth shut and did everything she is now, quietly, I could see the chance.
Having told the English that she is going to block them leaving the EU, there is no chance in hell of England letting us gain independence. The exact same 'rules' being used by Sturgeon will and can be used against us to stop Scotland gaining independence.
Having told the English that she is going to block them leaving the EU
That's not what she said and the SP can't block it anyway, not really. Saying that she may will both convert some more pro EU ex Unionists into Yes voters while at the same time rattling Westminster. Its slightly dirty politics but given the torrent of bs flying around its saintly by comparison.
But it is how its being reported, Regardless, but the threat is there, and she has voiced it, and sorry I have to disagree with your opinion that she has rattled Westminster. They're already shaking to pieces after the vote.
Lets be honest here, Scotland has a less than sterling reputation down south, being blamed for the length of time Labour was in power and having a disproportionate say in English affairs. Now we have yet another Scot saying that she is going to veto the referendum, that is not going to go down well. Independence for Scotland can only come with the agreement and cooperation of Westminster, and threatening them and defying the English populace is not going to make the process any easier
Lets be honest here, Scotland has a less than sterling reputation down south, being blamed for the length of time Labour was in power and having a disproportionate say in English affairs. Now we have yet another Scot saying that she is going to veto the referendum, that is not going to go down well. Independence for Scotland can only come with the agreement and cooperation of Westminster, and threatening them and defying the English populace is not going to make the process any easier
The reporting is nothing to do with her though and pissed off English brexiteers are surely quite likely to want to get rid of Scotland so that they could create their isolationist utopia?
Westminster is indeed shaking to pieces but if it starts blindly lashing out at the SP just watch the Yes% rise.....
Lets be honest here, Scotland has a less than sterling reputation down south, being blamed for the length of time Labour was in power and having a disproportionate say in English affairs. Now we have yet another Scot saying that she is going to veto the referendum, that is not going to go down well. Independence for Scotland can only come with the agreement and cooperation of Westminster, and threatening them and defying the English populace is not going to make the process any easier
The reporting is nothing to do with her though and pissed off English brexiteers are surely quite likely to want to get rid of Scotland so that they could create their isolationist utopia?
Westminster is indeed shaking to pieces but if it starts blindly lashing out at the SP just watch the Yes% rise.....
Consequences I'm afraid, we're likely to become quite isolated and our global voice will be diminished. If we continue on the same path then that will result in even more populist changes and so on. Unfortunately the UK has taken the decision to quit out of the current issues rather than tackle them head on.
AndrewC wrote: You're missing the point, it doesn't matter how many yes's there are, if Westminster doesn't agree to it, then nothing happens.
Not strictly true. The SP could conduct its own referendum and then issue a UDI which Westminster would basically have to acknowledge if it doesn't want to see its international reputation tarnished even further. It would be messy and nasty but its possible, in reality though Westminster is unlikely to block a second referendum. If it does of course it will only absolutely ensure an independent Scotland in a generation rather than a probable one in a decade or so.
Selym wrote: I voted Brexit, not Isolation Land...
Selym wrote: I voted Brexit, not Isolation Land...
Is there really a difference?
Yes. It's hardly like the referendum asked "do you want to cut off all contact with other countries?"
I wanted us out of the EU. Not out of the planet. The EU is not the only thing on the planet, and we are still players in the UN and NATO.
Automatically Appended Next Post: George Osborne Confirmed:
BBC wrote:"Osborne 'to make statement before markets open' ============ Chancellor George Osborne's absence from the Sunday political programmes, and the post-referendum debate more generally, has been the subject of a lot of talk.
The Guardian reports that he will make a statement early on Monday morning in an attempt to reassure financial markets and avoid a repeat of Friday's volatility.
The newspaper quoted a Treasury spokesman saying Mr Osborne would set out how the government intended to “protect the national interest”"
I wanted us out of the EU. Not out of the planet. The EU is not the only thing on the planet, and we are still players in the UN and NATO.
Unfortunately our place on the UN and NATO will also be diminished. You no longer are part of a bloc of 500M (IIRC) people but, but by the time of the Scottish independence much closer to 50m. Our voice will be much smaller than it was. As part of the EU you had an agreed approach and the backing (generally) of the other member states. UK represented not only its interests but those of the other countries hence it had more weight. Take the UN security council - now France will take on the voice of the EU, we will be on our own, our voice will only represent the English people.
If you still want to see the UK as a significant player in the international scene then I recommend you review your view on leaving the EU. We have chosen to become more introverted, therefore other countries will treat us as such.
AndrewC wrote: You're missing the point, it doesn't matter how many yes's there are, if Westminster doesn't agree to it, then nothing happens.
And how is that going to look for the rest of the world? Will really show how strong an independent UK is, all right!
Well China and North Korea might think it is OK but every western world might take a dim view of authoritarian nationalism (except maybe Trump he might think it is OK too).
AndrewC wrote: You're missing the point, it doesn't matter how many yes's there are, if Westminster doesn't agree to it, then nothing happens.
And how is that going to look for the rest of the world? Will really show how strong an independent UK is, all right!
Well China and North Korea might think it is OK but every western world might take a dim view of authoritarian nationalism (except maybe Trump he might think it is OK too).
Will make criticising China over their treatment of Hong Kong a bit difficult
AndrewC wrote: But it is how its being reported, Regardless, but the threat is there, and she has voiced it, and sorry I have to disagree with your opinion that she has rattled Westminster. They're already shaking to pieces after the vote.
Lets be honest here, Scotland has a less than sterling reputation down south, being blamed for the length of time Labour was in power and having a disproportionate say in English affairs. ... ...
Cheers
Andrew
What? To you, maybe. I've never had a problem with them.
There's a slight logical fallacy in the idea that when a minority of Scottish Labour MPs rule England it's bad, and when a majority English Conservative MPs rule Scotland it's bad. Or good. I don't even know what people really think any more.
AndrewC wrote: But it is how its being reported, Regardless, but the threat is there, and she has voiced it, and sorry I have to disagree with your opinion that she has rattled Westminster. They're already shaking to pieces after the vote.
Lets be honest here, Scotland has a less than sterling reputation down south, being blamed for the length of time Labour was in power and having a disproportionate say in English affairs. ... ...
Cheers
Andrew
What? To you, maybe. I've never had a problem with them.
There's a slight logical fallacy in the idea that when a minority of Scottish Labour MPs rule England it's bad, and when a majority English Conservative MPs rule Scotland it's bad. Or good. I don't even know what people really think any more.
I always get the idea that the Scottish Parliament feels that it is right for Scotland (at 5 million population) to dictate what England does (at over 50 million population), but feels that when it goes the other way it's oppression. And the SNP always seems surprised when it gets outvoted in Westminster.
Selym wrote: I always get the idea that the Scottish Parliament feels that it is right for Scotland (at 5 million population) to dictate what England does
I don't think that has ever actually happened. On the other hand Scotland hasn't returned a Tory majority since the 50's and has just been dragged out of the EU against its democratic wishes...
And the SNP always seems surprised when it gets outvoted in Westminster.
Scotland will always be outvoted in Westminster and it has little means to prevent the imposition of things that the Scottish people don't want. That's one of the core reasons for the drive towards independence.
In the words of a certain N.Farage, its all about sovereignty
Selym wrote: I always get the idea that the Scottish Parliament feels that it is right for Scotland (at 5 million population) to dictate what England does
I don't think that has ever actually happened. On the other hand Scotland hasn't returned a Tory majority since the 50's and has just been dragged out of the EU against its democratic wishes...
And the SNP always seems surprised when it gets outvoted in Westminster.
Scotland will always be outvoted in Westminster and it has little means to prevent the imposition of things that the Scottish people don't want. That's one of the core reasons for the drive towards independence.
In the words of a certain N.Farage, its all about sovereignty
However it's apparently okay for Sturgeon to prevent the UK/England from leaving the EU against its democratic wishes?
It's a threat that never should have been made. She should have made an announcement acknowledging the wishes of the referendum noting that Scotland did not agree with it and she was seeking a resolution to balancing the two opposed votes. And then went to Brussels asking if we can join as an independent nation. Now that she's metaphorically put the boot in, I worry that were going to get the boot back.
For a long time, Scotland acted as the kingmaker in English politics. Labour were always guaranteed to gain a huge block of seats from the Scottish constituencies, and it has only been in the last decade that the SNP has managed to break that stranglehold. Unfortunately that switch from Labour to SNP has had little in the way of effect at Westminster because SNP simply do not have a mandate or support south of the border and can't expand on their area of effect.
Consequences I'm afraid, we're likely to become quite isolated and our global voice will be diminished. If we continue on the same path then that will result in even more populist changes and so on. Unfortunately the UK has taken the decision to quit out of the current issues rather than tackle them head on.
Tackle what head on? Why would the Germans and the French want to give up control of the EU? You just have to look at the previous Foot-and-Mouth incidents to see where they attempted to sabotage the United Kingdom. That kind of idea works best when everyone is willing to co-operate.
BBC wrote:French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke on Sunday night about how to respond to the UK's Brexit vote.
An aide to the French leader said both were in "full agreement on how to handle the situation" and the need to act quickly to "avoid uncertainties"
Consequences I'm afraid, we're likely to become quite isolated and our global voice will be diminished. If we continue on the same path then that will result in even more populist changes and so on. Unfortunately the UK has taken the decision to quit out of the current issues rather than tackle them head on.
Tackle what head on? Why would the Germans and the French want to give up control of the EU? You just have to look at the previous Foot-and-Mouth incidents to see where they attempted to sabotage the United Kingdom. That kind of idea works best when everyone is willing to co-operate.
How did the EU attempt to sabotage Britain over Foot-and-Mouth? By instituting successful quarantine procedures?
Consequences I'm afraid, we're likely to become quite isolated and our global voice will be diminished. If we continue on the same path then that will result in even more populist changes and so on. Unfortunately the UK has taken the decision to quit out of the current issues rather than tackle them head on.
Tackle what head on? Why would the Germans and the French want to give up control of the EU? You just have to look at the previous Foot-and-Mouth incidents to see where they attempted to sabotage the United Kingdom. That kind of idea works best when everyone is willing to co-operate.
How did the EU attempt to sabotage Britain over Foot-and-Mouth? By instituting successful quarantine procedures?
The United Kingdom was forced to make massive culls to its livestock industry during the original crisis. Which is fair enough, procedures and all. But the French who had the same outbreak were not asked to make similar culls. It took many years for the UK Livestock industry to recover, while the French prospered. It would have been more reasonable for both nations to have culls, since you know, the infection was in both countries.
The United Kingdom was forced to make massive culls to its livestock industry during the original crisis. Which is fair enough, procedures and all. But the French who had the same outbreak were not asked to make similar culls. It took many years for the UK Livestock industry to recover, while the French prospered. It would have been more reasonable for both nations to have culls, since you know, the infection was in both countries.
The UK was the source of the outbreak and also failed to control the initial spread adequately. France caught the outbreaks faster and dealt with them better. That is the reason that less of their livestock needed to be culled, less of it was exposed to the infection. There was no conspiracy against british farming.
The United Kingdom was forced to make massive culls to its livestock industry during the original crisis. Which is fair enough, procedures and all. But the French who had the same outbreak were not asked to make similar culls. It took many years for the UK Livestock industry to recover, while the French prospered. It would have been more reasonable for both nations to have culls, since you know, the infection was in both countries.
The UK was the source of the outbreak and also failed to control the initial spread adequately. France caught the outbreaks faster and dealt with them better. That is the reason that less of their livestock needed to be culled, less of it was exposed to the infection. There was no conspiracy against british farming.
It is not something that could have been predicted. There was no stimulus to help bring back the British livestock industry after the event, something that should have happened to support a fellow EU nation.
I wonder if Leave voters would change their minds if Juncker does step down.
Obviously, more has to be done within the EU (Remain voters have always acknowledged that) but reform might be a lot easier without Juncker as president.
Personally I take everything the Daily Mail says with a pinch of salt, it's not a highly regarded newspaper. A lot of it's online articles are click bait or have wrong information.
Selym wrote: I voted Brexit, not Isolation Land...
Put simply, what you actually voted for doesn't matter as much as how the people who will actually be in charge of the exit will handle it. You may not want Isolation Land, but if that's what your elected leaders end up going for...
Sarah Palin congratulates the UK on Brexit and urges the U.S. to 'follow suit' and abandon the UN
Sooo much facepalm....
Palin's a non-event. An irrelevant fart in the political hurricane.
And yes, please feel free to view Americans as 'stupid' again, particularly Palin and her ilk, we do it all the time.
Dude avoided the political backstabbing, and got on with the work. Seemingly the only English politician to do so.
He's probably had no choice. All his budget work would have been out the window and he and a lot of civil servants I guess will have been putting in a whole weekend to work out whether the Country can get through the next 6 months before the autumn statement without something collapsing terribly (or what he needs to do to avoid this). In particular the volatility of the £ and inflation would have been a big concern. With such a big drop and all oil being done in $ then fuel prices have jumped overnight which will have knock on effects on food, clothes, airline costs etc. This in turn could result in a significant short term jump in inflation - i.e. the value of everyone's income drops which could then result in less sales and a downturn in the economy. To try and stem this I'd expect an interest rise shortly to help stabilise the £ more the risk being is could affect peoples mortgages and savings which means again that sales of goods could drop. The question is where the balance is to ensure the country does not go into free fall.
His only real mistake was not coming out on Friday and saying he wasn't going anywhere because the vacuum of DC saying "I'm off" didn't help anyone.
Is it time to dig the Commonwealth back up?
It even has 'Wealth' in the name, and we need all the reliable trading partners we can get.
Is this why the Queen has hung onto the throne for so long, knowing Brexit was coming?
The royal family might be a bit asset in the near future.
I voted to Remain and I know that it could look like it makes my opinion bias but I do feel that a 60% pass should of been implemented. I felt that with the Scotland vote and this one. The system at the moment does make it harder for the loser to accept the outcome.
You could even argue that a tier / rounds system needs to be set up. After the first round you'd get an idea of what the general felling is. It would hopefully make those who didn't vote sit up and pay attention, they would see that they would need to make an effort if they wanted their side to win.
When you hear a Leave voter say he voted to leave the EU to stop all the "muslin's coming over here" it does feel with you despair. I can understand some of the concerns of the Leavers with regard to how the EU works (even as a Remainer I still had concerns), but this guy summed up what the Remain camp was having to fight against.
Trading in Barclays and RBS shares was suspended on Monday morning following heavy losses on the London Stock Exchange.
Barclays share price was down 10.3 per cent and RBS was down 15 per cent on Monday, triggering automatic circuit breakers that kick in when a share price falls more than 8 per cent.
....Barclays was trading at 138.95p, down 9.76 per cent, while RBS was trading at 178.14p, down 13.30 per cent in mid-morning trade.
Lloyds was down 8.91 per cent at 51.88p, after falling more than 20 per cent on Monday.
RBS shares have lost £10 billion in their market value since Thursday, or more than the net contribution of the UK to the EU in 2015, which was estimated to be about £8.5 billion. The net contribution is the difference between what the UK paid to the EU and what it got back in spending in the UK.
Trading in Barclays and RBS shares was suspended on Monday morning following heavy losses on the London Stock Exchange.
Barclays share price was down 10.3 per cent and RBS was down 15 per cent on Monday, triggering automatic circuit breakers that kick in when a share price falls more than 8 per cent.
....Barclays was trading at 138.95p, down 9.76 per cent, while RBS was trading at 178.14p, down 13.30 per cent in mid-morning trade.
Lloyds was down 8.91 per cent at 51.88p, after falling more than 20 per cent on Monday.
RBS shares have lost £10 billion in their market value since Thursday, or more than the net contribution of the UK to the EU in 2015, which was estimated to be about £8.5 billion. The net contribution is the difference between what the UK paid to the EU and what it got back in spending in the UK.
And all of that was down to their own misguided efforts to hedge (i.e. bet on) the result over the actual effect of the result itself.
I spoke a cabby this morning an we were both having a laugh at them. Apparently Canary Wharf was lit up like a Christmas Tree at 4AM on Friday as every single Cab and Uber available was ferrying in the dill weed to try to stem the flow on the cluster feth they had created.
This was brought home on the train as I was talking to two bankers that couldn't tell the difference between the EU and the Common Market.
Skullhammer wrote: Boo hoo poor bankers.
They will get over it. And so will everyone else.
Its not as simple as that. The Bankers make their money from moving money around (buy low, sell high). Obviously its a lot more complicated than that. However it can be your money they are moving around and whose value is changing, people invest money into the shares so that over the long term you can use that money to have a nice retirement, buy a house, have a wedding etc.
If you have say a pension scheme (say the Local Authority Government one) that invested wholly in Barclays shares the value of your pension has just dropped by 10% in an instant. If the local Authorities cannot recoup this then that means a cut in your pension later or larger contributions. If you have an ISA that the bank invested for you the return on that has just dropped 10% which will mean less interest return. If you have a mortgage the value of that has now dropped, which means those that underwrote your mortgage will need to increase their interest rates to recover this loss. These things are not isolated they have real world implications. In fact it is the Bankers that can make the most of this if they guessed right - if they sold there shares the night before the election and now wait until the main furore settles down they can then rebuy more of the same shares at a lower price and they are in fact a greater owner of that asset then. Once values recover resell them and you've made a fortune.
National - Action .info is a real website. Here's a quote from them:
National Action wrote:What is a National Socialist and how did you become one?
A National Socialist is someone who fights for the survival of their people against corruption. I’ve always been a traditionalist at heart but it took my other half a while to redpill me. I didn’t want to believe that the Jews are the enemy as I was brought up to believe that they are very similar to Christians. Eventually the Jewish propaganda became too obvious to ignore and so I became involved with NA.
Dude avoided the political backstabbing, and got on with the work. Seemingly the only English politician to do so.
That's because he's desperate to survive in cabinet now. May stayed quiet, and Cameron is leaving. He's at such a disadvantage that doing absolutely anything else will see him accompanying Cameron. He has until October to convince the Tory party he's worth keeping on.
Make no mistake, he's fighting for his political life right now.
Cornwall having voted 182,665 for Leave and 140,540 for Remain, wants the government to replace the £400 million of EU grants it will lose over the next few years.
Chris Grayling, the Tory Cabinet member and prominent Brexit campaigner, has said the idea of spending £350 million a week on the NHS instead of the EU was only “an aspiration” – despite the slogan being written in massive letters on the side of the Vote Leave battle bus.
Mr Grayling’s remarks to ITV’s Good Morning Britain came despite the Leave Campaign spending weeks touring the country in a bus emblazoned with the slogan: “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave.”
This is getting ridiculous.
Are any of the "leave" campaign leaders actually going to stick to the pledges they made to those who voted for them ?
There were idiots last week the same as this week.
Please don't try to contrive that there is some sort of new awakening of such nonsense in the UK. They're just shouting a bit louder this week and like last week people will ignore them and carry on.
Of course, if it now being on facebook makes it more "real" for you then so be it.
The Cabinet agreed this morning there would be no second referendum. David Cameron will spell that out in his Commons statement this afternoon.
They don’t want false hopes or complications beyond the ones already visited on the country.
Oliver Letwin is overseeing the “scoping” exercise on what is and isn’t possible in a negotiation. The idea of Michael Gove being lead negotiator dates back to when, a touch unrealistically, he and others on the Leave side thought they could persuade David Cameron to stay put for longer.
Boris Johnson just emerged from Downing Street to state again his support for a points based immigration system combined somehow with access to the single market.
One Tory MP said it was more of Boris Johnson’s cake policy, “pro having it and pro eating it” and he would have to “sort himself out.”
Bit of luck we can finally put this bit of ridiculousness behind us and move on.
Kilkrazy wrote: Cornwall having voted 182,665 for Leave and 140,540 for Remain, wants the government to replace the £400 million of EU grants it will lose over the next few years.
Bojo though intelligent and well-educated is a bit of a fething clown. I honestly don't believe he had thought through the implications of a Leave vote.
He appeals to people like my mum who sees him as a kind of loveable mop-top cheery chappie, but that's not going to cut it if you want to be head of government of a nuclear power in negotiation with the world's biggest trade blocks.
There were idiots last week the same as this week.
Please don't try to contrive that there is some sort of new awakening of such nonsense in the UK. They're just shouting a bit louder this week and like last week people will ignore them and carry on.
Of course, if it now being on facebook makes it more "real" for you then so be it.
They have become more vocal, and if they are to be stopped the condemnation of them needs to be more vocal. If we do nothing they will gain ground.
YOU READ THIS NOW! YOU NOT READ THIS NOW IS POLCRIME!!
This thread will be locked at the end of the next week in order to consolidate all current UK political discussion about Brexit and the coming year into one thread. This is to keep the forum tidy.
This thread is being left unlocked to allow users to register their votes in the poll.
They have become more vocal, and if they are to be stopped the condemnation of them needs to be more vocal. If we do nothing they will gain ground.
And they have become more vocal because we as a populace have now given them a voice. They are buoyed by the anti-immigration message that dominated the news and that more people 'secretly' believe in their view. It's not just the extremists either in these groups the general populace has become more vocal there's mounting interviews with ordinary people stating "they don't want muslims" etc (which is deplorable). This is not going to be a short term issue - it's going to be years before we even get a handle on it and even then when challenged you are just going to get the response "well the majority agree with us just look at the referendum vote". The cat is truly out the bag on this one.
As for the second referendum that's not really a surprise and I signed it but it's not really what I want. What I want is a government to act the part on work together for the betterment of the Country as whole. I do not expect them to issue referendums on subjects that the vast majority of the public don't understand how it works, don't understand the implications and can be easily swayed by populist voices that are in the end talking absolute garbage. I do not need them to defer every difficult decision to the public - it is not what I voted for them to do. How any one could say what they understood what they voted for is beyond me - part of my job in Waste is to understand and manage EU and UK legislation. I understand a tiny part of the total legislation and itself the Waste regulations are complicated (but are good for the environment). I have no knowledge on any other aspect of the EU legislation apart from generic information on how it works but right now we have 50m people that were assumed to be experts on it all. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect me or anyone else to vote on this because they simply don't know!
Whirlwind wrote: I have no knowledge on any other aspect of the EU legislation apart from generic information on how it works but right now we have 50m people that were assumed to be experts on it all. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect me or anyone else to vote on this because they simply don't know!
I do think the EU has done a poor job of marketing itself and helping people understand it over the last decade or so, I wouldn't place the blame solely on a poor Remain campaign.
As an American, I think it's a bad idea, not just from an economic stand point, but also half the posts I've seen from people who voted for it boiled down to "I didn't know what it was" or "I didn't they'd take us seriously".
Also, not to paint with a broad stroke, but I have family over in England. Based on their reaction and their beliefs, I think the Brexit was based on a lot of racism and xenophobia.
Whirlwind wrote: I have no knowledge on any other aspect of the EU legislation apart from generic information on how it works but right now we have 50m people that were assumed to be experts on it all. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect me or anyone else to vote on this because they simply don't know!
I do think the EU has done a poor job of marketing itself and helping people understand it over the last decade or so, I wouldn't place the blame solely on a poor Remain campaign.
It's that and the Remain campaign and to be completely frank, 30 years of lies from the Daily Mail, Telegraph and the Sun have not helped.
One effect of the campaign on me was that I had to look up information on the EU and so on and I was surprised at how much I didn't know and had misunderstood because of general press moaning about human rights and opaque bureaucracy and so on.
Whirlwind wrote: I have no knowledge on any other aspect of the EU legislation apart from generic information on how it works but right now we have 50m people that were assumed to be experts on it all. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect me or anyone else to vote on this because they simply don't know!
I do think the EU has done a poor job of marketing itself and helping people understand it over the last decade or so, I wouldn't place the blame solely on a poor Remain campaign.
Yeah but it is meant to be the MEPs job to do this (not the president) as they are the ones voted for directly by the public. Of course the problem is that it was filled with UKIP members who had no interest in actually engaging with either the EU or any electorate that might take an interest (only those they could persuade to say the EU is "insert expletive here!"). So hence you have a problem where the public don't understand, a small minority vote in MEPS that don't engage who then come back and tell us it's all rubbish and have no interest in trying to improve it - and we wonder why more and more people consider it a flawed system. The EU is like a relationship, you have to work at it to get it to work and sustain it, but that's something fundamentally the UKIP MEPS opposed doing.
What I blame the government for doing it calling the Referendum in the first place - it was a political career stunt that massively backfired and is now going to have massive negative ramifications for decades to come.
Aren't these cab drivers aware that the Poles exodus to Britain began during the rise of Prussia. in the days Frederick II rules. shouldn't they get used to the poles community in Britain that exists for some 200 years?
As I watch the global stock markets continue to shed the world's cumulative wealth, I heard an interesting statistic with caveat of course.
UK potential EU savings GBP8Bn. IfUK bank meltdown continues, i.e. Barclays, RBS, etc. and there comes a need another bailout of some sort, let's say just half the 2008 level infusion, then that's approximately a cost of GBP80Bn. So net-net the result is a loss of GBP72Bn(80-8).
Ahhh, the price of uninformed, misinformed xenophobia.
Just to give one example (so we dont rehash the closed thread) and to me a major one is the supremacy of law. Any compantancy that the eu claims an intrest in means that the eu court (not the court of human rights thats totaly diffrent) can overrule a nations laws. And at the start of the eu standadisation was ok then they moved to any trade even if the bisness never traded outside there own country then farming rules, fishing rules, vat rules. Its the creep that got me. And yes giving some rules to international bodies is good war crimes/climate change things that one country just cant do on its own.
My response was mostly a dig at your comment about xenophobia. Which on a lot of media is the new islamaphobia when ever this topic arises.
I mean it is nice when a dozen million xenopohbic brits push the economy closer to a recession. Then again I have sold off most of my stocks and patiently wait to buy them cheap again.
Ustrello wrote: I mean it is nice when a dozen million xenopohbic brits push the economy closer to a recession. Then again I have sold off most of my stocks and patiently wait to buy them cheap again.
It's nice when a few times that number of xenophobic 'muricans join the Trump bandwagon of muslim-hating...
The world's always been incredibly racist. It's just that in the last few decades we've been unusually good at repressing it.
Ustrello wrote: I mean it is nice when a dozen million xenopohbic brits push the economy closer to a recession. Then again I have sold off most of my stocks and patiently wait to buy them cheap again.
It's nice when a few times that number of xenophobic 'muricans join the Trump bandwagon of muslim-hating...
The world's always been incredibly racist. It's just that in the last few decades we've been unusually good at repressing it.
Population percentage wise if we go by the 2012 presidential election 9 percent of the population voted republican (so figuring for trump probably less than that in the 2016 because a lot of the moderate republicans dont like him), and 18 percent of brits voted for the leave. So numbers year we got you beat, percentage of population we are even.
Ustrello wrote: I mean it is nice when a dozen million xenopohbic brits push the economy closer to a recession. Then again I have sold off most of my stocks and patiently wait to buy them cheap again.
Or dozens of millions of drones voted, banking on their own convoluted idiocy that Jeremy 'anti Eu' Corbyn. would somehow end up as prime minister on the 24th June and keep us in on a wave of free education, and unionised utility services.
Its their own damn 48% fault we are now in this mess.
In another thread I had posted that the savings of staying within the EU and benefits of this collective far exceed the cost of the transfer payments the UK is seeing.
The main #1 argument is simply to have the ability to have unfettered policy change within the UK without external "interference".
I have done a fair bit of research but I am still unclear of the logistics / policies the EU made where the UK got to keep their currency and still be part of the "brotherhood".
I figured if they did not adopt the Euro, it would make exiting the EU a tiny bit less painful.
This situation reminds me of Quebec trying to separate from Canada and holding referendums: the need to have self determination seemed to outweigh the economic destruction they would face and vast privileges that would be taken away due to the exit. Probably the worst of this is the EU trying to balance the books after this and a bunch of "me too" moments with the other countries.
Were the external policies being pushed for things like immigration quotas that decisive and divisive?
Were immigration policies divisive? Hell yes. You had a few large camps:
>Belief that immigration is all bad (racist) >Belief that unlimited immigration is the best >EU migrants that felt that all talks about immigration policies would lead to racist persecution (what seems to have happened) >Belief that while immigration can be good, the EU's way of handling it needed to be stopped (winning argument in the referendum)
"The ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has lowered its rating of British government debt from AAA to AA following the referendum. That was the final AAA rating attached to UK government debt.
Standard and Poor’s forecast a “less predictable, stable, and effective policy framework in the UK” as one of the reasons as well as “a marked deterioration of external financing conditions in light of the U.K.’s extremely elevated level of gross external financing requirements.”
In other words, they are worried about the slide in the value of the pound given how much the UK relies on borrowing from abroad.
They also point towards wider constitutional issues created by the referendum in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The agency said:
The negative outlook reflects the risk to economic prospects, fiscal and external performance, and the role of sterling as a reserve currency, as well as risks to the constitutional and economic integrity of the U.K. if there is another referendum on Scottish independence."
still what's a few more billions in interest payments eh ?
Immigration was not seriously being pushed on anyone, there was free movement of people inside Europe. This had negative effects and positive effects.
The UK was not forced to take refugees and took a pretty small number of them.
I think the advantages of free movement are less obvious in the UK due to it's island nature. Imagine putting up borders and restrictions between Scotland, Wales and England and you begin to see why it's more popular on the continent.
"The ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has lowered its rating of British government debt from AAA to AA following the referendum. That was the final AAA rating attached to UK government debt.
Standard and Poor’s forecast a “less predictable, stable, and effective policy framework in the UK” as one of the reasons as well as “a marked deterioration of external financing conditions in light of the U.K.’s extremely elevated level of gross external financing requirements.”
In other words, they are worried about the slide in the value of the pound given how much the UK relies on borrowing from abroad.
They also point towards wider constitutional issues created by the referendum in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The agency said:
The negative outlook reflects the risk to economic prospects, fiscal and external performance, and the role of sterling as a reserve currency, as well as risks to the constitutional and economic integrity of the U.K. if there is another referendum on Scottish independence."
still what's a few more billions in interest payments eh ?
S&P has had the US rating at AA+ down from AAA since 2011 and it really hasn't had much of an impact on our economy. The UK still has one of the largest economies in the world and all that commerce will continue regardless of the credit rating.
S&P has had the US rating at AA+ down from AAA since 2011 and it really hasn't had much of an impact on our economy. The UK still has one of the largest economies in the world and all that commerce will continue regardless of the credit rating.
Whilst that is true, the Conservatives massively criticised the previous Labour government when it was merely hinted that the UKs credit rating would be lowered, basically saying it would ruin us.
Da Boss wrote: Immigration was not seriously being pushed on anyone, there was free movement of people inside Europe. This had negative effects and positive effects.
The UK was not forced to take refugees and took a pretty small number of them.
I think the advantages of free movement are less obvious in the UK due to it's island nature. Imagine putting up borders and restrictions between Scotland, Wales and England and you begin to see why it's more popular on the continent.
I really think that 'multiculturalism' and its weaponised nature within UK politics has a heck of lot to do with our voters opinions on immigration, rather than the act immigration itself.
Almost 20 years of political dodgeball and point scoring makes for a confused electorate. From my own experiences so called liberals and leftists appear to be most fearful of having any discussion on immigration for fear of being called a bigot or a racist. And I do mean any discussion other than what the current super positive opinion should be.
Oh goodness... I didn't even want to go into the way loans are handled.
The original reason for Greece entering the EU was how attractive super low interest rates were.
A few interest points going up due to both restricted access to the EU loans AND being more of a credit risk being outside of the EU support group.
That could be a financial disaster depending on how the loans are distributed.
Da Boss wrote: There can be no more argument that the Tories are a safe pair of hands after this shambles.
There wasn't an argument for that last time once you looked at actual figures. All that matters is perception.
They'll just wait 10 years or so and then bluff that this was all Labours fault or the EUs fault.
The Labour side isnt much better. At least Blairites are still a thing to blame their woes on. JC is still the man, in spite of his Euro Scepticism......
Labour have a history of blaming Maggie for everything. It's her fault they got Milliband........
"The ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has lowered its rating of British government debt from AAA to AA following the referendum. That was the final AAA rating attached to UK government debt.
Standard and Poor’s forecast a “less predictable, stable, and effective policy framework in the UK” as one of the reasons as well as “a marked deterioration of external financing conditions in light of the U.K.’s extremely elevated level of gross external financing requirements.”
In other words, they are worried about the slide in the value of the pound given how much the UK relies on borrowing from abroad.
They also point towards wider constitutional issues created by the referendum in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The agency said:
The negative outlook reflects the risk to economic prospects, fiscal and external performance, and the role of sterling as a reserve currency, as well as risks to the constitutional and economic integrity of the U.K. if there is another referendum on Scottish independence."
still what's a few more billions in interest payments eh ?
Is it wrong that I read that as "The global cabal of elite financial interests are pissed that the peasants are revolting."
Selym wrote: Problem is, now that the vote is out, if we don't keep reminding mourners to get on with dealing with it, we won't get anywhere.
We won't get anywhere until government actually comes up with a plan, no matter how much we think it is because we're not "pulling together", which is still a bit of a toxic phrase due to "we're all in it together" austerity.
We won't get anywhere until government actually comes up with a plan, no matter how much we think it is because we're not "pulling together", which is still a bit of a toxic phrase due to "we're all in it together" austerity.
Right now the only plan they have is for DC to come out and say we aren't leaving the EU and he's no longer resigning. It's the only plan we have that is viable, it's taken years to put together and trying to scrap another together in 6 months is madness. It's all very well throwing yourself on the sword but it's also in my view can be cowardly because he's made the mess but he's not willing to clean it up. It's the only way we can at least stabilise things and if we know this the markets/companies damn well do too. If there was a planned brexit strategy then that would be different but there isn't and it's chaos.
I appreciate there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth because of the referendum result but given that no one has any idea at all where to go from here, that the two major parties are about to spend all their time wailing on themselves, the population is turning on itself, the pound is collapsing, the financial markets are in melt down and contracts are being cancelled. the only way of bringing some semblance of order is back track. Yes it will be the end of DC but he's done for anyway and if he wants to die by the sword he can blame the whole sorry exercise on himself.
If we wait 6 months investment will dry up, companies will move out, interest on our debt will go up, austerity measures will have to be heavier and harder.
If we stay at least we can go back to the EU and work out what's going so horribly wrong and how to extract ourselves from this sorry mess but the overall damage should be light except to our reputation.
Oh and for the comment why the EU isn't helping well their markets are in turmoil too. Japan is having to force devaluing its yen to ensure exports are viable. China is adjusting its currency too. Also we didn't help bailout Greece so why should they bail us out? It's having the cake and eating it.
Monokuma wrote: Why do people assume the European Union is fixable.
Everything is fixable if you are willing to put the blood sweat and tears into it. Just quitting solves nothing other than not looking at yourself as to why things went wrong. Leaving the EU is not going to sort any of the problems that this country faces (including how we deal with the underlying xenophobia).
There are no quick fixes unlike how the leave campaign has sold itself.
Monokuma wrote: Why do people assume the European Union is fixable.
Everything is fixable if you are willing to put the blood sweat and tears into it. Just quitting solves nothing other than not looking at yourself as to why things went wrong. Leaving the EU is not going to sort any of the problems that this country faces (including how we deal with the underlying xenophobia).
There are no quick fixes unlike how the leave campaign has sold itself.
That assumes the EU wants to fix things..
Right now it spends millions on two parliament buildings. And moves between.
Italian officials are studying a direct state recapitalisation of the banks, to be funded by a special bond issue. They also want a moratorium of so-called ‘bail-in’ rules and bondholder write-downs, but these steps are impossible under EU laws. Mr Renzi raised the subject urgently at a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Francois Hollande at a Brexit summit in Berlin on Monday.
“There has to be a suspension of the bail-in rules and state aid rules at the highest political level in the EU, otherwise I don’t see how this can work,” said Mr Codogno.
I'll try and dig up the correct regulation but in a nutshell the EU put up barriers for state aid to banks/financial sector. According to some this regulation is pretty poorly written and/or defined.
In waiting so long to tackle the matter, Italy has found it hard to copy Spain, which in 2012 created a “bad bank”, largely to house those troubled property loans. The EU has changed the rules on state aid since then.
Advertisement
“The Italian government has been severely constrained in its ability to emulate the Spanish example, due to high public debt and the new, more stringent EU state-aid rules, whereby NPL purchases by a public entity would trigger an onerous ‘bail-in’ of bank creditors,” said Federico Santi, an analyst at the risk consultancy Eurasia Group.
Those new EU rules require bondholders – and, crucially, savers – to take 8% of the liabilities before any government funds can be used to prop up banks in a bail-in, the aim of which is to prevent a bailout by taxpayers.
Forcing savers to take losses is unpalatable. Cyprus took that route three years ago, hitting savers with more than the €100,000 guaranteed by EU rules.
Just before Christmas, and before the EU rule change, Italy took steps to avoid depositors having to take losses in four lenders: Banca Etruria, Banca Marche, CariFerrara and CariChieti. But some bondholders were forced to take losses, sparking a furious reaction as the bonds issued by Italian banks are often bought by their retail customers. Renzi was accused of overseeing a “state suicide” when a retired man who lost €110,000 in Banca Etrutia bonds killed himself.
For simplicity-sake I'll repeat my post in the other thread:
Well, all I can do is say that the EU-funded PhD's have mostly vanished like a fart in the wind, with only a few left behind. The projects cancelled or moved abroad.
The company funding me has decided to keep most of its operations and training in Spain for now and the number of research jobs in biotechnology has... well, you get the idea.
On top of this my mother, and myself have both been on the receiving end of anti-immigration abuse because we're from the Republic of Ireland. It's made more amusing as the oiks saying I've apparently 'stolen their jobs' have between them 3 GCSEs and an STD compared to my two MSc's, and BSc (Hons.). Somehow I think I may be contributing more to the country but who am I to argue, I'm just an immigrant - after all, who needs new medicines developed and tested anyway?
In essence, this Brexit has gone and done a real number on UK science which I don't see it recovering from any time soon. I know of people (physicists and other biotechnologists) who moved to France and Spain while the Brexit campaign was warming up as research companies were already getting nervous and expecting the worst. I wish I had done the same too but I have other commitments that hold me in the UK for now.
This said, I expect I'll leave (if Scotland fails to escape England in the next referendum) and follow the EU investment.
In short, the English voted to try and secure menial jobs for themselves at the cost of the jobs of the educated. It would appear the back-tracking of the Brexit politicians suggests this wasn't even achieved.
Edit: This said, I do have sympathy for the English who are in the same position as me with regards to the funding. They, unlike me, don't have EU passports and have no choice but to suffer through this.
Edit: This said, I do have sympathy for the English who are in the same position as me with regards to the funding. They, unlike me, don't have EU passports and have no choice but to suffer through this.
This is why I am getting an Irish passport as I have Irish grandparents on my fathers side.
Edit: This said, I do have sympathy for the English who are in the same position as me with regards to the funding. They, unlike me, don't have EU passports and have no choice but to suffer through this.
This is why I am getting an Irish passport as I have Irish grandparents on my fathers side.
Yeah, I may do the same thing. Got Irish grandparents on my mother's side. Backup passports are always handy.
Wulfmar wrote: For simplicity-sake I'll repeat my post in the other thread:
In essence, this Brexit has gone and done a real number on UK science which I don't see it recovering from any time soon. I know of people (physicists and other biotechnologists) who moved to France and Spain while the Brexit campaign was warming up as research companies were already getting nervous and expecting the worst. I wish I had done the same too but I have other commitments that hold me in the UK for now.
This said, I expect I'll leave (if Scotland fails to escape England in the next referendum) and follow the EU investment.
In short, the English voted to try and secure menial jobs for themselves at the cost of the jobs of the educated. It would appear the back-tracking of the Brexit politicians suggests this wasn't even achieved.
Edit: This said, I do have sympathy for the English who are in the same position as me with regards to the funding. They, unlike me, don't have EU passports and have no choice but to suffer through this.
Right because us stoopid brits can't do science without eurocrats taking our money and telling us to pay scientists. Except no. Britain has been doing science with the best of them since forever. Isaac Newton.. Charles Darwin.. James Maxwell... plenty of others and none of them needed a eurocrat to tell them how do their job. Cambridge and Oxford earnt their prestigious names long before the EU was twinkling in Adolf's eye. The EU money that gets spent on British science is our money! When the euros are not getting it anymore then our PTB will spend it on science as they always have and the euros won't. British science will continue, with a temporary disruption no doubt, but it will continue.
Edit: This said, I do have sympathy for the English who are in the same position as me with regards to the funding. They, unlike me, don't have EU passports and have no choice but to suffer through this.
This is why I am getting an Irish passport as I have Irish grandparents on my fathers side.
Yeah, I may do the same thing. Got Irish grandparents on my mother's side. Backup passports are always handy.
I think I qualify for Portuguese citizenship thanks to Sephardi heritage on my grandfather's side. It helps that he's also a family historian, so detailed proof can be provided if need be.
Wulfmar wrote: For simplicity-sake I'll repeat my post in the other thread:
In essence, this Brexit has gone and done a real number on UK science which I don't see it recovering from any time soon. I know of people (physicists and other biotechnologists) who moved to France and Spain while the Brexit campaign was warming up as research companies were already getting nervous and expecting the worst. I wish I had done the same too but I have other commitments that hold me in the UK for now.
This said, I expect I'll leave (if Scotland fails to escape England in the next referendum) and follow the EU investment.
In short, the English voted to try and secure menial jobs for themselves at the cost of the jobs of the educated. It would appear the back-tracking of the Brexit politicians suggests this wasn't even achieved.
Edit: This said, I do have sympathy for the English who are in the same position as me with regards to the funding. They, unlike me, don't have EU passports and have no choice but to suffer through this.
Right because us stoopid brits can't do science without eurocrats taking our money and telling us to pay scientists. Except no. Britain has been doing science with the best of them since forever. Isaac Newton.. Charles Darwin.. James Maxwell... plenty of others and none of them needed a eurocrat to tell them how do their job. Cambridge and Oxford earnt their prestigious names long before the EU was twinkling in Adolf's eye. The EU money that gets spent on British science is our money! When the euros are not getting it anymore then our PTB will spend it on science as they always have and the euros won't. British science will continue, with a temporary disruption no doubt, but it will continue.
It isn't just money, it is access to resources in the form of labs, personnel etc.
Our best work is done in international collaborations, especially as part of EU programmes. If we lose them, our science will suffer. That is why every single british scientific institution was against Brexit. Also, the fact that EU funding has become so important to UK science is precisely because our government is not funding it and there is no reason to assume that will change. Most voters don't see the direct effects of science funding so politicians don't put the money there.
It isn't just money, it is access to resources in the form of labs, personnel etc.
Our best work is done in international collaborations, especially as part of EU programmes. If we lose them, our science will suffer. That is why every single british scientific institution was against Brexit. Also, the fact that EU funding has become so important to UK science is precisely because our government is not funding it and there is no reason to assume that will change. Most voters don't see the direct effects of science funding so politicians don't put the money there.
Those collaborations needn't stop just because we are no longer goose-stepping to der euro fuhrer's tune, if it does it won't be because of the brexit it will be because of petulant spankers in brussels. All you remainers are making the euro-crats sound worse than I thought they were. Highly educated people with institutional connections never struggle to get visas, if that will even be a thing for the future. If the euros close the door on us then we can close it on them and we can open it to the whole world too. How does Japan or the US get science done without the precious overlords in brussels? Honestly this is the worst, most insulting thing about remainers, you just seem to have the lowest opinion of anything british. We are literally just pond scum to you? Britain the land that literally created and spread to the far corners of the world, modernity itself.
It isn't just money, it is access to resources in the form of labs, personnel etc.
Our best work is done in international collaborations, especially as part of EU programmes. If we lose them, our science will suffer. That is why every single british scientific institution was against Brexit. Also, the fact that EU funding has become so important to UK science is precisely because our government is not funding it and there is no reason to assume that will change. Most voters don't see the direct effects of science funding so politicians don't put the money there.
Those collaborations needn't stop just because we are no longer goose-stepping to der euro fuhrer's tune, if it does it won't be because of the brexit it will be because of petulant spankers in brussels. All you remainers are making the euro-crats sound worse than I thought they were. Highly educated people with institutional connections never struggle to get visas, if that will even be a thing for the future. If the euros close the door on us then we can close it on them and we can open it to the whole world too. How does Japan or the US get science done without the precious overlords in brussels? Honestly this is the worst, most insulting thing about remainers, you just seem to have the lowest opinion of anything british. We are literally just pond scum to you? Britain the land that literally created and spread to the far corners of the world, modernity itself.
The US gets science done by doing their work internally and drawing on a massive population.
Even then, science in the EU is the best in the world at the moment, rated above the US.
I don't have a low opinion of british things, I have an informed opinion based in reality. And shut up with the glorious empire bs, it's really quite pathetic to cling to something from so long in the past and which deserved to die for the injustices that it inflicted on so many people.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It isn't just money, it is access to resources in the form of labs, personnel etc.
Our best work is done in international collaborations, especially as part of EU programmes. If we lose them, our science will suffer.
You guys must really not know how to science if you need the EU for collaboration. I've done my PhD in Australia as an Australian citizen with an Australian scholarship.... did my experiments at a US university.... with assistance from guy from France... with a lab assistant from Turkey.... and I gave a presentation in an Indian university..
Working in an Australian lab, most of the professors have links with universities in other countries and by extension a decent chunk of the research students have collaborations with international groups.
Unless the EU decides to become spiteful d-bags, it's easy to get visas in any western country if your reason is research collaboration.
The funding issue I can't really speak to though, obviously the researchers need to be paid from somewhere and hopefully once the dust settles the UK puts money in to fill holes as needed.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It isn't just money, it is access to resources in the form of labs, personnel etc.
Our best work is done in international collaborations, especially as part of EU programmes. If we lose them, our science will suffer.
You guys must really not know how to science if you need the EU for collaboration. I've done my PhD in Australia as an Australian citizen with an Australian scholarship.... did my experiments at a US university.... with assistance from guy from France... with a lab assistant from Turkey.... and I gave a presentation in an Indian university..
Working in an Australian lab, most of the professors have links with universities in other countries and by extension a decent chunk of the research students have collaborations with international groups.
Unless the EU decides to become spiteful d-bags, it's easy to get visas in any western country if your reason is research collaboration.
The funding issue I can't really speak to though, obviously the researchers need to be paid from somewhere and hopefully once the dust settles the UK puts money in to fill holes as needed.
The EU funds about £1.4 billion per year into UK science (it's not quite as simple because it works over funding cycles but the principle is sound, it's £8 billion over 6 years). The general view is that this loss of income is the same as losing one entire UK supported funding council (so it would be like losing the entirety of the Science and Technology Funding Council). It's a big deal for UK science. Yes collaborations will still happen but collaborations occur because all parties can bring something to the table (so storage capacity, supercomputer access or lab access etc). If the UK loses this then there is no reason for other people to collaborate with the Country. Effectively you have to rely on the scraps off the table (so the open access data someone has already sifted through). You will lose the ability to get the big results, the things that make the headlines etc. Never mind you will lose the specialised technical jobs as they leave for other countries. In effect you make science poorer and less dynamic.
I wouldn't usually link to something referring to very, very old news, but given the current Germany is now being referred to as the Fourth Reich on here, here's what the Mail thought about the last one.
The City of London should no longer be able to clear euro-denominated trades, the French president said on Tuesday, adding to post-Brexit fears.
François Hollande said at the end of a summit in Brussels where EU leaders started trying to pick through the wreckage of David Cameron’s referendum defeat that it would be unacceptable for the crucial stage in the trading of derivatives and equities to take place in the UK.
“The City, which thanks to the EU, was able to handle clearing operations for the eurozone, will not be able to do them,” he said. “It can serve as an example for those who seek the end of Europe . . . It can serve as a lesson.”
The removal of the City’s right to clear in euros is a cherished goal of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt but one that was previously thwarted by the UK in the EU courts.
The ECB had argued it was unfair for it to be expected to provide emergency support to clearing houses that operated outside its jurisdiction. The UK had argued that a “location policy” would discriminate against Britain and challenge its role in the single market. George Osborne, UK chancellor, described the UK’s court victory in 2015 as a “major win for Britain”.
Mr Cameron made the prevention of any further such encroachments by the ECB one of the priorities of his, ultimately futile, renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s EU membership.
Clearing houses such as Deutsche Börse’s Eurex Clearing and London’s LCH.Clearnet confirm trades made on the financial markets and minimise disruption when a trader cannot honour its obligations. London has become a world leader for the clearing of some types of euro-denominated derivatives.
Traders have said the ECB’s location policy would be a warped anomaly in the globalised marketplace for derivatives, creating a Balkanisation of the market.
Still, while the fight over clearing became a point of principle for the UK government, Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, said a renewed push by the ECB would not have a huge impact on the City.
“The City is much more than a small number of banks that want to trade securities in Europe,” he said. “People all around the world” would still want the benefit of Britain’s legal system when drawing up financial contracts.
choppy waters ahead either way.
Govt. being in effective limbo isn't going to help here.
Yeah, I can't believe no-one thought what'd happen to Londons financial hub if we left.
I'm still hoping that they move to Edinburgh if we can split off, otherwise they'll be going to Dublin/Paris. In any event, England is going to be totally and utterly stuffed without them.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, I can't believe no-one thought what'd happen to Londons financial hub if we left.
I'm still hoping that they move to Edinburgh if we can split off, otherwise they'll be going to Dublin/Paris. In any event, England is going to be totally and utterly stuffed without them.
It's what happens when you put career ahead of Country.
I can't see how they could agree to this though.
It's amounts to 8% of Gross Value added to the UK economy
3.5% of the UK jobs are in the banking sector
Amounts to £21.4bn in tax receipts alone (which I note is higher than the alleged amount we'd safe from not paying the EU)
or 4% of total tax receipts.
Also one of the few areas where we have a trade surplus
They'd have to leave open migration as it is, if all this was lost (not likely but other companies are likely to follow) then an 8% contraction would not be a pleasant recession.
And of course that highlights the whole problem... how can a warehouse worker in sunderland for example know or care about some spiv in london who last he heard was the cause of the banking crisis of years ago with the fallout still being felt now and would think tough luck bloody traders.
The remain camp really messed up there campaign and went for worst case scare scinarios( true or not quite) about this and nearly all people (outside of the divorced london bubble) felt oh just rich buggers trying to stay rich sod em. 'London' is so out of touch to your average worker that they (workers) just dont care about them.
Either way the die is cast and we shall see what we see.
To be fair, the remain camp always pointed out how damaging a leave vote would be. They just could have used some specifics like the bankers.
"If we leave, we'll likely lose £21bn+ a year in tax from the banking industry, plus indirect costs".
Indirect costs being all sorts of things; those bankers all own cars (many quite expensive, and many with more than 1 car each), so we'd lose out on the car sales tax, VED, parking permits, tax on garage labour.
Then there's property; they'll all have expensive property and pay council tax.
Then there's retail sales. Support staff; those bankers probably pay a small fortune for breakfast/lunch/dinner every day at work, and taxis around town, and expensive suits, and cleaners, childcare and so on.
So what we'd actually lose by chasing bankers out is probably double the tax take, before you factor in the housing market crash when thousands of mega expensive properties are put on the market.
I'm still wondering if the banking industry has enough clout to force the whole thing to be dropped. Issuing a formal ultimatum to the government with a compelling reason to drop brexit:
"The banking industry is responsible for ____ jobs and ____ revenue within the UK. You can't afford to lose us. If brexit goes ahead, then we have no choice but to move to Paris".
Or if whatever minister is notionally responsible for tax (Osborne?) can push to pull the plug because the economic damage would be insurmountable. Ideally with numbers: Brexit will result in a base tax rate of 35%, and a VAT rate of 30%, just to maintain current funding. It'd kill demand for it overnight when people see what the actual cost is.
Skullhammer wrote: And of course that highlights the whole problem... how can a warehouse worker in sunderland for example know or care about some spiv in london who last he heard was the cause of the banking crisis of years ago with the fallout still being felt now and would think tough luck bloody traders.
The remain camp really messed up there campaign and went for worst case scare scinarios( true or not quite) about this and nearly all people (outside of the divorced london bubble) felt oh just rich buggers trying to stay rich sod em. 'London' is so out of touch to your average worker that they (workers) just dont care about them..
Democracy only works if the electorate make a genuine effort to be informed.
If voters cannot be bothered to educate themselves with an even cursory knowledge of a situation then there's very little anyone can do.
Herzlos wrote: To be fair, the remain camp always pointed out how damaging a leave vote would be. They just could have used some specifics like the bankers.
"If we leave, we'll likely lose £21bn+ a year in tax from the banking industry, plus indirect costs".
Indirect costs being all sorts of things; those bankers all own cars (many quite expensive, and many with more than 1 car each), so we'd lose out on the car sales tax, VED, parking permits, tax on garage labour..
That's the 8% figure, "gross added value to the UK economy" bit, the base assumption of, if you total it all up, how much the economy will lose (so just shy of 10%)
Democracy only works if the electorate make a genuine effort to be informed.
If voters cannot be bothered to educate themselves with an even cursory knowledge of a situation then there's very little anyone can do.
How painfully true, as evidenced by the recent voting (and indeed the past decade or so of politics)
I would make a cynical comment that people need to sit an entrance exam to be able to vote on matters such as these, but then, it conflicts with my other view that everyone should have a right to vote in a democracy. In the end, even I'm split now and it's depressing.
TBF I don't see how anything other than a referendum could've happened here really.
Looking at the political parties we have..... or perhaps had even -- they would've imploded if this had been a general election issue and one suspects we would've perhaps been at even more of a deadlock situation.
It's the French Government that want to be take over by being the banking capital of Europe not the German government. However if there is a mass exodus then we still lose. The banks want access to this 'passport' unless the other governments tax them at ludicrous rates they will go.
TBF I don't see how anything other than a referendum could've happened here really.
But not on leaving or joining the EU. You could have quite easily had a referendum asking "The UK is preparing its strategic view on the EU for the next 30 years. Do you think the UKs outlook would improve by being in or out the EU?"
That way its not so divisive and you aren't hamstringing yourself to the result (in addition there's less reason for campaigns to outright mislead people)
Skullhammer wrote: And of course that highlights the whole problem... how can a warehouse worker in sunderland for example know or care about some spiv in london who last he heard was the cause of the banking crisis of years ago with the fallout still being felt now and would think tough luck bloody traders.
The remain camp really messed up there campaign and went for worst case scare scinarios( true or not quite) about this and nearly all people (outside of the divorced london bubble) felt oh just rich buggers trying to stay rich sod em. 'London' is so out of touch to your average worker that they (workers) just dont care about them..
Democracy only works if the electorate make a genuine effort to be informed.
If voters cannot be bothered to educate themselves with an even cursory knowledge of a situation then there's very little anyone can do.
I don't know; if campaigners were forced to be honest (big ask), then the voters don't need to go and research everything themselves. It's unfair to expect them to understand the intricacies when there are people they can delegate it too. So it's not that people don't educate themselves, it's that they've been grossly mislead (for example; was there a single statement made by the Leave campaigners (Bojo or Farage) that wasn't completely debunked?). Sure, they should fact check all politicians, but there's still assumption of honesty.
"Take back control, vote leave" sounds just as convincing as a campaign to make immigrants leave, as it does for a split from the EU.
Herzlos wrote: To be fair, the remain camp always pointed out how damaging a leave vote would be. They just could have used some specifics like the bankers.
"If we leave, we'll likely lose £21bn+ a year in tax from the banking industry, plus indirect costs".
Indirect costs being all sorts of things; those bankers all own cars (many quite expensive, and many with more than 1 car each), so we'd lose out on the car sales tax, VED, parking permits, tax on garage labour..
That's the 8% figure, "gross added value to the UK economy" bit, the base assumption of, if you total it all up, how much the economy will lose (so just shy of 10%)
I would make a cynical comment that people need to sit an entrance exam to be able to vote on matters such as these, but then, it conflicts with my other view that everyone should have a right to vote in a democracy. In the end, even I'm split now and it's depressing.
I was thinking it'd be reasonable(ish) to have 2 super-basic multiple-choice questions on the ballot paper, to ensure that the voter at least understands the question.
Leaving the EU means:
[] Re-negotiating any terms with all countries
[] Free pancakes for gingers
[] Telling foreigners to GTFO
[] Further inbreeding of the royal family
Remaining in the EU means:
[]
[]
[]
[]
Get the answers wrong, your vote isn't counted.
Or include an independent fact sheet, that they have to confirm they've read. Maybe make them sit though a 30 second video on the way into the polling station.
It's the French Government that want to be take over by being the banking capital of Europe not the German government. However if there is a mass exodus then we still lose. The banks want access to this 'passport' unless the other governments tax them at ludicrous rates they will go.
TBF I don't see how anything other than a referendum could've happened here really.
But not on leaving or joining the EU. You could have quite easily had a referendum asking "The UK is preparing its strategic view on the EU for the next 30 years. Do you think the UKs outlook would improve by being in or out the EU?"
That way its not so divisive and you aren't hamstringing yourself to the result (in addition there's less reason for campaigns to outright mislead people)
Doesn't matter which country they are in, they're bound by EU rules, financial structure and agreeements - the french banks suffer too.
People would be much happier if free movement was dropped. The EU elite are obsessed with it but millions across Europe are not. It's good for businesses in wealthier countries looking for cheap labour. It shows who the EU really want to serve, even if they do try to spin it as making holidays easier.
Howard A Treesong wrote: People would be much happier if free movement was dropped. The EU elite are obsessed with it but millions across Europe are not. It's good for businesses in wealthier countries looking for cheap labour. It shows who the EU really want to serve, even if they do try to spin it as making holidays easier.
Actually, most people on the continent are very happy with the free movement within the EU, especially those living in small countries.
It's the French Government that want to be take over by being the banking capital of Europe not the German government. However if there is a mass exodus then we still lose. The banks want access to this 'passport' unless the other governments tax them at ludicrous rates they will go.
TBF I don't see how anything other than a referendum could've happened here really.
But not on leaving or joining the EU. You could have quite easily had a referendum asking "The UK is preparing its strategic view on the EU for the next 30 years. Do you think the UKs outlook would improve by being in or out the EU?"
That way its not so divisive and you aren't hamstringing yourself to the result (in addition there's less reason for campaigns to outright mislead people)
Doesn't matter which country they are in, they're bound by EU rules, financial structure and agreeements - the french banks suffer too.
It does matter a huge lot actually. The EU doesn't rule everything, each country sets its own rules and regulations. On top of that different countries also tend to have very different financial structures and behaviours. But you have shown a very poor understanding of what the EU is and how it works so far, so I wouldn't expect you to know.
In any case, the Dutch government is hoping that British banks will move to Amsterdam now. The Netherlands already is a tax haven with ridiculous low taxes and high subsidies for the financial sector, and I secretly suspect the ruling VVD party of wanting to turn the Netherlands into something like a Luxembourg 2.0
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, I can't believe no-one thought what'd happen to Londons financial hub if we left.
I'm still hoping that they move to Edinburgh if we can split off, otherwise they'll be going to Dublin/Paris. In any event, England is going to be totally and utterly stuffed without them.
The Remain campaign thought about it, that is part of why they wanted to Remain.
Maybe a "no saves or rerolls allowed" situation ?