UK forum members, BREXIT?

[nctnico]

Still I wonder whether anyone can argue leaving the EU is somehow good for the economy of the UK? I don't see it. Companies have already started packing their stuff en masse which means loss of jobs. Ofcourse you can go on ranting about souvereinity, voting for your own politicians, etc but that doesn't put food on the table.

I asked before to name one thing the UK is good at. So far the only significant item on the list seems that London is Europe's financial centre. Isn't that alone something worth keeping? Several cities are already angling to become Europe's new financial centre.

I already gave you a few things in a previous posting.
Selective blindness ?

As a matter of fact yes. My rant filter gets enabled automatically when I see your avatar so please post the list again. I looked through your posting history but couldn't find the posting you referred to quickly.

[Kjelt]

 

[vodka]

Theresa May is likely to be the next conservative PM and she is a Remain. Cameron is stepping down because it would be untenable for a Remain to oversee the brexit. Perhaps the tory MPs will come to their senses and vote Andrea Leadsom for the job.

I have a new news :  Theresa May leaves open the future of EU immigrants

                                   Might they stay forever? "Asked a reporter." Well, nobody necessarily stay in one place forever, "said May

http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2016/07/03/57793637ca4741582b8b45f3.html

On resume,If she is a pro-European turn off and let's go.

[Simon]

I don't think it's fair to just kick people out. We need to look to changing future rules. Freedom of movement is one thing, your country being one of the top 3 or 4 out of 28 is another. Te EU is supposed to made up of countries of equal standing, if it is why is it so many aspire to move ?

[Simon]

They not got banned from the EU. They've decided to leave

I know, but EU didn't make nothing to stop that, and now they put hurry to UK to leave EU as soon as possible.

that is understandable. We have decided to leave, that has consequences and causes uncertainty. Instead of getting on with it and doing what we said we wanted to do we are having civil wars in both major political parties like a bunch of school children. We are making idiots of ourselves.

[donotdespisethesnake]

I don't think it's fair to just kick people out. We need to look to changing future rules. Freedom of movement is one thing, your country being one of the top 3 or 4 out of 28 is another. Te EU is supposed to made up of countries of equal standing, if it is why is it so many aspire to move ?

I had been wondering about the EU's insistence on freedom of movement, but basically it's a socialist idea to reduce inequality. If a few rich countries export their goods to others, they gain wealth at the expense of the poorer ones. Allowing people from the poorer countries to migrate to the richer ones allows some money to flow back.

Unfortunately I think, corporations are much better at playing the rules to their advantage. So they base themselves in the country with best tax advantages, then import workers from the cheapest countries. That works out fine for London, but there are parts of the UK that have been really fscked since the 1980's, and are seeing no benefit from the EU or "global capitalism".

The EU may have some noble aims (depending on your view of socialism), but they basically hand over the reins to capitalists who make a tidy profit and ultimately increase inequality, and there is also a good deal of money to line the pockets of corrupt politicians.

[IanB]

that is understandable. We have decided to leave, that has consequences and causes uncertainty. Instead of getting on with it and doing what we said we wanted to do we are having civil wars in both major political parties like a bunch of school children. We are making idiots of ourselves.

But we have not "decided to leave". The vote was split down the middle, and a 2% margin either way is probably not statistically significant. For that we can blame the people who set up the referendum, who should have insisted on at least 50% of eligible voters, or a 60% majority, or some such.

But given that the mess has been created, I think it is fair to take time to figure out how to resolve it in the best way possible. Rushing from one crisis to another rarely leads to a good outcome.

[rch]

When I voted to join what was then the EEC I never voted for Political union.

1) You didn't vote to join in 1973, you voted on continued membership in 1975.
2) And yes, you voted for political union, you just didn't know it.
3) Neither were the voters in my country told about that when they went to the polling stations in October 1972.

There is no law saying that you are only allowed to know what politicians tell you.   I knew what the EEC was in 1975, although I couldn't vote for it as I wished as I was only 17 at the time.

[apis]

So the UK government should hurry up and leave if that is what they intend to do, not keep everyone in the dark, it's not good for anyone. The sooner that uncertainty can be dispelled the better.

It's not a trivial task to work on, meanwhile we are hindered by an abdicating Prime minister and a weak student Marxist pretending to lead an opposition party.

Not trivial at all, but surely they must have had some plan what to do in case of a majority for leave? It looks like even the leave campaigners have no clue what to do next. These are the people you are so keen on have complete sovereignty over you.

Not sure what you mean by that but perhaps you are referring to Sweden helping many refugees from the middle east who are fleeing to Europe because of the illegal war the UK and the US started there? Thanks a lot. The problem is that some other EU-countries are not taking their share of refugees (like the UK). Only a handful countries that are helping sadly.

We were already doing more than the rest of Europe by funding refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan, which is the only sensible way of dealing with a temporary displacement of people during war. It is really cost efficient and safe, and when the war finishes they can all go home without disrupting anyone else and we'll help fund their rebuilding. Everyone wins.

That's great, but:
There are almost 1 M Syrian refugees in Lebanon, 0.6 M in Jordan, 2.7 M in Turkey. There are 1 M syrian refugees in all of the EU, same as Lebanon. Lebanon has a population of about 4 M, EU has a population of 508 M! The 1 M Syrians are 0.2 % of the total EU population, it would be so easy for EU to accommodate all of them if they were distributed evenly, but since most of the refugees only go to Hungary, Austria, Germany and Sweden it creates a big problem for these countries. No country can legally deny them asylum since they have a valid reson now that the UK have bombed the middle east into anarchy and their former homes are war zones.

The insane solution  is to suggest they swim across the Mediterranean and perhaps drown, then walk right across Europe, only to end up in some squalid ghetto in Sweden or Germany where they'll probably get raped by some other follower of the religion of peace, and create massive social friction for the resident population for decades to come. 

No one suggest they should risk their lives on the mediteranean, quite the contrary, but some do anyway and those who do need help to find a new safe home. I'm certain they feel much safer here than being hunted by the barbaric islamists that are pillaging their home countries.

What is insane and unfair is that only a couple of countries receive all the asylum seekers who come into EU. And if anything the UK should take a bigger responsibility than anyone else since the UK helped cause this mess.

You can see some graphs here how unequal the distribution between countries are:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

The predictable consequence of Sweden's and Germany's naive actions in this situation has directly led to Brexit.
So thanks for that.

Leaving EU won't really help since refugees will find their way to the UK anyway and you are legally obligated to grant them asylum, same as anyone else, by the 1951 Refugee Convention. It has nothing to do with the EU.

If you need someone to blame you have a Tony Blair at home and his buddy in the US, George Bush II.

[apis]

Notice the guy facepalming after Nigel Farage says no one in the EU parliament have had a real job?

It's apparently Vytenis Andriukaitis from Lithuania, he's the European commissioner for healt and food safety.

He was born in the Gulag (his parents was deported to Siberia by Stalin). He later became a member of the underground Social Democrat movement for an independent Lithuania. He also happens to be a heart surgeon who among other things helped performed the first heart transplantation in Lithuania.

I would love to know what kind of qualifications Nigel Farage have.   

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/eu-health-commissioner-explains-farage-facepalm-vytenis-andriukaitis
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/nigel-farage-made-me-facepalm-hide-despair

[Macbeth]

But we have not "decided to leave". The vote was split down the middle, and a 2% margin either way is probably not statistically significant. For that we can blame the people who set up the referendum, who should have insisted on at least 50% of eligible voters, or a 60% majority, or some such.

I would not be happy with that. I believe in democracy, even if I conceed your proposal would have given Leave a ridiculously massive unfair advantage. I mean you are saying that we should have only allowed a 60% majority vote for Remain and only 40% for Leave? it's only fair? Either way Leave won. As for voters for once far more than 50% of the population voted (72% did) unlike in the general election.

Finally that '2%' is actually a 4 point lead which in percent terms of Remain voters is an >8% lead. Or do you not know how percentages work? Get your calculator and try 48 x 1.08

Now can all you Remain whiners stop being utterly undemocratic and get on with the job... 

[Macbeth]

Notice the guy facepalming after Nigel Farage says no one in the EU parliament have had a real job?

I know English is not your main language, being Swedish I imagine you are more fluent in Farsi or Arabic or something. But Farage never said no one in EU parliament ever had a real job, he said most of them. I'm sure he isn't at all wrong. Of course he could also say the same thing about our UK parliament too.

I also find it depressing that somebody who (assisted in some way) Heart Transplant surgery abandons his vocation to become a gravy train MEP. I mean really? I'm glad he's no longer a medic.

[dannyf]

But we have not "decided to leave". The vote was split down the middle, and a 2% margin either way is probably not statistically significant.

So democracy means democracy only if it is "statistically significant"? So status quo should persist until and unless the voters present a "statistically significant" choice? Where is that documented in your constition or law or that's just something you dreamed up when the outcome isn't to your liking?

For that we can blame the people who set up the referendum, who should have insisted on at least 50% of eligible voters, or a 60% majority, or some such.

Or maybe you can just blame insufficient voters in agreement with you?

For a people with hundreds of years of democracy and "enlightenment", attempting to refute voters who refuted your ideas sounds quite barbaric if you ask me.

[zapta]

But we have not "decided to leave". The vote was split down the middle, and a 2% margin either way is probably not statistically significant.

Statistics significance is when you predict from a sub sample of the voters. Here you have 100% of the people that voted so it can't be more significant that that.

[apis]

Notice the guy facepalming after Nigel Farage says no one in the EU parliament have had a real job?

I know English is not your main language, being Swedish I imagine you are more fluent in Farsi or Arabic or something. But Farage never said no one in EU parliament ever had a real job, he said most of them. I'm sure he isn't at all wrong. Of course he could also say the same thing about our UK parliament too.

Farage Said: "I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business or worked in trade or indeed ever created a job."
Which is demonstrably untrue, as outlined here as well:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/28/is-nigel-farage-right-meps-have-not-done-proper-jobs

I also find it depressing that somebody who (assisted in some way) Heart Transplant surgery abandons his vocation to become a gravy train MEP. I mean really? I'm glad he's no longer a medic.

You would prefer a career politician like Farage as commissioner for health and food safety?  

[3db]

that is understandable. We have decided to leave, that has consequences and causes uncertainty. Instead of getting on with it and doing what we said we wanted to do we are having civil wars in both major political parties like a bunch of school children. We are making idiots of ourselves.

But we have not "decided to leave". The vote was split down the middle, and a 2% margin either way is probably not statistically significant. For that we can blame the people who set up the referendum, who should have insisted on at least 50% of eligible voters, or a 60% majority, or some such.

But given that the mess has been created, I think it is fair to take time to figure out how to resolve it in the best way possible. Rushing from one crisis to another rarely leads to a good outcome.

The FACT is that more people voted to leave than voted for the current UK Gov !!
 

[apis]

Really! They were fighting before NATO put a plane in the air or a boot on the ground. When it was kuwait the left media and kuwatis and other sympathetic middle eastern countries were screaming for NATO to help so we did. Then Libya the same thing now all this ISIS crap again pleas for help. You realize these people are asking for help in their war? You do know what a war is people get killed cities ruined and such? Just in case you missed the point they were fighting already before NATO did anything. Perhaps if things get bad enough for them maybe they will think twice about conflict in the future.

You seem to be missing a lot of information about this.

There have not been more fighting in the middle east than anywhere else before about WW1 when oil became important and the superpowers began fighting over it. WW1 also led to the collapse of the ottoman empire. The middle east is the cradle of civilization with some highly evolved ancient civilizations in the region of the fertile crescent. The first know cities are from that area. During the middle ages the muslims managed to save many books from classical antiquity (mathematicians, philosophy, etc) that the fundamentalist Christians were burning in Europe (heathen books). Anyway, if not for the oil there wouldn't be so much conflict in the middle east today. I'm sure I don't have to point out all the wars started by "the west" in modern times, i mean WW1 and WW2 are just the beginning.

The 2003 Iraq war was based on a blatant lie and was never sanctioned by the UN. Only a handfull Nato countries were ever directly involved. Many western countries and Nato countries opposed it.

What caused the current hell in the middle east is mainly the Iraq war. The Iraq war destabilized the entire region and allowed fundamentalists to try to grab power after the Iraqi government (Saddam) and infrastructure were gone and the US pulled out. ISIS was created and is being led by former Iraqi intelligence officers with the purpose to retake control of Iraq, assisted by islamists, that's why they have been so effective (they are not just your everyday fanatics). That's why the west feel obligated to help in Libya and now against ISIS.

But this has nothing to do with BREXIT, so will just go completely off topic if continued, so this will be my last comment on this subject.

In reality its a bunch of thugs preying on uneducated easily manipulated fools.

Sounds familiar.

[grumpydoc]

But we have not "decided to leave". The vote was split down the middle, and a 2% margin either way is probably not statistically significant.

Statistics significance is when you predict from a sub sample of the voters. Here you have 100% of the people that voted so it can't be more significant that that.

Well, those who voted represent a sub-sample of the electorate so it would be possible to calculate an error figure in the vote using statistical means. I can't be bothered (because I'd have to get my stats textbooks out and spend time figuring how to do it) but I suspect it will be less than the margin by which the vote was won.

In terms of whether a simple majority of the voters was enough, well that's how we set it up but actually 50 % is an unusually low bar for pushing through legislative change - where referendums are more common it is not unusual to need a 2/3rds majority to enact new legislation.

The trouble is that it is easy to have 20-20 hindsight.

[Tepe]

Finally that '2%' is actually a 4 point lead which in percent terms of Remain voters is an >8% lead. Or do you not know how percentages work? Get your calculator and try 48 x 1.08

Presumably people here do now percentages, at least if they think about them for a few seconds :-)

If your politicians are anything like ours, ignorance of percentages is common among them. Fun story: A Danish MP once said, while speaking in parliament, "39 percent of the male population of Denmark never go to the library and the same is true for 30 percent of the women. This means 69 percent of the people never go to the library."   

[apis]

Well, those who voted represent a sub-sample of the electorate so it would be possible to calculate an error figure in the vote using statistical means. I can't be bothered (because I'd have to get my stats textbooks out and spend time figuring how to do it) but I suspect it will be less than the margin by which the vote was won.

It would be no good anyway because the ones who voted don't represent a random sample.

[EEVblog]

I bet 20 bucks the Brexit won't actually happen 

[grumpydoc]

I bet 20 bucks the Brexit won't actually happen 

It's going to be something of a political tightrope.

If not implemented then you can bet Farage will be campaigning the next General Election shouting loudly about how little the "elite" can be trusted - but this time he has about 37% of the electorate who will have very fresh memories of having "voted for something" which then did not happen.

Similarly if we end up having to pay for access to the single market and/or accept free movement.

At the moment I think a Canadian style deal but including financial services is the best option - but whether we can get even that without accepting some free movement is dubious at present.

[Zero999]

What the biggest problem was is that the UK contributed much less than they normally would have since they had lots of discounts and special treatments, look at the url that apis posted and look at the Percentage of income statistics, the UK is last. And still they were complaining and blocking stuff in Brussels, well that is now over. So yeah it is not the best outcome but I think in the long end it is better for the EU that only countries participate that 100% want to contribute and participate instead of continuously blocking progress.
And I think that a lot of politicians in the UK that blamed the EU the last years for everything that did not went well in the country have to find a new excuse 

Although I personally believe the UK should remain part of the EU. The people who originally voted for it didn't want progress towards ever closer union. They wanted the ECC to remain as it was. No one knew the EU would expand into Russian territory. I believe if those who voted for this back in 1975 knew about any of this, we would have left back then. Many people in the UK don't see themselves as European because it's an island and many wars have been fought in the past against invaders from Europe.

Personally I think the UK has received a good deal from the EU. I can understand why some Europeans are unhappy with the UK because we don't want the same things, which is a lot of what the opt outs and special treatment are about.

[Kalvin]

The Brexit turnout was 72% which means that 28% didn't vote for a reason or another. Leave won with 52% while Remain lost with 48%, which means that 37% of all Britons wanted to Leave, 35% wanted to remain and 28% didn't state their opinions. We can of course speculate why the remaining 28% didn't vote: Either they didn't care, the status quo is just fine, or due to some other reason. Nevertheless, the Leave votes doesn't represent the majority of the Britons (only 37%), although the Leave votes represent the majority of the voters.

It is also now quite obvious that the Leave camp didn't expect to win - it was like an accidental fart in a crowded elevator - a mishap which wasn't suppose to happen, everyone heard it, everyone smells it and everyone wants to get out as fast as possible. Cameron has already left as soon as the fart was released, Johnson left on the very next floor. There is still crowd in the elevator and nobody really wants to do anything but hope that the smell will go away.

Edit: Corrected typos.

[G7PSK]

Well that is what happens with a first past the post system, sometimes the win is just by a nose but it is still a win. If you alter the system you are then giving a deliberate political bias to it so a first past the post is the fairest in what is always going to be an imperfect system.