SURVEY: Brexit -- Good or Bad Idea?

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

If they get to keep free trade then I would have no issue whatsoever with brexit.

 

If they get to keep free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, then I'm all for it as well!

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Not hidden, just not deemed important enough by the 'No' campaign to be put in their leaflet. But it was covered in the media, I'm sure.

 

In 1957 the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community and set out the four fundamental freedoms of the common market: free movement of goods, services, capital and workers. If the 'No' campaign decided not to mention freedom of movement in their literature, it can only be because they did not disagree with the principle, or thought it unimportant.

 

That you missed the 'No' leaflet in 1975 seems improbable as it was delivered to every household in the UK! Maybe your memory of what was said, by both sides, is patchy at best, or you were simply too young to have taken an interest at the time?

 

Personally, I believe that the content of the government's leaflet and that of the 'Yes' campaign, Why you should vote YES, to be as relevant today as they were in 1975; which is why I believe Brexit to be a huge mistake we will come to regret.

 

But we have made our bed, and now must lie on it.

 

 

If you look closer, then at that time it was freedom of movement of workers not people and there was not much in the way of jobs to be had in the UK in 1975, so maybe the no campaign thought it was not a priority. Additionally, freedom of movement of (now) people has only really become noticeable since the admission of 16 more, mainly poorer countries. 

 

I was still living with my parents in 1975 so I suppose my mum or dad threw the leaflet away. I was interested but also confused and unsure. Like nearly everyone else, I thought an economic (common market) arrangement seemed to be a good idea. Now I know that that was all so much crap - it was designed to be so much more than that from the outset.

 

The yes campaign pamphlets for 1975 and 2016 were both weak because there are few hard facts to demonstrate the real necessity, advantages or success of the EU. 

 

That no campaign leaflet from 42 years ago was factual, very insightful and I wished I had read it then. Thanks for posting it. Everyone should read it again!

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by nauseus

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you look closer, then at that time it was freedom of movement of workers not people and there was not much in the way of jobs to be had in the UK in 1975, so maybe the no campaign thought it was not a priority. Additionally, freedom of movement of (now) people has only really become noticeable since the admission of 16 more, mainly poorer countries. 

 

I was still living with my parents in 1975 so I suppose my mum or dad threw the leaflet away. I was interested but also confused and unsure. Like nearly everyone else, I thought an economic (common market) arrangement seemed to be a good idea. Now I know that that was all so much crap - it was designed to be so much more than that from the outset.

 

The yes campaign pamphlets for 1975 and 2016 were both weak because there are few hard facts to demonstrate the real necessity, advantages or success of the EU. 

 

That no campaign leaflet from 42 years ago was factual, very insightful and I wished I had read it then. Thanks for posting it. Everyone should read it again!

 

 

Nothing has changed, you only have freedom to remain in a third EEA country if either you are working or can prove yourself to not be a burden through savings or other income.

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Freedom of movement goes right back to the Treaty of Paris in 1951, it has hardly been a secret, in fact it is known as the cornerstone of union membership.

 

And it was mentioned on the referendum pamphlet in the form of: 

The aims of the Common Market are:

• To bring together the peoples of Europe.

And it is mentioned in the no pamphlet in the form of:

The real aim of the Market is, of course, to become one single country in which Britain would be reduced to a mere province. 

Whatever, several important issues were not well communicated to the public and freedom of movement and sovereignty especially so. No campaign comment is the most relevant.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Nothing has changed, you only have freedom to remain in a third EEA country if either you are working or can prove yourself to not be a burden through savings or other income.

Well it looks like that rule is not enforced very well.

[riclag]

23 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Referendum are not binding in the UK, only advisory, so they do not have to delegitimise the vote as it never had any legitimacy.  And the EU is working very well, whatever made you think it didn't work out?  The powerful who backed Brexit did so out of their distaste for having their financial transactions taxed, having restrictions put on their dodgy banking practices and out of fear of being dragged before the court of human rights, crooks who want to be able to live with impunity but who have successfully gotten some common people behind them in the guise that Brexit was for the benefit of the common man.

To Be or Not to Be isn't a question anymore. To be a Brit and be subjugated by authoritarian rules and ruler's from other countries, goes against everything that freedom represents."EU is working very well" is your opinion for other's it's not. The Brit's tried the EU, they voted for change weather it be advisory or referendum.Don't go against a people's decision ,instead respect it.

Edited October 17, 2017 by riclag

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

To Be or Not to Be isn't a question anymore. To be a Brit and be subjugated by authoritarian rules and ruler's from other countries, goes against everything that freedom represents."EU is working very well" is your opinion for other's it's not. The Brit's tried the EU, they voted for change weather it be advisory or referendum.Don't go against a people's decision but respect it.

 

We are not subjected to anything, we are a part of the decision making process, you have been sold a weak lie by crooked bankers, time to wake up and realise that leaving is of no benefit to you, it is of benefit to the brokers and bankers who want to cripple the country and force it into becoming a tax haven.

 

It is everyone's opinion who actually understands the objectives of the EU that it is going well.

 

Brits voted to leave, 34% of them, now a substantial amount of those leave voters have died, just as many have reached the age to vote and many have changed their mind, as we rapidly head toward a no deal the most sensible solution would be to have a second referendum and let the current electorate decide if this is really in our best interest.  Of course that prospect terrifies Brexiteers as they know very well they would never win today, so they do childish things like call a referendum undemocratic, even fascist, when of course what it really would be is democratic.

[7by7]

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

<snip>

If you look closer, then at that time it was freedom of movement of workers not people and there was not much in the way of jobs to be had in the UK in 1975, so maybe the no campaign thought it was not a priority. Additionally, freedom of movement of (now) people has only really become noticeable since the admission of 16 more, mainly poorer countries. 

 The treaty rights are, and always have been:-

1. worker, employed or self employed,
2. job seeker (max stay three months unless found work or can show will find work in short order),
3. student,
4. person of independent means, e.g. pensioner.

I guess you are right that it didn't seem important at the time to the 'No' campaign as not many EU nationals came to the UK, but an awful lot of British pensioners took advantage of number 4 on the list to move to sunnier and cheaper climes in Southern Europe both before the referendum and since!

 

Of course, as the UK economy changed and labour shortages started to occur, workers from the other EU members, particularly the new states, did start to come to the UK seeking work. Work that was, and still is, only available to them because British people can't or wont do it.

 

But not all come from Eastern Europe. Whilst the number one home country by far for EU migrants in the UK is Poland, number 2 is Ireland. Indeed, out of the top 10 home countries, only 4 are Eastern European (source)

[nauseus]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The treaty rights are, and always have been:-

1. worker, employed or self employed,
2. job seeker (max stay three months unless found work or can show will find work in short order),
3. student,
4. person of independent means, e.g. pensioner.

I guess you are right that it didn't seem important at the time to the 'No' campaign as not many EU nationals came to the UK, but an awful lot of British pensioners took advantage of number 4 on the list to move to sunnier and cheaper climes in Southern Europe both before the referendum and since!

 

Of course, as the UK economy changed and labour shortages started to occur, workers from the other EU members, particularly the new states, did start to come to the UK seeking work. Work that was, and still is, only available to them because British people can't or wont do it.

 

But not all come from Eastern Europe. Whilst the number one home country by far for EU migrants in the UK is Poland, number 2 is Ireland. Indeed, out of the top 10 home countries, only 4 are Eastern European (source)

The Irish always came to work in the UK, no problem. You can see most of these people are from the newer member states. What is not shown is how many people defy the 3 month rule and what they can't show is how many unregistered extras there are. 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by nauseus

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The Irish always came to work in the UK, no problem. You can see most of these people are from the newer member states. What is not shown is how many people defy the 3 moth rule and what they can't show is how many unregistered extras there are. 

 

 

 

Also what is not in these figures and obviously unrelated to Brexit is the fact that more immigrants come from outside the EU, but what that does tell us is that Brexit will not effect immigration, it will simply mean more visas to issue.

[nauseus]

34 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We are not subjected to anything, we are a part of the decision making process, you have been sold a weak lie by crooked bankers, time to wake up and realise that leaving is of no benefit to you, it is of benefit to the brokers and bankers who want to cripple the country and force it into becoming a tax haven.

 

It is everyone's opinion who actually understands the objectives of the EU that it is going well.

 

Brits voted to leave, 34% of them, now a substantial amount of those leave voters have died, just as many have reached the age to vote and many have changed their mind, as we rapidly head toward a no deal the most sensible solution would be to have a second referendum and let the current electorate decide if this is really in our best interest.  Of course that prospect terrifies Brexiteers as they know very well they would never win today, so they do childish things like call a referendum undemocratic, even fascist, when of course what it really would be is democratic.

Bankers did not support the leave campaign, it was exactly the opposite. A second referendum really makes referendums pointless but I'm willing to go along with the idea if it means a stop to all this eternal whining.

 

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Also what is not in these figures and obviously unrelated to Brexit is the fact that more immigrants come from outside the EU, but what that does tell us is that Brexit will not effect immigration, it will simply mean more visas to issue.

We were talking about freedom of movement, which non EU immigrants don't have! On and on and on.

Edited October 17, 2017 by nauseus

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Bankers did not support the leave campaign, it was exactly the opposite. A second referendum really makes referendums pointless but I'm willing to go along with the idea if it means a stop to all this eternal whining.

 

 

UKIP consist of several ex bankers and are bankrolled by a hedge fund manager.  You only have to check out their voting history to understand what they care about; ending restrictions on banking, preventing financial transactions taxes, they even voted against restricting bankers bonuses, they have always been a party run by bankers for bankers.  But not all bankers are leave supporters, most of them are small time employees who simply fear for their job, but this is much bigger than that, this is about changing the face of the British financial sector entirely, if they can get us out of the EU then then there is little hope for the City to survive against the competition in Europe, already they have begun swallowing up City bankers, the UK will do what it can to keep them and that will mean ending restrictions, reducing taxes and allowing them to make much more money while putting us at much greater risk.  They have planned all this, you are their hapless pawns, the helpful idiots that are going to put our people back at the mercy of the banks, undoing all the good work the EU has been doing to protect us from their amoral practices.

 

And it would not actually be a second referdum, but a third, did you also think the second made the first pointless and complain about the Brexiteers whining?

[Kieran00001]

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

We were talking about freedom of movement, which non EU immigrants don't have! On and on and on.

 

I know, but its pretty pointless being concerned with immigration and thinking that Brexit has something to do with slowing it when we allow more non EU immigrants in than those that come from EU countries.  It is clear that we want immigrants and will continue to invite them, the only difference being that we will be issuing them with visas instead of them excersing their freedom of movement right.  After all, the non EU immigrants have a net cost, but still we invite them, whereas the EU immigrants have a net gain, of course we will be giving them visas, so none of this makes the slightest bit of difference in deciding whether to leave or not.

[naboo]

On 15/10/2017 at 9:57 AM, bert bloggs said:

 

You are joking ,the E.U elite have never taken any notice of us ,in fact if we want to change something ,they choose the opposite . Also the only British Leader who had any "balls" and stood up to them was Thatcher .and she was a woman .

Britain was the EU elite.

 

Supported 99.6% of EU regulations that came into force and had a veto on everything.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We are not subjected to anything, we are a part of the decision making process, you have been sold a weak lie by crooked bankers, time to wake up and realise that leaving is of no benefit to you, it is of benefit to the brokers and bankers who want to cripple the country and force it into becoming a tax haven.

 

It is everyone's opinion who actually understands the objectives of the EU that it is going well.

 

Brits voted to leave, 34% of them, now a substantial amount of those leave voters have died, just as many have reached the age to vote and many have changed their mind, as we rapidly head toward a no deal the most sensible solution would be to have a second referendum and let the current electorate decide if this is really in our best interest.  Of course that prospect terrifies Brexiteers as they know very well they would never win today, so they do childish things like call a referendum undemocratic, even fascist, when of course what it really would be is democratic.

 

Fine. After we've left and re-established ourselves as an independant trading nation, a few years down the line, we can have another referendum. I'm happy with that. You happy with that? We won't make you wait anything like 41 years, like we had to wait. Or do you want an new referendum every five minutes? Or maybe keep having referendums until the people vote 'the right way', then have done with it?

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Fine. After we've left and re-established ourselves as an independant trading nation, a few years down the line, we can have another referendum. I'm happy with that. You happy with that? We won't make you wait anything like 41 years, like we had to wait. Or do you want an new referendum every five minutes? Or maybe keep having referendums until the people vote 'the right way', then have done with it?

Scotts just had another referendum, they can't even win that. 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Not a Brit but American. Your vote to get out is in serious danger.The Obstructionist want to cast aside your vote and  delegitimize the existence of it.

This sounds all to familiar .Stand for nationalism. You tried the EU and it didn't work out,time to control your own destiny again , show the world how great you are !

Cheers     

Well y'all are certainly making America grate!

[SheungWan]

31 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Fine. After we've left and re-established ourselves as an independant trading nation, a few years down the line, we can have another referendum. I'm happy with that. You happy with that? We won't make you wait anything like 41 years, like we had to wait. Or do you want an new referendum every five minutes? Or maybe keep having referendums until the people vote 'the right way', then have done with it?

Having another referendum and when, would be the decision of Parliament. Not difficult to understand, well maybe for some.

Edited October 17, 2017 by SheungWan

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Fine. After we've left and re-established ourselves as an independant trading nation, a few years down the line, we can have another referendum. I'm happy with that. You happy with that? We won't make you wait anything like 41 years, like we had to wait. Or do you want an new referendum every five minutes? Or maybe keep having referendums until the people vote 'the right way', then have done with it?

No, thats fine. Happy to buy pegs from you.....

[nauseus]

34 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I know, but its pretty pointless being concerned with immigration and thinking that Brexit has something to do with slowing it when we allow more non EU immigrants in than those that come from EU countries.  It is clear that we want immigrants and will continue to invite them, the only difference being that we will be issuing them with visas instead of them excersing their freedom of movement right.  After all, the non EU immigrants have a net cost, but still we invite them, whereas the EU immigrants have a net gain, of course we will be giving them visas, so none of this makes the slightest bit of difference in deciding whether to leave or not.

What was clear from the vote was that immigration was a big issue, from the EU and elsewhere. 

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, aright said:

KH  time you recognised you are talking to a section of our community who have programmed themselves and our Nation for failure by the consistent use of negative language and words synonymous with defeat and failure and we are only at the first hurdle. They constantly use the language of National and self doubt ........natural pessimists.

Losers have many reasons why they can't do something, winners find a reason why they must. It's a good job many of these people weren't around in 1940.

One can just see today's Isolationist Little Englanders going to war over Poland.

Edited October 17, 2017 by SheungWan

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Bankers did not support the leave campaign, it was exactly the opposite. A second referendum really makes referendums pointless but I'm willing to go along with the idea if it means a stop to all this eternal whining.

 

Exactly wrong. Though in a minority both Mervyn King (ex-Governor of the Bank of England) and Nigel Lawson (ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer) supported the Leave campaign.

[nauseus]

48 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

UKIP consist of several ex bankers and are bankrolled by a hedge fund manager.  You only have to check out their voting history to understand what they care about; ending restrictions on banking, preventing financial transactions taxes, they even voted against restricting bankers bonuses, they have always been a party run by bankers for bankers.  But not all bankers are leave supporters, most of them are small time employees who simply fear for their job, but this is much bigger than that, this is about changing the face of the British financial sector entirely, if they can get us out of the EU then then there is little hope for the City to survive against the competition in Europe, already they have begun swallowing up City bankers, the UK will do what it can to keep them and that will mean ending restrictions, reducing taxes and allowing them to make much more money while putting us at much greater risk.  They have planned all this, you are their hapless pawns, the helpful idiots that are going to put our people back at the mercy of the banks, undoing all the good work the EU has been doing to protect us from their amoral practices.

 

And it would not actually be a second referdum, but a third, did you also think the second made the first pointless and complain about the Brexiteers whining?

The biggest, richest banks and corporations were backers of the UK remaining in the EU.  

 

Now you drag in UKIP, call us hapless pawns and idiots! EU good work? What a crock!

 

OK fair's fair. Let's have the third referendum in 2047. See you and the other Euromuppets then .

 

 

 

  

[Khun Han]

deleted

Edited October 17, 2017 by Khun Han

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Exactly wrong. Though in a minority both Mervyn King (ex-Governor of the Bank of England) and Nigel Lawson (ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer) supported the Leave campaign.

Two ex's, impressive! I liked their input but they are not really influential now. 

 

I think you know that I'm talking about the multinational main banks, which lobby the EU. Try JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Barclays, HSBC, RBS, Santander, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Danske Bank for a start and stop with the gobbledygook.

 

 

[Khun Han]

31 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Having another referendum and when, would be the decision of Parliament. Not difficult to understand, well maybe for some.

 

 

I'd like to think that the difficulty in getting nuance across on an itnernet forum is to blame for your failure to notice that I was being flippant .

[Stupooey]

17 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Exactly wrong. Though in a minority both Mervyn King (ex-Governor of the Bank of England) and Nigel Lawson (ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer) supported the Leave campaign.

Most Brexiteers seem to be either ex-es or never was-es. 

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Most Brexiteers seem to be either ex-es or never was-es. 

Don't worry you'll be ex EU soon. ?

[Kieran00001]

48 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Fine. After we've left and re-established ourselves as an independant trading nation, a few years down the line, we can have another referendum. I'm happy with that. You happy with that? We won't make you wait anything like 41 years, like we had to wait. Or do you want an new referendum every five minutes? Or maybe keep having referendums until the people vote 'the right way', then have done with it?

 

I would be happy to see referendums become binding if we were to introduce similar rules to other countries, with a minimum turnout and a minimum majority to win, and see results such as this one, with a 52-48 result from 32% of the electorate in favour, ignored for what it is, a minority decision.  I think we should do what Farage said he would do and not accept a 52-48 referendum result.  And anyway, I think what we are seeing is the Tories purposely messing up the exit process to the point where a vast majority want a second referendum, I could be wrong but I think we will see one next year.