Will Britain vote for Brexit?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by James R, Jun 22, 2016.


Brexit or Bremain?

Poll closed Jun 24, 2016.
  1. I would support Brexit and I think it will succeed.

    3 vote(s)
  2. I would not support Brexit, but I think it will succeed.

    0 vote(s)
  3. I would support Brexit, but I think Britain will Remain.

    2 vote(s)
  4. I would support Remain, and I think Britain will Remain.

    3 vote(s)
  5. I have no opinion / don't want to express my opinion on this.

    1 vote(s)
  6. Brexit? Bremain? What 'chu talkin' about, Willis?

    0 vote(s)
  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    You have to justify any claim you make. The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim, whether that claim is a positive or a negative.
    As such you made the claim that those who voted to leave had no genuine grievances with the EU. Are you going to support that claim?
    The time you don't need to support a negative is when the negative is the default position. Given that 52% of the country voted to leave, the default is surely that they DID have genuine grievance, or at least felt that they did.
    You, by asserting otherwise, are going against that default - so whether the claim is expressing a negative or not, please support it.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    The referendum was with regard the UK, because it is the UK that is the member of the EU. If, for example, you require each and every constituent part of the UK to vote yes then you would have ended up with a majority of the population being held hostage by one or two of the smaller constituents.
    The UK voted to leave. If individual countries wish to remain then to do so they will need to cede from the UK. Scotland undoubtedly will. Not sure about NI - doubtful at the moment, I think. If Scotland do cede then it is unsure whether Scotland will actually leave as part of the UK and then rejoin, or simply not leave with the rest of the UK. But they'd probably have to adopt the Euro etc, so perhaps best they leave then rejoin.

    No - it won't be pretty. Some Euro politicians have serious chips on their shoulders and are only thinking of punishment - wanting to hold people in the EU by fear of reprisal rather than for the vision of what the EU might one day be.

    We'll suffer financially most likely. Quite considerably so as well, by all accounts.
    It was not what I voted for. I will suffer financially as a result. But the vote has been made, time to make the best of it we can - for all parties.
    Confused2 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. geordief Valued Senior Member

    I am moving the goal posts ,but by "genuine" I meant broadly "substantial" . I don't intend to back this up as I don't wish to enter into argument,over this. But I feel my point is quite easy to understand.

    I don't think the EU treated Britain in any unusual way and I think the people who voted for a Brexit by and large looked for ways to feel offended.

    I won't say much more.(unless you want to bring up examples where you think they might reasonably feel "hard done by")
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    There will still be a Great Britain: England and Wales. A not-as-Great Britain if you will.
    If N.Ireland cede to the rest of Ireland then the United Kingdom will cease to be relevant as a descriptor.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    couple things

    a) does parliament have to follow the referendum vote?
    if so
    b) when do you expect parliament to vote on the issue?
    c)once parliament votes, how long will it take for UK to actually exit the EU?
  9. geordief Valued Senior Member

    The referendum could have been taken UK wide but it should have respected the separateness of the 4 parts (somehow, anyhow -it is a terrible disrespect to fail to do so and it looks as if there may be a price to pay)

    The dissolution of the UK is too high a price to pay for this dubious and messy principle.

    A veto on the outcome (or simply an acquiescence in the procedure) would not have been hard to organize . In any case 50% was to low a bar for a fundamental constitutional change in the first place.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Doesn't look like they are in the mood to agree.

    My bad, I thought they had.

    With the sheer amount that was lost, it is dire. It is a huge drop and loss in a very few short hours.

    1 trillion pounds in a day is not good.

    At present, it is catastrophic. And the cost of a lot of that will be felt in the UK for a very long time and those who will feel it most will be the poor, ironically, the very people who voted for the exit.

    Even more ironic is that the Leave campaign were pushing against big banks and it's the big banks who are trying to save their economy during the crash.

    No one knows for how long. It depends solely on how long it takes the UK to implement Article 50 and actually start to negotiate with the EU. There is too much uncertainty at present and it feels like everything is in limbo and in a way, it is. Which is why the EU want this done quickly and why so many in Europe cannot understand why it could take months before the UK has a new PM who will then have to trigger Article 50. To wit, for Europe and the world market, really, the more the UK stalls this or takes its time, the longer it will take.

    Yes, the world has had recessions before, as has the UK. But this time it will be different. This time, the UK will literally be on its own and for people living in the UK, the cost of living will go up, and it is highly likely benefits and wages may end up being reduced. No one knows what will happen, this is uncharted territory as far as the UK is concerned. I think one of the worst things to come out of it is the realisation that people simply did not think this through. Nationalistic pride, bigotry and racism drove this campaign. The people who benefited the most from the EU by way of aid to their counties and industries, are the ones who voted to leave. Perhaps they thought the financial support they currently enjoy would still be there upon exit. Perhaps they thought the UK Government would simply have much more to spend on them. Clearly it will not.

    I would be curious to see if an election was called prior to Article 50, whether those people who will be feeling a fairly strong financial pinch as a result of this, would still be voting to leave in an actual election campaign. And whether those who voted Leave thinking it would never happen, would do so again with hindsight.

    Which is ironic.

    Those who supposedly would have enjoyed a more secure and prosperous UK according to the Leave campaign, they being the younger demographic, voted to remain.

    As for pensions.. That will depend on what pensioners invested their money in and whether the Government carries out its threat regarding the triple lock. Personal pensions and defined contributions are affected by the stock market. And there's about what? 5-6 million people in the UK who have a personal pension or pension plan? If not even more? And I think the defined contribution pension plans have around the same amount, if not more? I am guessing they are not smiling today.

    I'd say you are well on your way.

    From my relative's perspective, they are questioning staying and operating businesses in a country that does not want migrants or foreigners there. And frankly, I cannot blame them. A lot of the backlash that led to the Leave vote was because of the feeling that to leave would mean less immigration (even though leaving the EU will have no effect on immigration to the UK).

    And that is on top of the uncertainty of how the UK will be able to trade with the EU.

    I cannot fault them for wanting to take their businesses to the EU after this vote. I would probably have put contingencies in place too in case Leave won. They have and are now looking to take their business elsewhere.


    By which point there will have to be an election. As I said, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the left chose to campaign of a "stay in the EU" strategy and won..

    From my cousin's perspective, she doesn't see why she should stay when the overriding sentiment has been about immigration and foreigners in the UK. She's quite disheartened by it all and rightly so. I did suggest to her that she wait this out and see, but she is very upset by this vote and the overriding sentiment behind it. In short, she doesn't feel welcome in the UK. It will take her a while, she has contingencies in place, just in case of any uncertainty from when this referendum was announced. But for her, she just doesn't see the point in staying in a country that doesn't want her there physically. She has a small subsidiary in France and is starting to put things in motion to move everything there. She will take a hit financially, but for her, she has made up her mind.

    I have a close friend who runs an architect firm in the UK who does a lot of business with the EU. He is also considering his options, as are a few other friends. I have friends and family who work with and for the EU itself, and who are based in the UK.. This is a disaster for them.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    a) No, the referendum is non-binding, so technically, Parliament is not required to follow the vote. But this would go against the desire of the majority of the voting population if they vote to remain in the EU and discard the referendum, which could have repercussions for them at the next election. So legally, Parliament can simply ignore the results of the referendum and vote to not leave. But again, that would anger many people. In short, they can ignore the will of the stupid and vote against it or adhere to a promise they individually made and vote for it because the stupid voted for it without realising the consequences and set things in motion that could very well see the end of the United Kingdom if and when Scotland and Northern Ireland leave and rejoin the EU as independent States/Countries.

    b) Once Article 50 is triggered. That officially starts the process and there is no going back. Parliament then needs to vote on it.

    c) Hah! The EU have demanded Article 50 be triggered sooner rather than later (as in within a few weeks or even days) to stem the uncertainty, in which case the UK will exit one way or the other in 2 years. Or if the EU's anger simmers down somewhat and allows the UK to negotiate with them for everything (from trade, defence, immigration, British and European expats, science and things like the European Space Agency (if the UK will be allowed to continue to have a role in its program), drugs and medicines, tariffs, imports and exports, travel (visa or no visa), pensions for expats and Europeans living and working in the UK, transport, etc), before triggering Article 50, which could take years or decades.
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Well OK if it's a matter of emotions than that's another story of course. I was responding on what would seem to me the rational course for a business.

    Personally, I think it is a shit decision, by people badly informed, and I blame Corbyn for a lot of it, as it is his voters (i.e people who would mistrust anything from a Tory government) who voted us out and they have shafted themselves - as well as the rest of us.

    The emotions will eventually calm down though, and people will have to work out how to make the best of a bad job. A lot of the threats being bandied about will be dropped. But not Scottish secession, I think.
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    How? As said, if you require all 4 nations to agree then the overall majority may be held back by a majority in just one of the smaller nations. The only way is by simple majority (or whatever % is agreed) but with an understanding that some individual nations may want to go differently to the overall majority, and thus may cede as a result. This is what we have and I honestly can't see it having been done in any other way.
    Maybe the Remain campaign didn't stress the risk to the "united" element of UK, but the methodology adopted seems the only sensible method (percentages not withstanding) to me.
    52% of the population didn't seem to think so. Now, maybe they thought Scotland would vote to leave as well, maybe they simply didn't understand the implications. But those were the risks, and Scotland spelt that risk out quite clearly prior to the vote.
    Veto on the outcome already exists - the referendum is not legally binding. The government can choose not to abide by the majority view.
    As for 50% being too low - I actually agree. If it was a matter of having to take one of two completely new options with no option of retaining the status quo then 50% would seem sensible. But if the option is to retain or change the status quo then I think 60% or even 66% would be more appropriate.
  14. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Another methodology could have been explored co-operatively and if there was only one way of doing it ,then so be it. This referendum put the importance of the treaty with the EU above that of the internal associations and that ,in my opinion was back to front. The various British nations have the choice of "take it or leave it" . That is not good enough.

    Agree that many did not see this and that makes me sad
  15. Bells Staff Member

    For my cousin in particular, it is a bit of both.

    I have urged her to wind it back a bit and slow down. But there are a lot of factors at play for her, family wise and emotionally. She is concerned if she waits too long, or the uncertainty continues, it will be bad for her business. She is very upset about the racism and bigotry behind the vote and the anti-immigration sentiment being bandied about by many. She has taken it personally, as has her family.

    Personally, I think the decision to exit the EU is a terrible decision. What I find particularly troubling is that people really did not think things through in regards to what leaving the EU actually entailed. I do think a lot of the votes were for political reasons and a backlash against the Government. Worse yet, are those who voted leave thinking there was no way the UK would actually leave the EU. It is sheer stupidity. It kind of has the sense of a 'ha ha I'll show them' sentiment and now everyone is stuck with it. I was listening to Farage going on and on about how this was a vote against big banks and big companies and big money. And I had to turn the TV off.

    I was reading that the petition to have another referendum about this had reached over 1 million signatures. And I do agree with you about Scotland. I wonder how many 'Brits' will migrate to Scotland..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. geordief Valued Senior Member

    So do I . And I feel like a scapegoat. He should have been shafted already and this is a good enough excuse.
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Indeed it is dire, especially for citizens of the UK. The British Pound lost nearly 10% of its value in one day. At one point it was down almost 11%. That is indeed dire. You just don't see that kind of price movement in currencies. Below is an article which summarizes the challenges the UK now faces if it goes down this route.


    And that loss in value adversely affects the earnings of every multinational company doing business in the UK. When those companies translate (i.e. exchange) the depreciated British pound into their domestic currency as they must do, the British Pound is worth less domestic currency. That adversely affects the earnings of every multinational company doing business in the UK. That's a big problem. Suddenly doing business in the UK has become much less profitable for every single multinational which does business in the UK - almost 10% less profitable in a single day. That's dire, especially for the UK.
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2016
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I'm not sure they would need to until toward the end of the 2 year time-frame. By then one would hope tempers would have cooled somewhat.
    If it is clear that agreement is nowhere near after 2 years then I can imagine they wouldn't agree, but if a reasonable treaty is imminent, it would make sense to agree to an extension. But then I'm not a politician.

    So what? It's not real money until you crystallise the movement by withdrawing the money. Stock markets move up and down - they always have and always will. And as said, all that happened in the UK was the correction of the increases caused by people effectively pre-empting a Remain win. So no real loss at all (yet) - up 2% in the week.
    Speak to me in a week when the market has dropped 10-20% - then it will be dire.
    But even when the 2008 crash happened, when the FTSE dropped from 6,450 to 4,430, the market recovered. It's currently at 6,130 or so - and has been much higher since 2008.
    And I disagree. I think it is too early to say. Give it a week, give it until the negotiations start.
    The "catastrophic" part will be the uncertainty and thus the lack of investment in the UK until the trading relationships are agreed.
    I'm not sure it will be them. I think it will be the middle-income people - those who have something to lose at present - those with investments. Taxes will rise, which won't affect the poor as they mostly get their income tax-free. Benefits may get hit but a party that does that will soon lose power to a party that doesn't. Prices will rise - yes - which will hit the poor hardest, but the poor will remain poor, and the wealthy will remain wealthy. Those who feel it the most I think will be those at the bottom end of the middle-income.
    But I agree with you that it will be felt for a long time. But leaving was always for the long-game, not the short, and not even the medium.
    Not really. First the delay helps cool tempers from the immediate anger. Secondly the various parties will use any time to pull ideas together. Only when they have their papers in order will they signal the start of the negotiating period. No point in pressing that button while team-UK has no internal consensus of what it is looking for. They need time to put a negotiating team together if nothing else. But primarily I see it as helping cool tempers.
    How will the UK be on its own? For 2 years there will be no change in trading agreements. Any subsequent disruption will be 2-way. Yes, the UK will undoubtedly be affected more deeply, but it is simply not a case of the UK (or even just England and Wales) being on their own.
    And if cost of living goes up, and wages and benefits fall, maybe the leave voters who didn't want the immigration may get their way as a result.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You seem to be offering quite a bit of foresight for someone who then claims that no one knows.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Fully agree in that I think most didn't really think it through. As for the rest of your comment, I think those things drove the result, not necessarily the campaign.
    Who is to say what future governments will do. They will need to put their budgets together as any other government has done.
    An election is unlikely before Article 50 is invoked, and if it was I couldn't see a party campaigning for the mandate to overturn the referendum result.
    And still they might get to enjoy what the Leave campaign believe. We just don't know. In the long-term it may well play out.
    Why not? The market went up 2% last week. They may change their view next week, or next month etc.

    But if you're talking simply about existing pensioners then a recent study by an annuity provider (Partnership) suggests the average pension pot in the UK is just £90k.
    The vast majority of existing pensioners would have had to have bought an annuity - so their incomes are defined and won't change (assuming their provider remains afloat).
    And the triple lock...yes, this might be under threat - but I can't see them reducing the actual amount, only the index by which it is increased (CPI or RPI etc) - and removing the 2.5% minimum yearly increase (given that inflation is currently about 0.3%).

    What will be affected are people's invested savings, whether part of a pension plan or not. But again, the market went up 2% last week. Next week, next month... we'll see.
    It's not that the country does not want migrants or foreigners. For Pete's sake we're one of the most culturally diverse countries going. The leave campaign want migration, want foreigners, but want to take back control of our borders. We want to be able to accept people we want, reject people we want (or so the argument goes).
    Nor can I fault them. One must do what one thinks is best.
    No, there would not have to be an election. The next time an election is needed is 5 years after the last one.
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Maybe most of the 75% of the young folks who voted to remain in the Union will move to Scotland, assuming Scotland will have them. Then who will take care of the elders who voted to leave the Union? Who will pay their bills? It really was a stupid vote. Their only hope rests in another petition.
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Ha. Well I might apply for Scottish nationality, on the grounds that I was born in Edinburgh (to English parents resident there at the time). I have an Anglo-French son to think of, and my wife is from an large extended French family,people everywhere from Paris to Normandy, Toulouse and Montpellier: could be handy for me to have EU rights on the Continent.

    And it has just struck me that the only thing holding Scotland back from independence is not enough income from oil, at currently forecast prices. Now, if they were in the EU while England and Wales were not, might not the banks, the car manufacturers, etc. be tempted to relocate from England to Scotland! Same language and timezone, same labour laws, very similar legal system (though not identical). Could be just what the Scots need to make the venture fly!

    So it could be a case of, "Whiew is the dickhid naow, eh?" And serve Boris and f***ing Farage right.
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    I wonder how many of the exit votes were really an anti-government vote?

    If UK were to have another referendum vote soon, would the results be different?
  22. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Was wondering the same. It seems like whistling past the grave.
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Does democracy never/ever/often/inevitably/occasionally boil down to rule of the mob?

Share This Page