Great point. Given how important immigration was to the debate - for me it swung it to the Leave campaign, being part of the EEA was not what the Leave voters wanted.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Great point. Given how important immigration was to the debate - for me it swung it to the Leave campaign, being part of the EEA was not what the Leave voters wanted.
The Dutch foreign minister put it best last week:
"You have relatively low wages and at the same time immediately people get a lot of benefits. That attracts a lot of migration. It has nothing to do with Europe. It has to do with your domestic rules and regulations."
One huge problem I see in the UK is people living in a paid for council house, and having 6 children because it's hugely beneficial and never needing to work. That's a problem. The Tory Party wants child benefit restricted to the first three children. That would save £300million a year I read.
I mentioned earlier too that the Health Service in Sweden is largely free, but if if you're employed then to see a doctor you have to pay roughly £20 /visit, to a maximum of £100. Small things DFresh but they make a huge difference.
Well, everyone is interviewed in France, we don't like ostracization, most of the time she is just insulted by the interviewer.
So the answer was yes then. Exactly yes. Not exactly stronger together on all issues are you?
Child poverty is a huge issue. It has increased by hundreds of thousands in the last few years, but, as long as there is free movement of labour that's just fine.
I can't agree with that logic.
You can't expect the EU to be perfectly rational and pragmatic when Britain votes based on emotion and fear. I'm sure the Greeks thought that Germany would compromise during the bailout talks.
This probably sums it up:
How was the answer yes? Not sure what on Earth child poverty had to do with my post Fresh? I'm arguing the opposite, that's exactly what I think we shoudl be putting an end to, WorldWide, not just in old blighty.
Why is Sweden also in the EU with a much smaller exomony but has a much smaller Lower Class, the World's best paternity/maternity leave benefits and is often listed among the best places to live?
Because it's been well run, has high wages (due to Unions, something the UK government pretty much got rid of) and has an amazing health service?
It that the EU fault?
The UK should bring back Unions, increase wages, improve maternity/paternity leave & therefore make it more appealing to work than to get a house and life paid for by having more and more children. At the same time, these changes also help control migration. A UK citizen is much more likely to be employed than an equally qualified Polish worker if the wages can't be pushed down to a level that would suit only the non-UK worker.
Last edited:
We can more easily improve the state of farming subsidies here at home, than we can reform the CAP with so many vested interests across the continent.
It's the primacy over UK decision making, and its unaccountability that concerns ms. I wouldn't want us to withdraw from the ECHR in the aftermath of Brexit mind you, particularly with Theresa May as a strong contender for prime minister.
I would argue that it could dilute their future argument. Such groups are thriving because of EU/Eurzone policies, it is not a case of the nations alone.
Not at all. I am happy for us to be involved in effective and necessary cooperative programmes, for example: the European Research Council, European Space Agency and European Environment Agency.
Reducing benefits to lower migration is a race to the bottom and will cause more child poverty. There is no other possible outcome.
What good are unions to people out of work? Moving the goalposts to talk about Sweden does not change what you're are suggesting.
We are directly talking about blighty due to the thread topic and your point. Not sure why you are denying it.
You stated clearly that reducing the benefits would stem immigration.
I think it is actually far more damaging to populations to limit social support for the lowest in society as opposed to limiting numbers moving around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Electoral_performance
Ironically, he's never got elected to anything other than the European parliament. He's got a 0 in 7 record for Westminister and a 4 in 5 record for the European Parliament.
Maybe he's right when he says there's something wrong with the democratic system in the EU.
The UK should bring back Unions, increase wages, improve maternity/paternity leave & therefore make it more appealing to work than to get a house and life paid for by having more and more children. At the same time, these changes also help control migration. A UK citizen is much more likely to be employed than an equally qualified Polish worker if the wages can't be pushed down to a level that would suit only the non-UK worker.
Preventing immediate benefits for people coming into the UK also helps.
That you don't remotely appear to understand this is confusing. The UK government has been letting the UK down with a social system that suits the businesses rather than the people, this is not te fault of the EU.
Our wages are one of the highest in Europe.
Our Maternity/Paternity is pretty decent too.
Unions would likely increase both these further.
How is any of that going to deter Migration? (Which was your point) I would suggest they would have the opposite effect.
I also wonder who all these people are having children and getting free houses.
Plus these increased costs would add to inflation and in turn benefits which you are cutting, making the disparity for the out of work, disabled even greater.
I'm not really liking it to be fair.
Last edited:
You maternity is awful, paternity is a joke.
Miniumum wage for the World's 5th largest ecomony is a piss take, which is one of the huge reasons for many voting leave, cause companies employ Polish people for cheaper.
You ignored the rest of my post and seem to think the UK system with a massive lower class is bang on, so we'll miles away from each other on our thoughts on UK governence and society.
Not sure what points I missed but i'm not convinced people voted out hugely for that reason.
Most complaints were surrounding infrastructure being outstripped by sheer weight of numbers and the fear of that getting worse as the EU continues downward.
Doctors appointments, School places, hospitals and housing. Real issues families have that successive governments have failed to deal with.
Unfortunately new arrivals are always going to blamed for these shortages.
We know that either supply or demand needs to be adjusted and a majority thought demand was easier to fix than supply.
One of the EU's major flaws is they cannot invest when issues arise due to debt limits and for the UK's part they decided to follow the same path even without the rules in place for political reasons.
No it's not. It's a personal opinion.
Plus, it has never even been seriously discussed, only them leaving the Euro, which is another question.
Thank goodness it is that simple
And there is a huge amount of evidence that people voted leave for reasosn as varied as stopping migration from non-EU countries (which won't stop), some vague sense of Nation/sovereignty (which is downright untrue), an utter lie or 3 ($350 million per day to the NHS) and some vague idea that leaving Europe would make the poor better off (which is the opposite of what will happen).
If we want to take such a monumental leap of faith, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and on such a slim margin, then the least we can do is hold another referendum alongside the next general election with the specific plan for exit vs staying in as the question. Given that referendums are only advisory to parliament and the majority of aprliament are against leaving to do otherwise would seem a very bad decision. Of course with the incompetents and cowards we have for politicians this is very unlikely.
This is what leave voters seem to be unable to realise. They state that remain politicians are acting in self interest but the main proprietor of the Leave campaign is quite clearly only doing so for his own self interest. They don't understand that yet and they likely never will.
Thanks. It doesn't really address the point regarding voting out and being happy with joining the EEA though. I doubt the EEA sub question was even part of that poll you've linked to.
Many people I've spoken to stated that voting to come out of the EU gives us the opportunity to open the doors to a much larger global market - in addition to still trading with the EU countries of course. There will be a shit load of negotiating that needs doing onviously and it will take years rather than months to get things put in place so I'm under no illusions that it will be a rocky ride in the interim period. However, the people that run the country need to man the feck up and get on with it rather than adopting the spineless attitude that they did in the wake of the vote last week when certain people in government went AWOL. I can't believe they didn't do any prep work in advance that was geared towards a Brexit vote - the Bank Of England had a plan in place yet it seems Cameron and Osborne were either too arrogant to think that Leave had no chance of winning or they just thought they'd "wing it" if Leave indeed won.
Last edited:
Its the personal opinion of many many people. Greece had bankrupted itself by living way beyond its means. Many people in Europe are pissed off of having to bail them out again and again especially since they know that its money down the drain. You may think that the ones bailing Greece are rich. Its not. Malta for example is a former colony who went to some bumpy rides before it could offer a prosperous standard of living to its people. There are country bailing Greece who have a lower GDP than Greece itself. Why should we be paying for someone else mistakes?
As said I am pro remain but I do admit that the EU need to be reform. One of the reforms should be that if you try to cheat to get into someone else pockets than you should be out. Too many countries see the EU as a cash cow. That needs to change.
I don't know a single leave voter that reckons politicians on the remain side were acting in self interest and those on the leave side weren't so I don't know where you're getting your information from. Corbyn was anti-EU for most of his political career while Boris was pro-EU so they're both just as bad as each other in the sense that they switched sides for their own agenda. In fact, the only one of the main figureheads of either campaign that truly stuck to his guns all the way through was, somewhat ironically, that gimp Farage. Either way, we weren't voting for the politicians though and these people were just figureheads - we were voting for an ideology and that was to either remain or leave the EU. It was a simple yes or no question. There were no candidates on the ballot paper.
Thank goodness it is that simple
And there is a huge amount of evidence that people voted leave for reasosn as varied as stopping migration from non-EU countries (which won't stop), some vague sense of Nation/sovereignty (which is downright untrue), an utter lie or 3 ($350 million per day to the NHS) and some vague idea that leaving Europe would make the poor better off (which is the opposite of what will happen).
If we want to take such a monumental leap of faith, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and on such a slim margin, then the least we can do is hold another referendum alongside the next general election with the specific plan for exit vs staying in as the question. Given that referendums are only advisory to parliament and the majority of aprliament are against leaving to do otherwise would seem a very bad decision. Of course with the incompetents and cowards we have for politicians this is very unlikely.
Good point and I agree.
Maybe something like 6 months to get a job, no job you get sent back. Which I believe is what Cameron actually negotiated. Might actually deter some from bringing their families along as well until they are settled and working.
Thank goodness it is that simple
And there is a huge amount of evidence that people voted leave for reasosn as varied as stopping migration from non-EU countries (which won't stop), some vague sense of Nation/sovereignty (which is downright untrue), an utter lie or 3 ($350 million per day to the NHS) and some vague idea that leaving Europe would make the poor better off (which is the opposite of what will happen).
Wrong. All the research done shows that almost half of those who voted to leave did so because of “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third wanted to "regain control" over immigration and the country's borders. Note the phrasing there of "regain control" which is quite distinct from "stopping". Only 1 in 20 thought we would be better off. Some have been duped by the NHS figure yes, you got that right, but the rest of that paragraph you've posted you have actually invented. As has been consistent throughout the post referendum debate you, and other pro remainers, are perpetuating the lie that people want to "stop" immigration and that this has been the primary reason for wanting to leave.
You dismiss the desire of several million people to remove this country from a law making process that they believe to be fundamentally undemocratic as a "vague notion of sovereignty" There is little vagueness involved. The majority of those who voted to leave did so with a clear desire that the UKs law making process should be entirely in the hands of people who have been elected by the people and are therefore accountable.
A reminder. Just 1 in 20 thought we would be better off and what that indicates is that the majority of pro leavers believe that preservation of our democratic process is worth a financial hit.
Yes but what we can have is a system employed pre-Maastricht so labour has free movement (in the sense of you having a job offer) but not people just turning up in a labour market in the hope of work - something which relies on market forces and perfect information to work effectively which obviously does not exist.
The problem with the timeline idea is people may get increasing desperate or run out of money. Take jobs beneath their skill level and depress wages in the lower earning sectors.
As you say people will come with no dependants, willing to live in worse conditions to establish themselves which has a knock on effect in the market place. As continent and a world striving to improve conditions it is race to the bottom lowering the prospects of more and more people.
The cynic in me says that many people gave that reason because it is more palatable than saying "I don't want immigrants". However, even if we take it at face value and we also ignore the anachronistic nature of that statement in a deregulated global economy, do those people realise that keeping access to the single market as a non-EU member effectively involves accepting laws made in Brussels?
We need serious reform of both farming and fishing subsidies (fishing subsidies are given, in the main, to 2-3 multinationals, rather than the few thousand individual fishermen that need it). Ideally, these subsidies should be 'reformed' (and yes, by that I mean cut), so we can free up land to build homes for the next generation. This could be an opportunity, no matter how much I wanted the UK to Remain. We should not squander it.
Re: the ECJ, we are party to numerous treaties which allow for foreign courts/arbitrators to decide matters which do affect the UK. I always viewed the ECJ as another one of these. In fact (although I do not disagree with your stance on the ECtHR), I always viewed that court as less legitimate than the ECJ, because successive governments have ratified treaties and forced concessions (such as subsidiarity). Contrary to this, the ECtHR has adopted a living instrument approach to the Convention, and its decisions, although not binding, often carry more political and moral 'weight' than the ECJ.
Michael Gove on food banks.
The cynic in me says that an inability to accept at face value the reasons given is a cloak for another kind of prejudice and that the racism card is far too easily played. In other words it's a cheap shot, seemingly used as a tool to occupy some higher moral ground, and we need to reach a point where genuine concerns about immigration and wanting control do not automatically qualify people as racist.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'd say that laws made in Brussels will obviously continue to affect the UK whether or not access to the single market is retained. It's about a degree of control over the law making process that some believe has been handed to unelected and unaccountable figures ( I probably shouldn't have used the phrase "entirely" as that is probably just an ideal)
The door to number 10 just opened a little wider for May.
Boris is now fecked thankfully.
Gove is an even bigger twunt though. His disastrous stints as Education and Justice Secretary respectively, resulted in embarrassing climbdowns and irrational controversies, such as the Trojan Horse scandal and his inability to ditch the HRA.
I think these negotiations are going to be rather delicate. It's going to be some job to keep everyone happy. For all Brexit won, there are not many people less who didn't want it. It will call for someone who is a good politician.
He is but the hope is that they'll now bitterly go after each other and screw up each others chances.
We cannot ditch the HRA though.
Agreed and I don't believe Gove will get in. Electorally he is toxic so I expect the Tory Party will opt for May. They're very good at getting their leaders right and go about it pretty ruthlessly.
I do hope you're right, but the mess Labour is in right now, I can't see anyone able to capitalise on it.
If it was literally any other political era, this current incarnation of the Tory party would have been lambasted for their utter incompetence to even achieve the bare minimum, from DC all the way down to its Ministers.
Oh, I'm not imagining Labour gaining anything. I'd just rather May than Boris (Gove I refuse to contemplate, he's satanic).