First results in UK's historic referendum on EU membership

[WhamBam]

If we had not voted to leave we would have been under the rule of the E.U. on this. Our government would have caved in even more. Our powers to resist would have diminished drastically. We were already under immense pressure to cave in on immigration.

But it is about more than Syrians etc. It is about controlling the free movement of so many from E.U. countries. Being able to control the riffraff, the criminals, the psychos.

Then there would have been the Turks wanting to com in en masse.

We will also be able to have more control over the quality of immigrants.

If we need doctors, nurses, engineers and other qualified people we can welcome them with open arms.

On the other hand we will no longer have to accept tens of thousands of Poles and others who are basically labourers. We can also take back the right not to have to pay these immigrants things like Family Allowance and other benefits that are sent straight back to their home countries.

But, as I said, it is not simply about immigration, we will be able to free ourselves from the shackles of the non elected E.U. officials and their diktats.

Get ready to be called a racist.

Well put BTW

Well the ignorant can call me a racist all they like.

I'll be called that for not liking all these muslims coming over too. Obviously they will be incorrect because you cannot be a racist for disliking a religion.

They say 'Sticks and stones will break my bones but name will not hurt me."

The muslims will most likely do the worst harm to me then ..... stoning.

[Kwasaki]

Did you ever wonder why all those people who the Brexit guys said were scaremongering are still saying the same things, even though the referendum is over with. If they were scaremongering then and they are still scaremongering now, who are they trying to scare and why. A rhetorical question of course!

Because they are hoping for another referendum - and frighten voters into changing their vote if this happens?

Andrew Neil interviewed a 'leave' politician and it became v clear that the scare tactics of wars and Osborne's punishment budget were precisely that - scare tactics.

So Moody's didn't downgrade UK credit and debt, the Pound didn't fall, the Pound wont fall tomorrow and next week, it was all scare tactic, hmm, OK!

We're only 2 days 'in'!

I was responding to your post about why the scaremongering is still going on, not posting about what is going to happen in the future.

Edit - Meanwhile, all the remain politicians are backing off from the pre-vote scare tactics of 'will lead to another war' and 'punishment budget'.

Yeah myself watching UK programs today the media are on just another wind up if the 1.5 m vote had been the other way around they would of done the same.

I get the feeling OUT never expected to win.

[Thaiwine]

If we had not voted to leave we would have been under the rule of the E.U. on this. Our government would have caved in even more. Our powers to resist would have diminished drastically. We were already under immense pressure to cave in on immigration.

But it is about more than Syrians etc. It is about controlling the free movement of so many from E.U. countries. Being able to control the riffraff, the criminals, the psychos.

Then there would have been the Turks wanting to com in en masse.

We will also be able to have more control over the quality of immigrants.

If we need doctors, nurses, engineers and other qualified people we can welcome them with open arms.

On the other hand we will no longer have to accept tens of thousands of Poles and others who are basically labourers. We can also take back the right not to have to pay these immigrants things like Family Allowance and other benefits that are sent straight back to their home countries.

But, as I said, it is not simply about immigration, we will be able to free ourselves from the shackles of the non elected E.U. officials and their diktats.

Get ready to be called a racist.

Well put BTW

Well the ignorant can call me a racist all they like.

I'll be called that for not liking all these muslims coming over too. Obviously they will be incorrect because you cannot be a racist for disliking a religion.

They say 'Sticks and stones will break my bones but name will not hurt me."

The muslims will most likely do the worst harm to me then ..... stoning.

Gives a new meaning to getting stoned

[chiang mai]

Oh look, the Leave campaign wants George Osborne back as Chancellor, hmmm, I wonder why. I mean, if he has no qualifications in economics and he keeps on missing his targets, surely they wouldn't put him back in charge of the economy if he was really that bad, just for the sake of unity.

Sarg., do you know or can you guess perhaps?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/george-osborne-offered-top-job-of-foreign-secretary-by-boris-joh/

[mommysboy]

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

[bkkcanuck8]

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

The longer they dawdle and leave the situation up in the air, the longer the recession will be during the restructuring as companies will simply put plans on hold until they know the situation. Not to mention, I thought the whole point was to stop sending money to Brussels and use that money for NHS (cough cough).

[mommysboy]

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

The longer they dawdle and leave the situation up in the air, the longer the recession will be during the restructuring as companies will simply put plans on hold until they know the situation. Not to mention, I thought the whole point was to stop sending money to Brussels and use that money for NHS (cough cough).

The Brexiters really must put up or shut up. There really is no mid ground.

[Franky Bear]

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

The longer they dawdle and leave the situation up in the air, the longer the recession will be during the restructuring as companies will simply put plans on hold until they know the situation. Not to mention, I thought the whole point was to stop sending money to Brussels and use that money for NHS (cough cough).

The Brexiters really must put up or shut up. There really is no mid ground.

Aside for renegotion of trade deals and other vital things that will take time.

[bkkcanuck8]

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

The longer they dawdle and leave the situation up in the air, the longer the recession will be during the restructuring as companies will simply put plans on hold until they know the situation. Not to mention, I thought the whole point was to stop sending money to Brussels and use that money for NHS (cough cough).

The Brexiters really must put up or shut up. There really is no mid ground.

Aside for renegotion of trade deals and other vital things that will take time.

But that is only if they are to be treated special... like they have left but haven't really left.... the vote though was whether to leave....

And if they do want a "special deal" then the EU will want something in return - and you are back "losing sovereignty" to the big bad EU again.

Canada and the US trade with the EU - and we have no special deals (yet; CETA pending).

Anyway, all this hesitance to even start negotiation just makes it seem like it is a big case of "crying wolf" which the only appropriate answer is "I am not falling for it". Then of course lots of people that voted for leave -- actually really really did vote to leave...

Edited June 27, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[mommysboy]

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

The longer they dawdle and leave the situation up in the air, the longer the recession will be during the restructuring as companies will simply put plans on hold until they know the situation. Not to mention, I thought the whole point was to stop sending money to Brussels and use that money for NHS (cough cough).

The Brexiters really must put up or shut up. There really is no mid ground.

Aside for renegotion of trade deals and other vital things that will take time.

What deals? Yes there will be the general WTO charter, which will allow UK to trade with EU, and vice versa- that's a given, doen't need negotiation. The financial 'passporting' would likely be granted if only because it is easily circumnavigated. Undue tariffs are unlikely because each party is interdependent.

But as for anything else such as total access, that will require UK to agree to terms and conditions equally as onerous or worse than UK's present deal!

[MJP]

This is for Grouse

https://youtu.be/BjlwrKmqdYE

. . .

[Franky Bear]

What deals? Yes there will be the general WTO charter, which will allow UK to trade with EU, and vice versa- that's a given, doen't need negotiation. The financial 'passporting' would likely be granted if only because it is easily circumnavigated. Undue tariffs are unlikely because each party is interdependent.

But as for anything else such as total access, that will require UK to agree to terms and conditions equally as onerous or worse than UK's present deal!

\

Between companies.

[dick dasterdly]

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

[Franky Bear]

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

Thi's one of the best things i have read since friday..

[mommysboy]

Waiting would also increase the chance of the damned thing not being enacted.

But no point antagonising EU. Far better to leave on friendly terms I would have thought. Yes it is reasonable to let dust settle.

What trade deal is there to gain? Any preferential deal like associate member status requires freedom of movement. Poster Balo who is from Norway says it is not so bad, but the Brexits won't have it. That would be a massive climbdown. Defeats one key principle in the Brexit mandate.

[Franky Bear]

Waiting would also increase the chance of the damned thing not being enacted.

But no point antagonising EU. Far better to leave on friendly terms I would have thought. Yes it is reasonable to let dust settle.

What trade deal is there to gain? Any preferential deal like associate member status requires freedom of movement. Poster Balo who is from Norway says it is not so bad, but the Brexits won't have it. That would be a massive climbdown. Defeats one key principle in the Brexit mandate.

I'm on about smaller businesses, car makers etc

[mommysboy]

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

[mommysboy]

Waiting would also increase the chance of the damned thing not being enacted.

But no point antagonising EU. Far better to leave on friendly terms I would have thought. Yes it is reasonable to let dust settle.

What trade deal is there to gain? Any preferential deal like associate member status requires freedom of movement. Poster Balo who is from Norway says it is not so bad, but the Brexits won't have it. That would be a massive climbdown. Defeats one key principle in the Brexit mandate.

I'm on about smaller businesses, car makers etc

Nobody knows, but since both parties import and export with each other, it's unlikely there would be punitive tariffs if any at all.

Again, nobody knows how far the pound will drop. 20% devaluation is a ball park figure. This makes UK very competitive. UK business is not just about the relationship with EU. The UK has a liberal trading environment. educated workforce, good infrastructure, and low corporate taxes.

One thing needs to be said: the idea that EU will roll over to British demands is an absolute fallacy.

Edited June 27, 2016 by mommysboy

[dick dasterdly]

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

Afraid not, I'd be the first to agree that I also would be far from an ideal candidate in any negotiations.

On the whole, I try to restrict myself to putting forward obvious points.

[chiang mai]

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

Afraid not, I'd be the first to agree that I also would be far from an ideal candidate in any negotiations.

On the whole, I try to restrict myself to putting forward obvious points.

So, all hat and no cattle then.

[dick dasterdly]

If that's the way you choose to see it, that's up to you.

FWIW, I didn't vote in the election mainly because whilst I hate the cost/waste/fraud of the EU - the Brit. govt. is just as bad, and likely to behave far more badly towards the poor and disadvantaged.

[MJP]

Waiting would also increase the chance of the damned thing not being enacted.

But no point antagonising EU. Far better to leave on friendly terms I would have thought. Yes it is reasonable to let dust settle.

What trade deal is there to gain? Any preferential deal like associate member status requires freedom of movement. Poster Balo who is from Norway says it is not so bad, but the Brexits won't have it. That would be a massive climbdown. Defeats one key principle in the Brexit mandate.

If the Norway option's available, that'll be ideal.

Further integration and transfer of power to an autocratic and unaccountable federalist Brussels was always my issue in the Referendum.

[mommysboy]

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

From a pragmatic viewpoint, the best thing UK can do is not invoke Article 50, and knock this thing on the head. It's a lemon of a result. It's not a quantitive thing: yes, the result was sound. But it's the worst possible permutation all round.

Failing that, you have to respect the right of the winners to enact it. The best thing UK can do is enter swift negotiations to exit, and respect Scotland and N.Ireland's wish to go their own way if they want.

There is already a lot of pain. There will be a great deal more. But I do think the Brexiters are right in saying, it makes long term economic sense (not that I support them in any way).

You have to now be pragmatic that's all.

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

The other thing dick d is that while I very much like your stance, you haven't elaborated what these deals are you see. Any chance of a run down?

Afraid not, I'd be the first to agree that I also would be far from an ideal candidate in any negotiations.

On the whole, I try to restrict myself to putting forward obvious points.

It's an honest answer.

And you are right about general strategy. It probably is best done in a calm, orderly manner.

As far as I can see:

1. As we are?

2. Just leave and rely on WTO charter, and negotiate as and when.

3. Associate status (I think that is known as single market agreement), with all the attendant responsibilities we have now.

I know which sounds best to me.

Edited June 27, 2016 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

Waiting would also increase the chance of the damned thing not being enacted.

But no point antagonising EU. Far better to leave on friendly terms I would have thought. Yes it is reasonable to let dust settle.

What trade deal is there to gain? Any preferential deal like associate member status requires freedom of movement. Poster Balo who is from Norway says it is not so bad, but the Brexits won't have it. That would be a massive climbdown. Defeats one key principle in the Brexit mandate.

If the Norway option's available, that'll be ideal.

Further integration and transfer of power to an autocratic and unaccountable federalist Brussels was always my issue in the Referendum.

It might be, but obviously it's no good rubbing the EU up the wrong way, ie, brinksmanship. Not a good start so far

Edited June 27, 2016 by mommysboy

[dick dasterdly]

But again, its all opinion. Which is why I sympathise with the brexit voters (can't begin to tell you how sick and tired I became of the scare tactics), but can only wait and see what happens.

Everybody else is in the same position, but like to pretend they know what is going to happen and post ridiculous comments (IMO) to this effect!

I particularly liked the comments stating that the petition was regretful brexit voters , and only the stupid voted brexit...

[MJP]

Waiting would also increase the chance of the damned thing not being enacted.

But no point antagonising EU. Far better to leave on friendly terms I would have thought. Yes it is reasonable to let dust settle.

What trade deal is there to gain? Any preferential deal like associate member status requires freedom of movement. Poster Balo who is from Norway says it is not so bad, but the Brexits won't have it. That would be a massive climbdown. Defeats one key principle in the Brexit mandate.

If the Norway option's available, that'll be ideal.

Further integration and transfer of power to an autocratic and unaccountable federalist Brussels was always my issue in the Referendum.

It might be, but obviously it's no good rubbing the EU up the wrong way, ie, brinksmanship. Not a good start so far

George Osborne's clearly been flat out all weekend, no sleep, looks near death to be honest. Perhaps the real start has been made behind the scenes. Here's hoping!

[Kwasaki]

Oh look, the Leave campaign wants George Osborne back as Chancellor, hmmm, I wonder why. I mean, if he has no qualifications in economics and he keeps on missing his targets, surely they wouldn't put him back in charge of the economy if he was really that bad, just for the sake of unity.

Sarg., do you know or can you guess perhaps?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/george-osborne-offered-top-job-of-foreign-secretary-by-boris-joh/

Had to laugh as did the BBC Question time audience when asked where's George Osborne his disappeared, the SNP Alex Salmond said he hasn't disappeared his been kidnaped and no one will pay the ransom.

[happy Joe]

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

What a mistake that shows your total disregard of international trade.

The world will not stop at Brexit and businesses continue to enter into agreements and contracts in EU and elsewhere.

Except in Britain as long as conditions stay uncertain.

The waiting period and blur that you promote will therefore participate to a greater weakening of your country.

In our world of fierce competition other countries thank you.

[mommysboy]

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

What a mistake that shows your total disregard of international trade.

The world will not stop at Brexit and businesses continue to enter into agreements and contracts in EU and elsewhere.

Except in Britain as long as conditions stay uncertain.

The waiting period and blur that you promote will therefore participate to a greater weakening of your country.

In our world of fierce competition other countries thank you.

Yes and no. There was validity in my original point. There is probably more validity in dd's.

[MJP]

I disagree, from a pragmatic viewpoint it makes more sense for Britain to wait until 1) things have calmed down 2) common sense re. trade takes over from anger following the leave vote and 3) a new PM is elected. Cameron didn't do v well in the last round of negotiations and he supports staying in the EU - hardly the ideal candidate for negotiating 'leave' terms!

What a mistake that shows your total disregard of international trade.

The world will not stop at Brexit and businesses continue to enter into agreements and contracts in EU and elsewhere.

Except in Britain as long as conditions stay uncertain.

The waiting period and blur that you promote will therefore participate to a greater weakening of your country.

In our world of fierce competition other countries thank you.

^^This.