EU referendum: BBC forecasts UK votes to leave

[Bunnychow]

why be frightened of a second referendum ? If it really is the will of the people then even though they have seen the disaster unfolding before their eyes they would still vote leave

Because it undermines even the happy belief of democracy.

There was a referendum that voted to leave the EU. Cameron says he accepts it, why are so many remain voters having a problem with respecting the referendum vote?

And please don't come up with the petition which has already been shown to have many fraudulent votes, not to mention the petition signers being 'remain' voters .

In an article Merkel stated the EU needs to stop other countries following Britain out...so it shows what some other politians think of democracy

[MissAndry]

That kid's a complete tw@t!

I thought 'The Kid' was completely accurate, and if the 'leftist elite' can't face the loss by peaceful vote, they will soon be facing a vote at the end of a gun, which I personally would be happy to support.

[sandrabbit]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/eu-commissioner-sees-15-percent-fall-eu-budget-114910482--business.html?nhp=1

When you read the article, if it's accurate, you realise how disproportionally unfair the UK's contributions have been and you have to wonder why the EU didn't make more of an effort to keep the UK in the EU.

[sandrabbit]

That kid's a complete tw@t!

I thought 'The Kid' was completely accurate, and if the 'leftist elite' can't face the loss by peaceful vote, they will soon be facing a vote at the end of a gun, which I personally would be happy to support.

I agree with you but the message would have come across better without the in your face presentation and the annoying editing.

[JHolmesJr]

When you read the article, if it's accurate, you realise how disproportionally unfair the UK's contributions have been and you have to wonder why the EU didn't make more of an effort to keep the UK in the EU.

The EU countries that send hordes of jobseekers to the UK, displacing british jobs in the process should be paying the UK instead.

[mommysboy]

When you read the article, if it's accurate, you realise how disproportionally unfair the UK's contributions have been and you have to wonder why the EU didn't make more of an effort to keep the UK in the EU.

The EU countries that send hordes of jobseekers to the UK, displacing british jobs in the process should be paying the UK instead.

Yes but you have to wonder how many of the little Alf's will deign to get off their backsides and take the jobs.

[Guest]

When you read the article, if it's accurate, you realise how disproportionally unfair the UK's contributions have been and you have to wonder why the EU didn't make more of an effort to keep the UK in the EU.

The EU countries that send hordes of jobseekers to the UK, displacing british jobs in the process should be paying the UK instead.

I'm quite sure no country send hordes of jobseekers to anywhere. Individual people have used their rights to move around EU and to do work.

As so often, it's good to follow the money.

The workers could not survive if they would not have work. Who did hire them to do the job? Was it other non-UK workers, or was it perhaps the UK citizens who wanted to save money to get the job done? I believe they had the chance to hire only the UK nationals if they wished.

[MissAndry]

Who did hire them to do the job? Was it other non-UK workers, or was it perhaps the UK citizens who wanted to save money to get the job done? I believe they had the chance to hire only the UK nationals if they wished.

I don't believe I have ever seen a job advertised "UK Nationals only".

[cumgranosalum]

I've been looking at the various options that might be available in trade deals with EU. I thought I'd better do this, as nobody can really advise. Most of all the Brexiters themselves!!!

What strikes me immediately is that UK and EU are interdependent. This is important when considering the issue of tariffs, which are taxes levied on exports by the receiving country. The danger of imposing tariffs is that they get reciprocated. Thus if, say, the EU imposed a 30% tariff on UK car exports to the EU, then UK would likely impose a similar rate, or higher, on EU export of cars to the UK. Trade would be damaged all round. This would be particularly problematic for the German car industry which exports as much as 10% of its production to UK, and has a business interest in 50% of the very big UK car industry. This example might stand good for any number of sectors.

Contrary to popular belief UK most certainly does not have a whip hand in negotiations with the EU: simply because Britain needs an agreement more than the EU does. It's just a matter of size you see. Thus while EU benefits by being a net gainer in EU vs UK trade by a whopping 40 billion, this still represents a small percentage in EU terms, whereas 46% of UK exports go to the EU.

One other observation is that multi nationals would also have a big say. And they carry weight. To go back to the car example. BMW would be livid with both the UK and German Government if they hindered trade. It would be the same other big companies, hundreds of medium size companies, and tens of thousands of small businesses.

The WTO model. Quite simply no rules or agreement as such, but a right to trade. Things just kind of do or don't develop. These might include tariffs, but read as above as to why they might not be imposed, or may be low. It's a simple model and most importantly does not require negotiation. And means UK is free to negotiate with countries outside the EU free from EU regulations. It would also make a withdrawal from the EU much simpler and without conditions.

The 'Swiss' Model. A series of bilateral agreements, which may not be offered anymore as they took years to negotiate and were a nightmare; rather has the hallmarks of its parents then I would say.

The Norway Model. Single market model. This gives full access to the single market. Britain would join the European Free Trade Association. UK would need to make high contributions as now. Additionally it would have to agree to the free movement of labour. And adhere to EU specifications, eg, a size 1 egg must be such and such a height and weight. In return there is free trade for both parties. Crucially, it is granted by EU and can not be demanded. But there are significant advantages for EU too; an offer they would be mad to refuse in all honesty.

One of the UK's big cards is the city of London. Contrary to popular belief (including mine until very recently) it would not be decimated, in fact EU needs it. It is more than just access, UK has the best hard and soft infrastructure, expertise, an established customer base (the world basically) and every country needs to be there. Once again then there is a degree of interdependence only this time roles are reversed. EU could deny the UK so called 'financial passporting', but this is easily circumnavigated, and would undoubtedly result in harsh retribution.

Overall, it is 'I scratch your back if you scratch mine'. And the demands of commerce would likely ensure a mutually satisfactory solution in my opinion.

Bit late to research - you are also completely wrong on a few points, most notably London as a centre of finance - there is a thing called an "EU passport" for finance /stock brokers etc, this is issued by the EU and many companies are in London take advantage of this to trade within Europe.

It is estimated that as many as 3/4 million jobs would move - probably to Frankfurt if they don't renegotiate that deal

"Banks based in London rely on an “EU passport” to operate freely across Europe’s financial markets while having most of their staff and operations in the UK capital. But François Villeroy de Galhau, a member of the governing council of the European Central Bank, warned that the City could no longer expect to enjoy a similar arrangement in the future." - guardian.

I was 'remain'. Note 'was'. I have learnt a lot since then. And the damage has been done so we may as well go. I wouldn't want associate status. I see the EU as an institution best kept at arms length.

The so called passport is easily circumnavigated, but granting of the licence would be very likely. The City of London is not reliant on Europe, which in any case needs it more. Frankfurt is a very poor second. It takes years to develop the eco-system that London offers, that's where it is, and that is where people want to be. One crucial factor is 'latency'- the speed at which things are done. Then there is price/costs. Then there is expertise, and even the language. It's generally accepted banking is over staffed/populated. The firms would be going anyway. They're just folding or downsizing I would guess.

I have also done further research in to tariffs. These are actually low, eg, 5-10% for cars. Access might be an issue for new products. But this is dirty tricks, and would likely provoke same reaction from UK.

Also, overall, 90% of GDP is non European. The temporary vacuum would in time be absorped by non EU trade.

Britain does not need EU, nor EU Britain. But when the nuts have done their worst, normal trade between friends and colleagues will go on. UK is actually very pro Europe, it's just the EU that is not liked.

Firstly your "figures" are modestly wrong...you perspective therefore is very distorted, why? because like so many on TV you really don't understand the difference between "search" and "research" - you don't eve seem to understand the stuff you do stumble upon.......trying to discuss with someone who searches for bits and bobs that seem to re-enforce their preconceptions is actually just pigeon chess.

[Naam]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/eu-commissioner-sees-15-percent-fall-eu-budget-114910482--business.html?nhp=1

When you read the article, if it's accurate, you realise how disproportionally unfair the UK's contributions have been and you have to wonder why the EU didn't make more of an effort to keep the UK in the EU.

simple maths proves that the Romanian politician talks either rubbish (as do most politicians) or hasn't done his homework.

EU budget................€ 148.0 billion

15% reduction..........€ 22.2 billion

UK net contribution € 9.6 billion (£ 8 billion)

difference.................€ 12.6 billion (22.2 minus 9.6)

p.s. apropos "disproportionate", UK's net contribution represents approximately 0.3% of UK's gross domestic product.

[mommysboy]

I've been looking at the various options that might be available in trade deals with EU. I thought I'd better do this, as nobody can really advise. Most of all the Brexiters themselves!!!

What strikes me immediately is that UK and EU are interdependent. This is important when considering the issue of tariffs, which are taxes levied on exports by the receiving country. The danger of imposing tariffs is that they get reciprocated. Thus if, say, the EU imposed a 30% tariff on UK car exports to the EU, then UK would likely impose a similar rate, or higher, on EU export of cars to the UK. Trade would be damaged all round. This would be particularly problematic for the German car industry which exports as much as 10% of its production to UK, and has a business interest in 50% of the very big UK car industry. This example might stand good for any number of sectors.

Contrary to popular belief UK most certainly does not have a whip hand in negotiations with the EU: simply because Britain needs an agreement more than the EU does. It's just a matter of size you see. Thus while EU benefits by being a net gainer in EU vs UK trade by a whopping 40 billion, this still represents a small percentage in EU terms, whereas 46% of UK exports go to the EU.

One other observation is that multi nationals would also have a big say. And they carry weight. To go back to the car example. BMW would be livid with both the UK and German Government if they hindered trade. It would be the same other big companies, hundreds of medium size companies, and tens of thousands of small businesses.

The WTO model. Quite simply no rules or agreement as such, but a right to trade. Things just kind of do or don't develop. These might include tariffs, but read as above as to why they might not be imposed, or may be low. It's a simple model and most importantly does not require negotiation. And means UK is free to negotiate with countries outside the EU free from EU regulations. It would also make a withdrawal from the EU much simpler and without conditions.

The 'Swiss' Model. A series of bilateral agreements, which may not be offered anymore as they took years to negotiate and were a nightmare; rather has the hallmarks of its parents then I would say.

The Norway Model. Single market model. This gives full access to the single market. Britain would join the European Free Trade Association. UK would need to make high contributions as now. Additionally it would have to agree to the free movement of labour. And adhere to EU specifications, eg, a size 1 egg must be such and such a height and weight. In return there is free trade for both parties. Crucially, it is granted by EU and can not be demanded. But there are significant advantages for EU too; an offer they would be mad to refuse in all honesty.

One of the UK's big cards is the city of London. Contrary to popular belief (including mine until very recently) it would not be decimated, in fact EU needs it. It is more than just access, UK has the best hard and soft infrastructure, expertise, an established customer base (the world basically) and every country needs to be there. Once again then there is a degree of interdependence only this time roles are reversed. EU could deny the UK so called 'financial passporting', but this is easily circumnavigated, and would undoubtedly result in harsh retribution.

Overall, it is 'I scratch your back if you scratch mine'. And the demands of commerce would likely ensure a mutually satisfactory solution in my opinion.

Bit late to research - you are also completely wrong on a few points, most notably London as a centre of finance - there is a thing called an "EU passport" for finance /stock brokers etc, this is issued by the EU and many companies are in London take advantage of this to trade within Europe.

It is estimated that as many as 3/4 million jobs would move - probably to Frankfurt if they don't renegotiate that deal

"Banks based in London rely on an “EU passport” to operate freely across Europe’s financial markets while having most of their staff and operations in the UK capital. But François Villeroy de Galhau, a member of the governing council of the European Central Bank, warned that the City could no longer expect to enjoy a similar arrangement in the future." - guardian.

I was 'remain'. Note 'was'. I have learnt a lot since then. And the damage has been done so we may as well go. I wouldn't want associate status. I see the EU as an institution best kept at arms length.

The so called passport is easily circumnavigated, but granting of the licence would be very likely. The City of London is not reliant on Europe, which in any case needs it more. Frankfurt is a very poor second. It takes years to develop the eco-system that London offers, that's where it is, and that is where people want to be. One crucial factor is 'latency'- the speed at which things are done. Then there is price/costs. Then there is expertise, and even the language. It's generally accepted banking is over staffed/populated. The firms would be going anyway. They're just folding or downsizing I would guess.

I have also done further research in to tariffs. These are actually low, eg, 5-10% for cars. Access might be an issue for new products. But this is dirty tricks, and would likely provoke same reaction from UK.

Also, overall, 90% of GDP is non European. The temporary vacuum would in time be absorped by non EU trade.

Britain does not need EU, nor EU Britain. But when the nuts have done their worst, normal trade between friends and colleagues will go on. UK is actually very pro Europe, it's just the EU that is not liked.

Firstly your "figures" are modestly wrong...you perspective therefore is very distorted, why? because like so many on TV you really don't understand the difference between "search" and "research" - you don't eve seem to understand the stuff you do stumble upon.......trying to discuss with someone who searches for bits and bobs that seem to re-enforce their preconceptions is actually just pigeon chess.

So lets have your figures.

[mommysboy]

cungranosalum. I might also point out that cogency in an argument is not just about the validity of the points contained therein. There is also the stance to be considered. Personally, as regarding your posts, I find them tainted with both malice and bias.

[soalbundy]

Who did hire them to do the job? Was it other non-UK workers, or was it perhaps the UK citizens who wanted to save money to get the job done? I believe they had the chance to hire only the UK nationals if they wished.

I don't believe I have ever seen a job advertised "UK Nationals only".

wouldn't be allowed but you know those who are unsuitable for the job by their accents.

[soalbundy]

cungranosalum. I might also point out that cogency in an argument is not just about the validity of the points contained therein. There is also the stance to be considered. Personally, as regarding your posts, I find them tainted with both malice and bias.

admit it, you don't like him

[JHolmesJr]

why be frightened of a second referendum ? If it really is the will of the people then even though they have seen the disaster unfolding before their eyes they would still vote leave

Because it undermines even the happy belief of democracy.

There was a referendum that voted to leave the EU. Cameron says he accepts it, why are so many remain voters having a problem with respecting the referendum vote?

And please don't come up with the petition which has already been shown to have many fraudulent votes, not to mention the petition signers being 'remain' voters .

I would not believe a word this slimeball utters..he is just playing both sides….of course he wants the UK to remain…but he also wants voters to think he is on their side.

Once the REMAIN side have scuttled the LEAVE decision with help from their friends in the media and opinion lobbies, they will likely set up an office to represent UKs interests in the EU and Cameron will be the one running it.

[soalbundy]

Osbourne has announced that there would now be tax increases and cuts to spending under a new PM, maybe 2.5 billion cut from NHS, how can that be when we were to get 350 billion extra per month for the NHS from Brexiters, probably inflation.

The markets are fine said Boris Johnson as 15 billion was wiped of the FTSE

[mommysboy]

cungranosalum. I might also point out that cogency in an argument is not just about the validity of the points contained therein. There is also the stance to be considered. Personally, as regarding your posts, I find them tainted with both malice and bias.

admit it, you don't like him

[mommysboy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/nigel-farage-shares-cosy-embrace-with-jean-claude-juncker/

Very amusing. With good points.

You have to admit quite apart from being funny, he does make some important points. What's so wrong about a country just wanting to be 'normal'?. And is it so much to ask for just reasonable trading relations. What's the big deal?

[Bunnychow]

Osbourne has announced that there would now be tax increases and cuts to spending under a new PM, maybe 2.5 billion cut from NHS, how can that be when we were to get 350 billion extra per month for the NHS from Brexiters, probably inflation.

The markets are fine said Boris Johnson as 15 billion was wiped of the FTSE

That was Osbourne scacemongering before the referendum, its never been mentioned since...

[soalbundy]

Osbourne has announced that there would now be tax increases and cuts to spending under a new PM, maybe 2.5 billion cut from NHS, how can that be when we were to get 350 billion extra per month for the NHS from Brexiters, probably inflation.

The markets are fine said Boris Johnson as 15 billion was wiped of the FTSE

That was Osbourne scacemongering before the referendum, its never been mentioned since...

it was reported yesterday

[dick dasterdly]

Osbourne has announced that there would now be tax increases and cuts to spending under a new PM, maybe 2.5 billion cut from NHS, how can that be when we were to get 350 billion extra per month for the NHS from Brexiters, probably inflation.

The markets are fine said Boris Johnson as 15 billion was wiped of the FTSE

That was Osbourne scacemongering before the referendum, its never been mentioned since...

it was reported yesterday

Do you have a link?

You'd have thought he'd have learnt his lesson first time round since it has now been made clear that his promised emergency punishment budget (in the event of a brexit vote) was not going to happen!

[soalbundy]

Osbourne has announced that there would now be tax increases and cuts to spending under a new PM, maybe 2.5 billion cut from NHS, how can that be when we were to get 350 billion extra per month for the NHS from Brexiters, probably inflation.

The markets are fine said Boris Johnson as 15 billion was wiped of the FTSE

That was Osbourne scacemongering before the referendum, its never been mentioned since...

it was reported yesterday

Do you have a link?

You'd have thought he'd have learnt his lesson first time round since it has now been made clear that his promised emergency punishment budget (in the event of a brexit vote) was not going to happen!

there is a new one today from the bbc. Economists on Bloomberg have also said that this has got to happen. it is under an article about Vodaphone considering a move from the UK

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36647006

[SgtRock]

Osbourne has announced that there would now be tax increases and cuts to spending under a new PM, maybe 2.5 billion cut from NHS, how can that be when we were to get 350 billion extra per month for the NHS from Brexiters, probably inflation.

The markets are fine said Boris Johnson as 15 billion was wiped of the FTSE

Anyone with a brain would understand that the UK's contribution to the EU budget would not cease until membership officially ended.

His emergency budget is due to his 2016/17 economic forecast being made on the OBR's recommendation of 6% growth for the year, which was hogwash then just as it is hogwash now, nothing to do with a Brexit vote.

Before anyone asks, I have already posted the links in another thread and I will not be doing so again.

[dick dasterdly]

Osbourne hasn't learnt his lesson . Predicting events is a mug's game - especially when your last statement was proven to be untrue....

[soalbundy]

Osbourne hasn't learnt his lesson . Predicting events is a mug's game - especially when your last statement was proven to be untrue....

There is an interesting report from the OECD called a taxing decision which includes a PDF file

[Norvabc]

It is interesting that it's pro-business that voted Remain while more agricultural and older people went the other way. Reminds me of when Switzerland had a similar referendum (to join or not). Zurich and main business cantons said yes, French speaking, Bern Basel etc said no and the no's won it.

There was then talk of doomsday for Switzerland as well. Didn't happen though. The CHF is practically on par with the Euro (1.08, last I checked, last week)

This is part of the reason why I point to the Muslim invasion as motivation for the "leave" voters. The "ordinary working man" neither fully understands nor cares about macro economics. He cares about the safety of his family, and the preservation of his way of life. While intellectuals preach the philosophy of "open borders" and "one world", the realists who work for a living see the injustice of Sharia Law and absolute suppression of freedom of religion (as well as so many other freedoms suppressed by Islamic rulers).

So, while the article atop this thread, as well as most of the posters here, have focused primarily on the economic issues and impact of the Brexit vote; I must ask again, if the deciding factor in the outcome wasn't the Muslim invasion!

You sir are a racist and therefore your views and comments are not welcome in a civilized debate. There is no Sharia law in the Uk and there never will be. This illusion of a muslim invasion is exactly that; an illusion and fortunately sane people with a proper and respectful perspective on matters are here to tell you where to get off.

Are you for real. Racist? You have to see colour to be a racist and as your accusation is based on colour of a race it is you that is the racist by definition not to mention the fact that you are using the the race card for you argument. Second and I would love to use some bad words here, come to Rotherham and see the Sharia law in action what a silly miss informed person or a troll. Come please I will show you Sharia Law

[Norvabc]

It is interesting that it's pro-business that voted Remain while more agricultural and older people went the other way. Reminds me of when Switzerland had a similar referendum (to join or not). Zurich and main business cantons said yes, French speaking, Bern Basel etc said no and the no's won it.

There was then talk of doomsday for Switzerland as well. Didn't happen though. The CHF is practically on par with the Euro (1.08, last I checked, last week)

This is part of the reason why I point to the Muslim invasion as motivation for the "leave" voters. The "ordinary working man" neither fully understands nor cares about macro economics. He cares about the safety of his family, and the preservation of his way of life. While intellectuals preach the philosophy of "open borders" and "one world", the realists who work for a living see the injustice of Sharia Law and absolute suppression of freedom of religion (as well as so many other freedoms suppressed by Islamic rulers).

So, while the article atop this thread, as well as most of the posters here, have focused primarily on the economic issues and impact of the Brexit vote; I must ask again, if the deciding factor in the outcome wasn't the Muslim invasion!

You sir are a racist and therefore your views and comments are not welcome in a civilized debate. There is no Sharia law in the Uk and there never will be. This illusion of a muslim invasion is exactly that; an illusion and fortunately sane people with a proper and respectful perspective on matters are here to tell you where to get off.

Are you for real. Racist? You have to see colour to be a racist and as your accusation is based on colour of a race it is you that is the racist by definition not to mention the fact that you are using the the race card for you argument. Second and I would love to use some bad words here, come to Rotherham and see the Sharia law in action what a silly miss informed person or a troll. Come please I will show you Sharia Law

[Norvabc]

It is interesting that it's pro-business that voted Remain while more agricultural and older people went the other way. Reminds me of when Switzerland had a similar referendum (to join or not). Zurich and main business cantons said yes, French speaking, Bern Basel etc said no and the no's won it.

There was then talk of doomsday for Switzerland as well. Didn't happen though. The CHF is practically on par with the Euro (1.08, last I checked, last week)

This is part of the reason why I point to the Muslim invasion as motivation for the "leave" voters. The "ordinary working man" neither fully understands nor cares about macro economics. He cares about the safety of his family, and the preservation of his way of life. While intellectuals preach the philosophy of "open borders" and "one world", the realists who work for a living see the injustice of Sharia Law and absolute suppression of freedom of religion (as well as so many other freedoms suppressed by Islamic rulers).

So, while the article atop this thread, as well as most of the posters here, have focused primarily on the economic issues and impact of the Brexit vote; I must ask again, if the deciding factor in the outcome wasn't the Muslim invasion!

You sir are a racist and therefore your views and comments are not welcome in a civilized debate. There is no Sharia law in the Uk and there never will be. This illusion of a muslim invasion is exactly that; an illusion and fortunately sane people with a proper and respectful perspective on matters are here to tell you where to get off.

Are you for real. Racist? You have to see colour to be a racist and as your accusation is based on colour of a race it is you that is the racist by definition not to mention the fact that you are using the the race card for you argument. Second and I would love to use some bad words here, come to Rotherham and see the Sharia law in action what a silly miss informed person or a troll. Come please I will show you Sharia Law

[Norvabc]

It is interesting that it's pro-business that voted Remain while more agricultural and older people went the other way. Reminds me of when Switzerland had a similar referendum (to join or not). Zurich and main business cantons said yes, French speaking, Bern Basel etc said no and the no's won it.

There was then talk of doomsday for Switzerland as well. Didn't happen though. The CHF is practically on par with the Euro (1.08, last I checked, last week)

This is part of the reason why I point to the Muslim invasion as motivation for the "leave" voters. The "ordinary working man" neither fully understands nor cares about macro economics. He cares about the safety of his family, and the preservation of his way of life. While intellectuals preach the philosophy of "open borders" and "one world", the realists who work for a living see the injustice of Sharia Law and absolute suppression of freedom of religion (as well as so many other freedoms suppressed by Islamic rulers).

So, while the article atop this thread, as well as most of the posters here, have focused primarily on the economic issues and impact of the Brexit vote; I must ask again, if the deciding factor in the outcome wasn't the Muslim invasion!

You sir are a racist and therefore your views and comments are not welcome in a civilized debate. There is no Sharia law in the Uk and there never will be. This illusion of a muslim invasion is exactly that; an illusion and fortunately sane people with a proper and respectful perspective on matters are here to tell you where to get off.

Are you for real. Racist? You have to see colour to be a racist and as your accusation is based on colour of a race it is you that is the racist by definition not to mention the fact that you are using the the race card for you argument. Second and I would love to use some bad words here, come to Rotherham and see the Sharia law in action what a silly miss informed person or a troll. Come please I will show you Sharia Law

[Norvabc]

It is interesting that it's pro-business that voted Remain while more agricultural and older people went the other way. Reminds me of when Switzerland had a similar referendum (to join or not). Zurich and main business cantons said yes, French speaking, Bern Basel etc said no and the no's won it.

There was then talk of doomsday for Switzerland as well. Didn't happen though. The CHF is practically on par with the Euro (1.08, last I checked, last week)

This is part of the reason why I point to the Muslim invasion as motivation for the "leave" voters. The "ordinary working man" neither fully understands nor cares about macro economics. He cares about the safety of his family, and the preservation of his way of life. While intellectuals preach the philosophy of "open borders" and "one world", the realists who work for a living see the injustice of Sharia Law and absolute suppression of freedom of religion (as well as so many other freedoms suppressed by Islamic rulers).

So, while the article atop this thread, as well as most of the posters here, have focused primarily on the economic issues and impact of the Brexit vote; I must ask again, if the deciding factor in the outcome wasn't the Muslim invasion!

You sir are a racist and therefore your views and comments are not welcome in a civilized debate. There is no Sharia law in the Uk and there never will be. This illusion of a muslim invasion is exactly that; an illusion and fortunately sane people with a proper and respectful perspective on matters are here to tell you where to get off.

Are you for real. Racist? You have to see colour to be a racist and as your accusation is based on colour of a race it is you that is the racist by definition not to mention the fact that you are using the the race card for you argument. Second and I would love to use some bad words here, come to Rotherham and see the Sharia law in action what a silly miss informed person or a troll. Come please I will show you Sharia Law