The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[*_ash_*]

I just posted in another thread to prove this point, and surprisingly it was less than 2 minutes before I hooked one.

 

that's since been removed, so don't waste time looking at my posts

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2017 at 23:16 ----------

 

I don't know him. Nice of you to invite him back though.

 

Surely, the fact the leave side did win is the crux of the matter. The time for debating was before the referendum vote. Now, it shouldn't really matter which party is in power and who is Prime Minister because the democratic people gave our politicians instructions to leave the EU. The big problem is the majority of the democratic people voted to leave, which is against the wishes of the majority of our politicians.

 

Well there was plenty of that here. Not sure if you saw it.

 

It was pretty much the same as this, a load of general arguing, and no one changing their minds. All good spirited though

[Carlinate]

yawn.

 

 

I know how to reel people in, so your poor attempts at doing the same are too easy to spot.

 

Very poor, must try harder.

 

Or alternatively try to explain your point of view in a rational and well constructed manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only kidding, we all know you can't do that.

[Guest sibon]

I don't know him. Nice of you to invite him back though.

 

I'm a lovely person. Ask anyone.

 

What makes you think that I thought you knew him?

 

Surely, the fact the leave side did win is the crux of the matter. The time for debating was before the referendum vote. Now, it shouldn't really matter which party is in power and who is Prime Minister because the democratic people gave our politicians instructions to leave the EU.

 

That still leaves three thorny issues;

 

1. This is a discussion forum. Therefore discussion is allowed. You can't alter that, so stop trying to close down debate.

 

2. There are many forms of Brexit. Different sorts will be backed by different leave voters. They should have their say.

 

3. Perhaps, people have changed their minds. The vote was very close and the campaign was predicated on a pack of lies. Maybe some people are unhappy about that. Perhaps their voices should be heard.

 

So, there you go, three democratic reasons why you are wrong.

Edited July 2, 2017 by sibon

[L00b]

If I was to guess:

 

I'd say you Chalga, Magilla, I1, Sibon, Carlinrecarnate, Loob, Tz-Tim and most of the hardened anti-brexit people on here are one or more of the following:

 

well off (due to your hard work)

well educated and doing well

or [privately] consider yourselves middle-class (or upper working class at the least).

 

Any wrong guesses in there?

Since you asked a personal question, here's a personal answer, away from the debating noise and fury.

 

Dunno about well-off (not wealthy, certainly, but we don't want for much...and yes, it's 100% down to graft, with a side helping of luck and opportunity-grabbing: I owe nothing to no one, in this or another country, everything we have and are, is down to my wife and I),

 

Dunno about classes (I don't "do" your social classes rubbish, I only do 'snob' (avoid) and 'non-snob' (favour), though onlookers would probably class us as middle class, notwithstanding our mostly 'working class' backgrounds, families and many friends),

 

But yeah, well educated (French state schools, then Hallam Uni - on the EU's dime) and doing well enough I suppose. At any rate, significantly better than I ever could have, if I'd stuck with France.

 

But then, I'm saying all that with looking at the result of 20-odd years of moving and shaking here in the UK and elsewhere, and the wheel's turned a fair bit since, never more so than in the last year. I'm an economic migrant, born to an economic migrant, himself born to economic migrants...it's in the genes: we go where the opportunities are best, with whiskers very finely attuned to shifting socio-economic winds.

 

So in that context, with the referendum going the way it did, and your government then taking it upon itself to follow it, it's pointless arguing 'for' or 'against' Brexit now, especially after A.50 was triggered: to me, Brexit is now just a collection of shifting variables and deadlined certainties, and I'm simply adjusting my weighing of the pros and cons of staying vs leaving on the fly, as the negotiations and the situation progress. Very pragmatically so, and completely mercenarily so.

 

The balance is tilting heavily towards leaving, and by now I can't say I particularly care what will happen to those whose job depends on mine (I'd be very hard to replace: we've been trying to recruit another 'me' here for years now, but Sheffield doesn't seem to appeal much) but -and this is related to the previous comment- with globally-rare senior-level skills such as mine, in a very small niche market crying for supply, I can afford to wait and see.

 

I'm alright now (-Jack). I wasn't before the referendum, and I certainly wasn't for a while afterwards. And I didn't use to feel that selfish way at all (I'd have been very happy clocking another 20 to 30 years of high-value, high-tax yield work right here in South Yorks).

 

But well, Brexit, and on the receiving end of it a few times in the past year, with worse to come within a couple years...so these days I've grown into a grade-A, mercenary bar steward, take-everything-and-give-nothing-back(-anymore), completely at peace with it: I'm sleeping like a baby since I eventually "made my peace" (done my grieving?) with the situation and "disinvested" myself from the place and the people, and am currently hunting the 'right' job and package on the Med. Once that is secured, we're off. No ifs, buts, party, goodbyes or regrets: just moving on with life, onto greener and tastier pastures.

 

I enjoy discussing the political developments and prognosis on here and another forum...but the cold hard truth is, away from the debating and banter, I really couldn't care less what happens to the UK now. Shame for the 48%, but well, it's their country, not mine, so it's on them just the same. As the 52% and their government have been fond of reminding me time and again, quite pointedly in recent times.

 

Message received, and wilco: you can have your country back, and 100% of nothing instead of approx. 75% of everything (by the time I'm done paying taxes and spending in the local and national economy, directly and indirectly)...it ain't going to be me with the regrets.

Edited July 3, 2017 by L00b
late notice of typos

[Carlinate]

It may be a successful trade block as a whole but we do not deal with the EU but only its members and those are mainly the better off chosen few. There are many members that we have little or no trade with. Its inevitable failure is not just Brexiters wishful thinking but for me based on past history and also economics. Just do some checking and tell me where most of the cheap imported labour comes from in the UK and most of the EU big popular exporters. Spain, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands and some others all need that cheap labour for successful economic growth. Now compare that with how long those countries that we get that cheap labour from have been full members.

 

Billions of Euros from the EU are being pumped into those economies to help them with infrastructure, work and economies. What then happens when those members start to get richer and more developed? Where will that cheap labour come from then? What happens when that cheap labour dries up?

 

It doesn't matter how many, or how few EU members we trade with, we don't deal individually with them, we negotiate with the EU as a single entity, that's the whole point.

 

We aren't going to be able to pick and choose and exert influence over particular countries.

 

We are negotiating with the European Union and when a deal has been arrived at it will then need the agreement of all 27 member states.

 

Not one single EU country has us as its main trading partner, only three out of the twenty seven have us as their second trading partner and those three are Ireland,Poland and Cyprus so not exactly major players and if the EU wished it could compensate each of them for losses if it ends up being fractious.

 

As for past history, there is no equivalent past history.

 

Europe has never been this united, for century's European countries have gone to war on a regular basis over border disputes and royal family arguments between first cousins resulting in millions of deaths.

 

One of the main reasons for peace between European nations being maintained over the last 72 years is the cooperation involved in membership of a common trading partnership.

 

Maybe the British simply don't get it, virtually every European mainland nation ( and Ireland ) has had the experience of foreign troops occupying their country in living memory and none of them want a return to that.

 

The EU will change, that is inevitable, but it won't fail.

[apelike]

It doesn't matter how many, or how few EU members we trade with, we don't deal individually with them, we negotiate with the EU as a single entity, that's the whole point.

 

No we dont, we trade individually with the member states and they trade individually with us, the EU does not mediate in any of that.

 

We aren't going to be able to pick and choose and exert influence over particular countries.

 

We couldn't before, remember what you said "we negotiate with the EU as a single entity."

 

We are negotiating with the European Union and when a deal has been arrived at it will then need the agreement of all 27 member states.

 

No, we are negotiating with the European Council mainly and any agreement has to pass by a qualified majority vote, so not necessarily full agreement of all 27.

 

As for past history, there is no equivalent past history.

 

True but there are parallels to the many Empires that have come and gone throughout history.

 

One of the main reasons for peace between European nations being maintained over the last 72 years is the cooperation involved in membership of a common trading partnership.

 

The modern EU has expanded from its original 6 in 1957 to the 28 members now so is a new product. The fall of communism in 1989 helped expand it and so did the inclusion of 12 new members since 2004. Half the EU nations therefore are relatively new members so the EU could not have been directly responsible for that 72 years of peaceful times.

 

The fact is its NATO that has held that peace and nothing to do with the EU.

[Lord Rex]

I'm a lovely person. Ask anyone.

What makes you think that I thought you knew him?

 

Because you said "If you see him, say hi and invite him back please"

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2017 at 07:44 ----------

 

 

That still leaves three thorny issues;

 

1. This is a discussion forum. Therefore discussion is allowed. You can't alter that, so stop trying to close down debate.

 

2. There are many forms of Brexit. Different sorts will be backed by different leave voters. They should have their say.

 

3. Perhaps, people have changed their minds. The vote was very close and the campaign was predicated on a pack of lies. Maybe some people are unhappy about that. Perhaps their voices should be heard.

 

So, there you go, three democratic reasons why you are wrong.

 

1. Yes you are correct it is a discussion forum.

 

2. There is only one form of Brexit. On the ballot paper it asked us whether we wanted to remain or leave the EU. Different sorts have been invented by sore losers, who don't respect the democratic wishes of the people who voted in the referendum last year.

 

3. Again the rhetoric of a sore loser. Both campaigns were poor. There were untruths, guesses and exaggerations on both sides. For example President Obama stated the UK would be at the back of the queue for trade negotiations and Osborne stated there would be an emergency budget if the UK voted to leave. The lies as you call them were debated thoroughly before the referendum vote took place. Yes perhaps people might change their minds, but voters were well aware the choice they made last year in the referendum vote, was for the long term future of our country. The referendum was not the same as a General Election where people, who change their minds can vote differently after a relatively short period of time.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Lord Rex

[Hairyloon]

The lies as you call them were debated thoroughly before the referendum vote took place...

 

No they weren't there was not the time.

The Scottish Referendum, on a far simpler issue, was properly set out, with time enough to properly debate the issues. It has been widely cited as a Gold Standard in how to run a referendum.

The EU referendum appears to have taken all the lessons from that and done the opposite: it is the second worst electoral campaign in the entire history of mankind, trumped by a whisker by Trump only because they have had more practice at doing things badly.

[Lord Rex]

No they weren't there was not the time.

The Scottish Referendum, on a far simpler issue, was properly set out, with time enough to properly debate the issues. It has been widely cited as a Gold Standard in how to run a referendum.

The EU referendum appears to have taken all the lessons from that and done the opposite: it is the second worst electoral campaign in the entire history of mankind, trumped by a whisker by Trump only because they have had more practice at doing things badly.

Cameron announced the date of the EU referendum in February 2016 and the vote took place on June 23rd 2016. Cameron said before the 2015 General election, that if he won there would be an EU referendum. I call that plenty of time.

 

Rewriting history seems to be another trait of the sore losers.

[Hairyloon]

Europe has never been this united, for century's European countries have gone to war on a regular basis over border disputes and royal family arguments between first cousins resulting in millions of deaths.

 

One of the main reasons for peace between European nations being maintained over the last 72 years is the cooperation involved in membership of a common trading partnership...

 

I am not convinced about that: we had the War to End All Wars, remember? I think the memory of that has had a significant influence in our desire to not repeat it.

Plus we have much, much better communications, both between the separate nations, and to the Public at Large: could WW1 have happened if we'd had television reporting on the relevant issues? I think probably not.

 

True but there are parallels to the many Empires that have come and gone throughout history.

 

Go on: what are the parallels and what lessons do you think we should be learning from them?

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2017 at 09:26 ----------

 

Cameron announced the date of the EU referendum in February 2016 and the vote took place on June 23rd 2016.

 

Less than half the time for the Scottish Referendum.

 

I call that plenty of time.

 

I don't think we really need further evidence of your idiocy, it is already overwhelming.

Why don't you try for some counter evidence?