BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Lookyhere

bramstoker wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Can anyone imagine the turmoil on currency and markets once article 50 is triggered? we wont be a AAA economy, we ll be junk bond status... a Greece if you like.

We need to step back from this and sharp.

Democracy should be paramount but at the price of putting people out of jobs, spending cuts and tax rises ?

democracy also means we have to protect the most vulnerable, the elderly, children and the sick, leaving will cost these all dearly.

Yet the elderly were the bastards that have ruined it for all the young folks, if you believe whats been said about the breakdown of the votes.

i dont believe in punishing anyone (not all old folk voted OUT) like all of us, they were lied too, for the sole purpose of Boris's power grab, his pro IN statements, as late as this spring, show he is no Farage, jsut a liar.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

I do wonder what Industry is making of it all. The CEO's must be pulling some strings down at the club. It'll be suicide for setting up business outside of the EU in foreigner hating Britain. We'll get no investment from any multinationals.
Existing ones will be looking to expand outside rather than in the UK and we'll die a death.

Money always talks loudest and the Tories (or ANY parties) won't be getting any funds from anyone other than JCB (dunno what his plan is) or Dyson (buy British ! And I've sacked my workforce and the hoovers are made in Malaysia - that's 4000 jobs that could have been in Britain)

Your evidence for this is what?

Certainly the multinational I work for is not.planning along these lines.

Not that it counts for sh!t, but I have (confidential) evidence from a bunch of BIG FS firms.

Theres some difference between delaying decisions due to the current turmoil and taking a strategic decisoon to move investment etc away from the UK. Not sure why any rational MNC would make the strategic decision so quickly before the 'lie of the land' is even known.

bramstoker

Lookyhere wrote:

i dont believe in punishing anyone (not all old folk voted OUT) like all of us, they were lied too, for the sole purpose of Boris's power grab, his pro IN statements, as late as this spring, show he is no Farage, jsut a liar.

But you want the views of 17m people to be punished by overturning what they asked for?

Is the market turmoil we have now and which "may" get better going to be any worse than the turmoil that we will face if it gets over turned ? How will 17m people react to what a turn round will do? How will the EU punish us if we now say sorry we didn't mean it? Will they want Fiscal integration, what will they demand to prove we are good europeans if we now say ooooops.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

orraloon wrote:

gaffer_slow wrote:

You guys all realise that Article 50 will never be triggered .... right?

Is what the markets are thinking, with the FTSE 250 coming back up a bit(3.5%) today, leaving it just 9% down since the news.

To make clear, FTSE250 is more reflective of native UK companies, whereas FTSE100 includes global megacorps, big oil, big pharma, miners and that, who have loads of irons in fire other than the UK.

The FTSE 100 has also bounced back somewhat to claw back 50% of its dramatic initial loss.

Correct. However the FTSE100 is not a good proxy measure for the health of the UK domestic market. BHP Billiton, Royal Dutch Shell, Rio Tinto, HSBC, GSK, Reckitt Benckiser etc etc etc are globals. Indeed, take the last one RB, UK domiciled, vast majority of revenues generated in currency other than £ sterling, profits and divis declared in £, more £ for your $ = better figures. Good for me as a shareholder. Shares hit a year high today.

Look at pure UK plays, take housebuilders and construction. Use Travis Perkins as an example, building supplies to domestic trade and retail markets. Up 5% today but down 30% overall since. Their business outlook has been hit significantly, through no mismanagement on their part.

Apologies where needed for this statement of the bleedin' obvious, but seems from recent events that a lot of people need a lot of things spelled out for them in very simple language.

Let's put the recent losses in the FTSE 250 and 100 into perspective shall we.



That aside, when there are shocks, markets tend to over-react and as we all know, short term stock market performance is not always mirrored by real world business performance.

Until very recently if someone had quoted the stock market indices as the main indicator of the business health of this nation, the leftiebollox brigade would have been moaning that it only benefiterich shareholders etc. Now it's going down, you're claiming its doom for us all.

You're right, some people do need some basic business and economics spelling out for them

Pross

I've just seen Farage's performance on the news. Truly cringe inducing and pathetic even by the standards of modern day politics. Irrespective of whether you are pro or anti EU how on earth could anyone put a tick next to his name on a ballot paper? It was like some 10 year old kid who'd just been given his own way.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

People calling for a second vote? ?? If that goes the other way do we have to go for the best of 3? There was a vote and the result stands, like it or not.

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.
2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.
3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.
4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.
5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.
6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.
7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.
8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

Ballysmate wrote:

The markets have been in turmoil? well that was expected wasn't it? Somebody suggested returning to the issue in 4 weeks and voting again.The vote was about the future of the country and not how many Euros you get to the pound for your hols.

It isn't just about holiday spending money. It's about jobs, inflation, etc.

Ballysmate wrote:

Some posters still don't get how much a lot of voters here and in Europe are sick of the EU, same as the the EU leaders ignoring the mood of the people. If they had not pressed on for more financial and political union, there would not be the same appetite to leave.

That might be true for your generation, but younger generations (including the British population) are far more pro-European and in the future, it is likely that further integration will be able to go ahead with the consent of European populations.

This is from the Pew Research Centre on European attitudes towards further integration.



At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

Other findings from the study are here. Bit of a mixed bag, but certainly nothing to suggest that there is widespread popular support for the EU falling to pieces.

Ballysmate wrote:

Sturgeon maintaining that Scotland voted to remain and so could block Brexit doesn't stand scrutiny. The vote was a UK wide vote and not a local one. If Scotland had voted for Indy 2 years ago, would the Shetlands have been able to block it if they had voted to stay with the UK - of course not.

It's more likely that the Scots will just vote to leave.

coopster_the_1st

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let's put the recent losses in the FTSE 250 and 100 into perspective shall we.

Don't do that. Otherwise, how can some maintain their position of hysteria that we are heading towards being a third world country? :roll:

bramstoker

finch wrote:

Big List

1.Because opinion polls consistently get it right. Sure
2.Do we go door to door asking them how they voted and if they have changed their minds? Thought your vote was a private matter.
3.We cant deal until we invoke, so technically we would be out already.
4.Thats one for the tea leaves, if they really get salty about us leaving whats to stop them saying no deal full stop? But they can do that if we now try to stay in.
5.Could happen if we were still in, Greece isn't exactly rolling in cash.
6.Dont think things can get that bad in under a couple of years, so see 3.
7.Going to have to be quick, (2 year thing again) But i could for see the turn out to be laughable, so they could be voted in on a 40% turn out or less. Hardly a mandate from the people.
8.Would probably break viewing records on youtube.

Lookyhere

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let's put the recent losses in the FTSE 250 and 100 into perspective shall we.

Don't do that. Otherwise, how can some maintain their position of hysteria that we are heading towards being a third world country? :roll:

its not just the ftse, which longer term will effect pensions, its our loss of AAA and the increased borrowing further out that will bring, add in the deal we ll get, pay in, accept free movement and have zero say, inward investment, currency & inflation, we buy our oil in dollars.

what more do you want???? and we ve not even got to article 50 yet, face it coopster, you ve called it all wrong, the IMF, BOE etc etc were right, do you really think that if we acted on A15 all would be rosy? seems incredible you still cant face facts.

You need to remember that 6 months ago, everything was fairly benign, this is self inflicted turmoil.

Greece 10years ago, was a prosperous country, dont take our current state as being infallible.

cycleclinic

As it sinks in that the leave voters have been duped poltiicans will be held in lower esteem then they are today. I wonder if the claims of a corupt elite on the gravey train of westminster will be used against ukip and leave politicans. This wirlwind will bite back. Choas for years to come.

Scotland is looking more attractive every day.

I wish for simpler times the 2008 finacial crash at least we know where we are with that.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Some posters still don't get how much a lot of voters here and in Europe are sick of the EU, same as the the EU leaders ignoring the mood of the people. If they had not pressed on for more financial and political union, there would not be the same appetite to leave.

That might be true for your generation, but younger generations (including the British population) are far more pro-European and in the future, it is likely that further integration will be able to go ahead with the consent of European populations.

This is from the Pew Research Centre on European attitudes towards further integration.



At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

So the result of a survey shows that in every single country surveyed, more people want powers to be returned to national governments that want more powers transferred to Brussels, plasmon most cases less than a quarter want more power transferred to Brussels - and your conclusion is that further integration should proceed. Surely this shows that the opposite should happen.

I think what we will find is that further integration will make those stats even worse and wil, trigger more referenda as other countries reach their own limits of tolerance with the 'European project'.

bramstoker

thecycleclinic wrote:

As it sinks in that the leave voters have been duped poltiicans will be held in lower esteem then they are today. I wonder if the claims of a corupt elite on the gravey train of westminster will be used against ukip and leave politicans. This wirlwind will bite back. Choas for years to come.

Scotland is looking more attractive every day.

I wish for simpler times the 2008 finacial crash at least we know where we are with that.

What a world we live in, greedy bankers are now better than giving people a voice. Money is the new GOD :twisted:

finchy

bramstoker wrote:

1.Because opinion polls consistently get it right. Sure

The vote to leave was in the margin of error of many of the polls running up to the referendum. If you got opinion polling consistently showing 60% of the population want one thing, that would usually be a very accurate reflection of public opinion.

bramstoker wrote:

2.Do we go door to door asking them how they voted and if they have changed their minds? Thought your vote was a private matter.

I was thinking more of regretful Brexit voters pressing for a second chance, not the government asking people.

bramstoker wrote:

3.We cant deal until we invoke, so technically we would be out already.

Why would the EU stop us changing our minds? We're a net contributor and they all seemed pretty desperate to stay.

bramstoker wrote:

4.Thats one for the tea leaves, if they really get salty about us leaving whats to stop them saying no deal full stop? But they can do that if we now try to stay in.

They can do that. Another possibility is that rather than trying to block a deal, they simply can't come to an agreement that satisfies all 27 member states. That's why I'm so mad about the leave campaign. They've gone out and promised something over which they will have virtually no control over.

bramstoker wrote:

5.Could happen if we were still in, Greece isn't exactly rolling in cash.

It could happen, but it probably wouldn't and my question is working on the assumption that Thursday's vote precipitated such a crisis.

bramstoker wrote:

6.Dont think things can get that bad in under a couple of years, so see 3.

Probably won't but it's a purely hypothetical question.

bramstoker wrote:

7.Going to have to be quick, (2 year thing again) But i could for see the turn out to be laughable, so they could be voted in on a 40% turn out or less. Hardly a mandate from the people.

I don't see why a GE would have such a low turnout, especially given the stakes.

bramstoker wrote:

8.Would probably break viewing records on youtube.

Indeed. He'd have to release a video of him dancing to Gangnam Style to push it into no. 2.

ballysmate

finchy wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

People calling for a second vote? ?? If that goes the other way do we have to go for the best of 3? There was a vote and the result stands, like it or not.

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.
2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.
3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.
4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.
5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.
6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.
7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.
8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

Ballysmate wrote:

The markets have been in turmoil? well that was expected wasn't it? Somebody suggested returning to the issue in 4 weeks and voting again.The vote was about the future of the country and not how many Euros you get to the pound for your hols.

It isn't just about holiday spending money. It's about jobs, inflation, etc.

Ballysmate wrote:

Some posters still don't get how much a lot of voters here and in Europe are sick of the EU, same as the the EU leaders ignoring the mood of the people. If they had not pressed on for more financial and political union, there would not be the same appetite to leave.

That might be true for your generation, but younger generations (including the British population) are far more pro-European and in the future, it is likely that further integration will be able to go ahead with the consent of European populations.

This is from the Pew Research Centre on European attitudes towards further integration.



At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

Other findings from the study are here. Bit of a mixed bag, but certainly nothing to suggest that there is widespread popular support for the EU falling to pieces.

Ballysmate wrote:

Sturgeon maintaining that Scotland voted to remain and so could block Brexit doesn't stand scrutiny. The vote was a UK wide vote and not a local one. If Scotland had voted for Indy 2 years ago, would the Shetlands have been able to block it if they had voted to stay with the UK - of course not.

It's more likely that the Scots will just vote to leave.

My generation? Are the views of my generation or any other generation less or more valid than those of others?

Can't see the Scots voting to leave. There is still the same gaping hole in their budget if they do.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

So the result of a survey shows that in every single country surveyed, more people want powers to be returned to national governments that want more powers transferred to Brussels, plasmon most cases less than a quarter want more power transferred to Brussels - and your conclusion is that further integration should proceed. Surely this shows that the opposite should happen.

I think what we will find is that further integration will make those stats even worse and wil, trigger more referenda as other countries reach their own limits of tolerance with the 'European project'.

No, my conclusion, as I've highlighted, is that any integration should be very gradual so that it does not alienate people and instead reflects the changing attitudes of the European public over time.

My second conclusion is that younger generations will be more comfortable with closer political union than people your age, so in the future, further integration will be more acceptable.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

My generation? Are the views of my generation or any other generation less or more valid than those of others?

No, but you seem to be assuming that others in Britain and Europe share your views. Some people do, others don't, but the future of the EU is probably closer integration, and the trend is for the population of Europe to be more Europhile as time goes on.

ballysmate

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

So the result of a survey shows that in every single country surveyed, more people want powers to be returned to national governments that want more powers transferred to Brussels, plasmon most cases less than a quarter want more power transferred to Brussels - and your conclusion is that further integration should proceed. Surely this shows that the opposite should happen.

I think what we will find is that further integration will make those stats even worse and wil, trigger more referenda as other countries reach their own limits of tolerance with the 'European project'.

No, my conclusion, as I've highlighted, is that any integration should be very gradual so that it does not alienate people and instead reflects the changing attitudes of the European public over time.

My second conclusion is that younger generations will be more comfortable with closer political union than people your age, so in the future, further integration will be more acceptable.[/quote]


Any further integration should follow the mood and wishes of the people, not as you seem to suggest, keeping pushing the boundaries of what the EU thinks it can get away with.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

So the result of a survey shows that in every single country surveyed, more people want powers to be returned to national governments that want more powers transferred to Brussels, plasmon most cases less than a quarter want more power transferred to Brussels - and your conclusion is that further integration should proceed. Surely this shows that the opposite should happen.

I think what we will find is that further integration will make those stats even worse and wil, trigger more referenda as other countries reach their own limits of tolerance with the 'European project'.

No, my conclusion, as I've highlighted, is that any integration should be very gradual so that it does not alienate people and instead reflects the changing attitudes of the European public over time.

My second conclusion is that younger generations will be more comfortable with closer political union than people your age, so in the future, further integration will be more acceptable.

Any further integration should follow the mood and wishes of the people, not as you seem to suggest, keeping pushing the boundaries of what the EU thinks it can get away with.[/quote]

I wasn't suggesting this at all. Is this National Put Words Into Finchy's Mouth Day? :roll:

ballysmate

finchy wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

My generation? Are the views of my generation or any other generation less or more valid than those of others?

No, but you seem to be assuming that others in Britain and Europe share your views. Some people do, others don't, but the future of the EU is probably closer integration, and the trend is for the population of Europe to be more Europhile as time goes on.

Share my views? By your own figures in a previous post you demonstrated that millions of people across Europe want less integration. 17m people in the UK voted Brexit so it can be inferred that at least 17m want less integration. Are they all old folks who will gradually wither away?

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

finchy wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

My generation? Are the views of my generation or any other generation less or more valid than those of others?

No, but you seem to be assuming that others in Britain and Europe share your views. Some people do, others don't, but the future of the EU is probably closer integration, and the trend is for the population of Europe to be more Europhile as time goes on.

Share my views? By your own figures in a previous post you demonstrated that millions of people across Europe want less integration.

What I meant is that you seem to think that most people share your views in believing that integration has gone too far. In most of these countries, the survey shows that there is no clear majority viewpoint on how much more power should be given to the European parliament or taken away from it. As I say, some people share your views, others don't. I, for one, am quite happy to see closer European political union, but neither you nor I can speak for a majority of Europeans. As time goes on, demographics (with young people being consistently more pro-European than their elders across Europe) would suggest that further integration will become more acceptable.

Ballysmate wrote:

17m people in the UK voted Brexit so it can be inferred that at least 17m want less integration. Are they all old folks who will gradually wither away?

Not all, but that's the general way of things. Old people and young people have different ideas about how societies should be run. Old people tend not to like change so much, young people are more comfortable with change. As older generations die off, societies change. It's just the way of the world, and it'll be like that when I'm an old man too.

bramstoker

finchy wrote:

The vote to leave was in the margin of error of many of the polls running up to the referendum. If you got opinion polling consistently showing 60% of the population want one thing, that would usually be a very accurate reflection of public opinion.

Give enough monkeys enough typewriters and they can write shakespeare . Much the same with polls.

finchy wrote:

I was thinking more of regretful Brexit voters pressing for a second chance, not the government asking people.

You mean the people that have just been called, mouth breathing unemployed racists, give them a second chance to become decent people? Ok

finchy wrote:

Why would the EU stop us changing our minds? We're a net contributor and they all seemed pretty desperate to stay.

Works both ways if we are so important won't a good deal be in everyones interest?

finchy wrote:

They can do that. Another possibility is that rather than trying to block a deal, they simply can't come to an agreement that satisfies all 27 member states. That's why I'm so mad about the leave campaign. They've gone out and promised something over which they will have virtually no control over.

And that is the nub of the problem, getting 27 states to agree on anything, don't you see that as actually holding the EU back? Each wants the best for them selves yet all the others hold them back, why not try to see if we can do better without being held back by 27 others ?

finchy wrote:

It could happen, but it probably wouldn't and my question is working on the assumption that Thursday's vote precipitated such a crisis.

It did happen to greece, so shit can happen by staying in as much as getting out.

finchy wrote:

Probably won't but it's a purely hypothetical question.

hypothetically we could have 100% employment and wages 100% higher than they are now in 2 years time.

finchy wrote:

I don't see why a GE would have such a low turnout, especially given the stakes.

Given the stakes and how much young people lives are going to be ruined by this, you would have thought they could have got off their asses and voted to remain. 30% didn't vote as people who want a rerun keep telling us, don't you think that number will go down in a GE as a lesser turnout is normal, and the next one if its fought on a remain cause will disenfranchise 17m people.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let's put the recent losses in the FTSE 250 and 100 into perspective shall we.

Don't do that. Otherwise, how can some maintain their position of hysteria that we are heading towards being a third world country? :roll:

You are the only person saying third world - not least because it was decreed demeaning and replaced with developing about twenty years ago. I am not sure what ist that makes you but consider yourself accused.

Anyway you are right about stock markets merely being an indicator. A much better indicator is the bond market, the govt sale next week will be a better indicator in the markets attitude towards the risk in keep funding our deficit.

ballysmate

Finchy, you may be correct that future generations will be more open to closer integration but the political leaders should have been paying more heed to the here and now. By moving too quickly and assuming public opinion would play catch up was a mistake.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

I do wonder what Industry is making of it all. The CEO's must be pulling some strings down at the club. It'll be suicide for setting up business outside of the EU in foreigner hating Britain. We'll get no investment from any multinationals.
Existing ones will be looking to expand outside rather than in the UK and we'll die a death.

Money always talks loudest and the Tories (or ANY parties) won't be getting any funds from anyone other than JCB (dunno what his plan is) or Dyson (buy British ! And I've sacked my workforce and the hoovers are made in Malaysia - that's 4000 jobs that could have been in Britain)

Your evidence for this is what?

Certainly the multinational I work for is not.planning along these lines.

Not that it counts for sh!t, but I have (confidential) evidence from a bunch of BIG FS firms.

Theres some difference between delaying decisions due to the current turmoil and taking a strategic decisoon to move investment etc away from the UK. Not sure why any rational MNC would make the strategic decision so quickly before the 'lie of the land' is even known.

They have had over a year to think about this and are pretty sure they will lose passporting rights. People are expensive to hire, train and get rid of so why not stop doing it in the UK. I imagine there will be benefits to being an early mover in terms of office space and local hires.

finchy

bramstoker wrote:

finchy wrote:

The vote to leave was in the margin of error of many of the polls running up to the referendum. If you got opinion polling consistently showing 60% of the population want one thing, that would usually be a very accurate reflection of public opinion.

Give enough monkeys enough typewriters and they can write shakespeare . Much the same with polls.

No. That's wrong.

finchy wrote:

I was thinking more of regretful Brexit voters pressing for a second chance, not the government asking people.

You mean the people that have just been called, mouth breathing unemployed racists, give them a second chance to become decent people? Ok

It's not about others giving them a chance. It's about these people who have changed their mind, and initial polls show that there are a lot of them already, coming together to pressure the government. If that happened (and I'm talking hypothetically here), would that be grounds for a referendum

finchy wrote:

Why would the EU stop us changing our minds? We're a net contributor and they all seemed pretty desperate to stay.

Works both ways if we are so important won't a good deal be in everyones interest?

They want us in the club, not outside it.

finchy wrote:

They can do that. Another possibility is that rather than trying to block a deal, they simply can't come to an agreement that satisfies all 27 member states. That's why I'm so mad about the leave campaign. They've gone out and promised something over which they will have virtually no control over.

And that is the nub of the problem, getting 27 states to agree on anything, don't you see that as actually holding the EU back? Each wants the best for them selves yet all the others hold them back, why not try to see if we can do better without being held back by 27 others ?

But they do agree on a lot of issues. This idea that the EU is some sort of unworkable institution is a fabrication.

finchy wrote:

It could happen, but it probably wouldn't and my question is working on the assumption that Thursday's vote precipitated such a crisis.

It did happen to greece, so shoot can happen by staying in as much as getting out.

And we could get wiped out by an asteroid, so let's not worry about the chances of a nuclear war.

finchy wrote:

Probably won't but it's a purely hypothetical question.

hypothetically we could have 100% employment and wages 100% higher than they are now in 2 years time.

And that wasn't the hypothetical question I was asking ballysmate

finchy wrote:

I don't see why a GE would have such a low turnout, especially given the stakes.

Given the stakes and how much young people lives are going to be ruined by this, you would have thought they could have got off their asses and voted to remain. 30% didn't vote as people who want a rerun keep telling us, don't you think that number will go down in a GE as a lesser turnout is normal, and the next one if its fought on a remain cause will disenfranchise 17m people.

If the next one is fought on remain vs. leave, then leave supporters can vote for parties which support their view. And I'm only talking about whether it would be enough to trigger a 2nd referendum, not to pull out without one

Anyway, my main overarching point is that lots of people on here are saying that we just have to accept the result of this referendum as binding, definitely can't have a second one. My argument is that this is a flawed idea, because circumstances might change drastically. That's why I gave ballysmate a list of hypothetical situations in which we might consider a second referendum.

Despite the obvious lies of the leave campaign, I don't think we should have another referendum just because my side lost, but I do think that if in 6 months' time, or a year from now, there is clear, reliable evidence that Brexit is no longer popular with the British people, or that it is having disastrous consequences for the nation's economy, the government should put the question to voters again.

surrey_commuter

bramstoker wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

i dont believe in punishing anyone (not all old folk voted OUT) like all of us, they were lied too, for the sole purpose of Boris's power grab, his pro IN statements, as late as this spring, show he is no Farage, jsut a liar.

But you want the views of 17m people to be punished by overturning what they asked for?

Is the market turmoil we have now and which "may" get better going to be any worse than the turmoil that we will face if it gets over turned ? How will 17m people react to what a turn round will do? How will the EU punish us if we now say sorry we didn't mean it? Will they want Fiscal integration, what will they demand to prove we are good europeans if we now say ooooops.

Yes I would like to see the 17 million punished - but through them paying off the new deficit heading our way, the non-voters could chip in.

If it was overt turned it would be good turmoil but there would be a price. The EU don' t need this shit so I imagine they would demand we lock ourselves in for at least 20 years. That is not going to happen.

surrey_commuter

finchy wrote:

bramstoker wrote:

finchy wrote:

The vote to leave was in the margin of error of many of the polls running up to the referendum. If you got opinion polling consistently showing 60% of the population want one thing, that would usually be a very accurate reflection of public opinion.

Give enough monkeys enough typewriters and they can write shakespeare . Much the same with polls.

No. That's wrong.

finchy wrote:

I was thinking more of regretful Brexit voters pressing for a second chance, not the government asking people.

You mean the people that have just been called, mouth breathing unemployed racists, give them a second chance to become decent people? Ok

It's not about others giving them a chance. It's about these people who have changed their mind, and initial polls show that there are a lot of them already, coming together to pressure the government. If that happened (and I'm talking hypothetically here), would that be grounds for a referendum

finchy wrote:

Why would the EU stop us changing our minds? We're a net contributor and they all seemed pretty desperate to stay.

Works both ways if we are so important won't a good deal be in everyones interest?

They want us in the club, not outside it.

finchy wrote:

They can do that. Another possibility is that rather than trying to block a deal, they simply can't come to an agreement that satisfies all 27 member states. That's why I'm so mad about the leave campaign. They've gone out and promised something over which they will have virtually no control over.

And that is the nub of the problem, getting 27 states to agree on anything, don't you see that as actually holding the EU back? Each wants the best for them selves yet all the others hold them back, why not try to see if we can do better without being held back by 27 others ?

But they do agree on a lot of issues. This idea that the EU is some sort of unworkable institution is a fabrication.

finchy wrote:

It could happen, but it probably wouldn't and my question is working on the assumption that Thursday's vote precipitated such a crisis.

It did happen to greece, so shoot can happen by staying in as much as getting out.

And we could get wiped out by an asteroid, so let's not worry about the chances of a nuclear war.

finchy wrote:

Probably won't but it's a purely hypothetical question.

hypothetically we could have 100% employment and wages 100% higher than they are now in 2 years time.

And that wasn't the hypothetical question I was asking ballysmate

finchy wrote:

I don't see why a GE would have such a low turnout, especially given the stakes.

Given the stakes and how much young people lives are going to be ruined by this, you would have thought they could have got off their asses and voted to remain. 30% didn't vote as people who want a rerun keep telling us, don't you think that number will go down in a GE as a lesser turnout is normal, and the next one if its fought on a remain cause will disenfranchise 17m people.

If the next one is fought on remain vs. leave, then leave supporters can vote for parties which support their view. And I'm only talking about whether it would be enough to trigger a 2nd referendum, not to pull out without one

Anyway, my main overarching point is that lots of people on here are saying that we just have to accept the result of this referendum as binding, definitely can't have a second one. My argument is that this is a flawed idea, because circumstances might change drastically. That's why I gave ballysmate a list of hypothetical situations in which we might consider a second referendum.

Despite the obvious lies of the leave campaign, I don't think we should have another referendum just because my side lost, but I do think that if in 6 months' time, or a year from now, there is clear, reliable evidence that Brexit is no longer popular with the British people, or that it is having disastrous consequences for the nation's economy, the government should put the question to voters again.

I think we are past the point of no return. I think the EU would force us out as they know this would not go away and they don't need the uncertainty.

However as it turns out the Leave Campaign is not a cohesive body and does not actually have a plan. The opportunity is to shape that plan and go against the will of the people and do a Norway style deal.

ballysmate

finchy wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

People calling for a second vote? ?? If that goes the other way do we have to go for the best of 3? There was a vote and the result stands, like it or not.

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.

We have had a referendum which is the only poll that counts

2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.

As someone previously said, how is this figure measured?

3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.

We would have triggered A50 so would be out. We would have to rejoin.

4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.

See 3 We are out.

5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.

See 3

6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.

We can't remain. We are OUT

7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.

If that is in their manifesto another referendum could and should be held. If A50 has alredy been triggered we would have to rejoin with all the implications of new members. Can't see that getting a majority.

8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

The owner of the tape does a Dr David Kelly

Ballysmate wrote:

The markets have been in turmoil? well that was expected wasn't it? Somebody suggested returning to the issue in 4 weeks and voting again.The vote was about the future of the country and not how many Euros you get to the pound for your hols.

It isn't just about holiday spending money. It's about jobs, inflation, etc.

Ballysmate wrote:

Some posters still don't get how much a lot of voters here and in Europe are sick of the EU, same as the the EU leaders ignoring the mood of the people. If they had not pressed on for more financial and political union, there would not be the same appetite to leave.

That might be true for your generation, but younger generations (including the British population) are far more pro-European and in the future, it is likely that further integration will be able to go ahead with the consent of European populations.

This is from the Pew Research Centre on European attitudes towards further integration.



At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

Other findings from the study are here. Bit of a mixed bag, but certainly nothing to suggest that there is widespread popular support for the EU falling to pieces.

Ballysmate wrote:

Sturgeon maintaining that Scotland voted to remain and so could block Brexit doesn't stand scrutiny. The vote was a UK wide vote and not a local one. If Scotland had voted for Indy 2 years ago, would the Shetlands have been able to block it if they had voted to stay with the UK - of course not.

It's more likely that the Scots will just vote to leave.

ballysmate

Talking of opportunism, 2 years ago the SNP were more than willing to be ejected by the EU, now apparently it is paramount that it remains in.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Talking of opportunism, 2 years ago the SNP were more than willing to be ejected by the EU, now apparently it is paramount that it remains in.

Single issue politics - what could possibly go wrong with that?