Brexit thread - what happens next

[johnloo]

OK, let's address your points one at a time.

Firstly, we're in NATO which trumps the EU militarily. If the EU goes to war with Russia we are obliged to help being a member of NATO. So, no change.

The UK has not been used by every country since 1914. We fought two wars because a military power chose to trample all over Europe. Sitting back and doing nothing would not have worked well. Hitler wasn't going to go "Oh, Britain is being nice and not fighting. Let's leave them be". That approach worked well for the Netherlands.

Hybrid war? What on earth are you talking about. Can I please see some evidence of this war that you speak of?

NATO is an old relic of the past, look at Libya the US were very reluctant to join in, the European countries could muster the power to do a good job, just look at the sorties over Libya, yet they continue to pick at Russia.
They’ve had free education, free health, they could study abroad. When they got married they got a certain amount of money. So they were rather the envy of many other citizens of African countries. Now, of course, since NATO’s humanitarian intervention, the infrastructure of their country has been bombed back to the Stone Age,” Machon asserted.

“They will not have the same quality of life. Women probably will not have the same degree of emancipation under any new transitional government. The national wealth is probably going to be siphoned off by Western corporations. Perhaps the standard of living in Libya might have been slightly higher than it is now in America and the UK with the recession,” she concluded.

We destroyed a country to show the world that Europe can is working and even going through a crisis.

 

[wordy]

I sympathise, but also its up to you to research based on facts. It was obvious that negative things would happen but every time we mentioned it ... It was dubbed project fear. What more could have been said?

The difficulty with doing that is finding (& trusting) unbiased information. There were so many pieces done on personal preference & opinion both for and against.

Like it of not the remain campaign was shocking. WW3, ISIS wanting brexit, emergency budget & tax rises it we leave, it was a lot of threats & fearmongering. Instead of focusing on the negatives why weren't they focusing on what being in & remaining in the EU would bring.

Cameron shot himself in the foot with the EU. He said he was going to negotiate concessions for the UK & be "bullish" while doing it.(I've seen more imposing 5 years old's than him), but they achieved FA. He came back looking like a loser & him being shot down by the EU when trying to get a better deal damaged his argument for staying.

 

[Six6siX]

Yay lets go back to the 1950's way of doing things in 2016! Because that'll work...

 

[SPG]

NATO a relic of the past..... just this alone leaves you stood there middle of the sea on a pallet, looking clueless.

 

[Rilot]

NATO is an old relic of the past, look at Libya the US were very reluctant to join in, the European countries could muster the power to do a good job, just look at the sorties over Libya, yet they continue to pick at Russia.
They’ve had free education, free health, they could study abroad. When they got married they got a certain amount of money. So they were rather the envy of many other citizens of African countries. Now, of course, since NATO’s humanitarian intervention, the infrastructure of their country has been bombed back to the Stone Age,” Machon asserted.


We destroyed a country to show the world that Europe can is working and even going through a crisis.

What on earth is this endless stream of nonsense?
So, how would you play it? Leave NATO as well? Sit as a little island in the north Atlantic with no trade and no relationships with anyone? If you dislike NATO so much then I can only assume that you also dislike the US and Canada.

You are speaking in tongues my good man, go and see a psychiatrist.

 

[Things change I've changed]

Well I'm a remain voter and perhaps this is what it takes actually fix the EU, I really think they tried to call our bluff.

 

[toshj]

Interesting to see that Spain have continued to vote for their current PM in greater numbers than the previously deadlocked vote of last year, whereas their Eurosceptic party lost over a million votes.

Not exactly a shot of confidence to many Leavers that other EU members will follow our Brexit move.

 

[Glaucus]

OK, let's address your points one at a time.

Firstly, we're in NATO which trumps the EU militarily. If the EU goes to war with Russia we are obliged to help being a member of NATO. So, no change.

The UK has not been used by every country since 1914. We fought two wars because a military power chose to trample all over Europe. Sitting back and doing nothing would not have worked well. Hitler wasn't going to go "Oh, Britain is being nice and not fighting. Let's leave them be". That approach worked well for the Netherlands.

Hybrid war? What on earth are you talking about. Can I please see some evidence of this war that you speak of?

you've been had, he's a new poster whos a troll sprouting rubbish, even has fishing down in his profile.

 

[Demon]

I think the remain campaign may have really mis-read a lot of the leave campaigns immigration wishes..

If you look at the proposals DC took to negotiate with the EU earlier in the year:
Four year delay for EU migrants wishing to claim in-work benefits, such as

• tax credits, or seeking access to social housing
• Stopping migrants claiming child benefit for dependents living outside the UK
• Removing migrants from the UK after six months if they have not found work
• Restricting the right of migrants to bring non-EU family members into the UK
• Stopping EU jobseekers claiming Universal Credit
• Speeding up deportation of convicted criminals
• Longer re-entry bans for beggars and fraudsters removed from the UK
• Stopping citizens from new EU entrants working in the UK until their economies have "converged more closely".
• Extra money for communities with high levels of migrants

If you measure that up with the Leave campaign, it simply just states we want the kind of control DC set out to negotiate, but sadly didn't quite get, just some watered down version of it..

And if you look at the wider picture of this negotiations, his remit was:

• Economic governance: Securing an explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not materially disadvantaged. The UK wants safeguards that steps to further financial union cannot be imposed on non-eurozone members and the UK will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts
• Competitiveness: Setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of excessive regulation and extending the single market
• Immigration: Restricting access to in-work and out-of-work benefits to EU migrants. Specifically, ministers want to stop those coming to the UK from claiming certain benefits until they have been resident for four years. Ministers have reportedly been warned by the UK's top civil servant this could be discriminatory and any limits may be reduced to less than a year. An option of an "emergency brake" to stop the payments for four years is being discussed as a compromise deal
• Sovereignty: Allowing Britain to opt out from the EU's founding ambition to forge an "ever closer union" of the peoples of Europe so it will not be drawn into further political integration. Giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation.

The message that came back was quite resolute and quite hardline, whilst we got a little, they where not going to change much to pander to what we wanted as a nation to take us forward..

And I would say that a sizeable chunk of leave voters would have voted based on the fact that whilst we'd have pain on the trading front, to truly allow us to grow and become stronger with the EU, we need to do that more on our own terms..

 

[Gilly]

Not according to dowie who interpreted that another way and the 'points based immigration system will be applied to EU citizens' and we will get 'partial access to the single market' in some sort of hybrid deal.

Not sure what 'partial access' would look like and I guess we can always set the points threshold for EU citizens at 0

Yeah. I don't get that either. Especially as none of the prospective leaders have any appetite to reduce immigration.

 

[daz]

FTSE100 isn't looking too bad at the moment. FT250 looks to be taking a hammering though.

Barclays down 8%, Easyjet down 13%, Royal Bank of Scotland down 10%...

Only thing doing well is natural resources/mining stocks.

 

[johnloo]

Clueless.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ung-voters-remain-eu-referendum-a7103996.html

The immigration issue is primarily about threats to identity and culture resulting from people coming into the country without any apparent controls. Most people saw Brexit as a way of tackling that – which trumped economic concerns.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-s-immigration-unease-animates-brexit-vote-1466006349

There is a difference between what we have under the EU and what we will have under an all round points system and access to state welfare.

 

[johnloo]

I think the remain campaign may have really mis-read a lot of the leave campaigns immigration wishes..

If you look at the proposals DC took to negotiate with the EU earlier in the year:
Four year delay for EU migrants wishing to claim in-work benefits, such as

• tax credits, or seeking access to social housing
• Stopping migrants claiming child benefit for dependents living outside the UK
• Removing migrants from the UK after six months if they have not found work
• Restricting the right of migrants to bring non-EU family members into the UK
• Stopping EU jobseekers claiming Universal Credit
• Speeding up deportation of convicted criminals
• Longer re-entry bans for beggars and fraudsters removed from the UK
• Stopping citizens from new EU entrants working in the UK until their economies have "converged more closely".
• Extra money for communities with high levels of migrants

If you measure that up with the Leave campaign, it simply just states we want the kind of control DC set out to negotiate, but sadly didn't quite get, just some watered down version of it..

And if you look at the wider picture of this negotiations, his remit was:

• Economic governance: Securing an explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not materially disadvantaged. The UK wants safeguards that steps to further financial union cannot be imposed on non-eurozone members and the UK will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts
• Competitiveness: Setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of excessive regulation and extending the single market
• Immigration: Restricting access to in-work and out-of-work benefits to EU migrants. Specifically, ministers want to stop those coming to the UK from claiming certain benefits until they have been resident for four years. Ministers have reportedly been warned by the UK's top civil servant this could be discriminatory and any limits may be reduced to less than a year. An option of an "emergency brake" to stop the payments for four years is being discussed as a compromise deal
• Sovereignty: Allowing Britain to opt out from the EU's founding ambition to forge an "ever closer union" of the peoples of Europe so it will not be drawn into further political integration. Giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation.

The message that came back was quite resolute and quite hardline, whilst we got a little, they where not going to change much to pander to what we wanted as a nation to take us forward..

And I would say that a sizeable chunk of leave voters would have voted based on the fact that whilst we'd have pain on the trading front, to truly allow us to grow and become stronger with the EU, we need to do that more on our own terms..

don't forget the 4 year deal was a temp solution and would expire.
This is what happens when the top 5% with their detach earnings, high immigration, a revolution of some sort is always born to readjust the inequality.

 

[Caged]

I think both sides of the argument should realise that hope is futile and whatever happens will be worse than what you had before / were promised would happen after.

 

[Steedie]

I think both sides of the argument should realise that hope is futile and whatever happens will be worse than what you had before / were promised would happen after.

The leading authority on the matter has spoken everyone, may as well close the thread

 

[Caged]

Agreed

 

[Glaucus]

I think both sides of the argument should realise that hope is futile and whatever happens will be worse than what you had before / were promised would happen after.

unless a miracle happens and we don't go ahead with it and some sort of political reform happens. then we would only be slightly worse of financially. but that's a dream which aint going to happen.

 

[Gilly]

The leading authority on the matter has spoken everyone, may as well close the thread

I don't think there's any real need for that. All we can do right now is share opinions. Instead of attacking someone else's just counter it with your own.

As things develop we'll see who was right. That's it.

 

[Mr Jack]

no.

You might want to check the latest JSON before crowing. The latest data (at time of posting) says:

{"name":"United Kingdom","code":"GB","signature_count":3470578}

 

[sityeuropa]

unless a miracle happens and we don't go ahead with it and some sort of political reform happens. then we would only be slightly worse of financially. but that's a dream which aint going to happen.

Give it a chance and grow a pair.