What I've been influenced by is that this country was on its backside in the 60's "the sick man of Europe" and now it's (was) one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
Then of course there's the fact that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for over 70 years. Between 1870 and 1945 Alsace Lorraine changed hands four times!
Then there's the peace in NI partly made possible because both parties to the Good Friday agreement were EU members, and thus differences could easily be settled.
As for employment law. What's to stop a UK government from changing the law the moment we come out of the EU. James Dyson has made it clear that that's one of his aims.
To take such an irrevocable stop on such a small majority really doesn't make sense. So 17.4m voted to come out. Another 16m voted to stay, are their views to be totally ignored. What if some of those who voted leave changed their minds. What about all those who didn't vote? What about all those who weren't qualified (by age) to vote and are now, they've made it abundantly clear where they stand. A 60% majority on a decision like this should have been mandatory.
I don't think the electorate is stupid, I think they've been misled by the likes of Boris Johnson, who's admitted making anti EU stories up when he was a journo on the Telegraph. Kelvin Mckenzie who is a proven liar (Hillsborough) and Paul Dacre who is cracked on the subject.

What I've been influenced by is that this country was on its backside in the 60's "the sick man of Europe" and now it's (was) one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
Then of course there's the fact that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for over 70 years. Between 1870 and 1945 Alsace Lorraine changed hands for times!
Then there's the peace in NI partly made possible because both parties to the Good Friday agreement were EU members, and thus differences could easily be settled.
As for employment law. What's to stop a UK government from changing the law the moment we come out of the EU. James Dyson has made it clear that that's one of his aims.
To take such an irrevocable stop on such a small majority really doesn't make sense. So 17.4m voted to come out. Another 16m voted to stay, are their views to be totally ignored. What if they've changed their minds. What about all those who didn't vote? What about all those who weren't qualified (by age) to vote and are now, they've made it abundantly clear where they stand. A 60% majority on a decision like this should have been mandatory.
I don't think the electorate is stupid, I think they've been misled by the likes of Boris Johnson, who's admitted making anti EU stories up when he was a journo on the Telegraph. Kelvin Mckenzie who is a proven liar (Hillsborough) and Paul Dacre who is cracked on the subject.

I voted to leave. Simple as that.

The detail was always going to be thrashed out later. I'd have thought that was always obvious. Once all the bluster is over the deal will most likely be mostly mutually beneficial, although of course it won't be as good as full EU membership. A price worth paying.

When I vote a government in I don't then demand another election if the detail of their governance isn't precisely what I personally expected.

Why would you do that?

So, are you happy to remain in a customs union or, would this, as some commentators suggest, not actually mean "leaving" or, are you still happy to leave everything to the group of elected representative to find "the best" deal for the country ?

Regarding a government nod adhering to policy or "if the detail of their governance isn't precisely what I personally expected".
I would suggest that you may be incorrect, as, you will always, at least in theory, have the chance to vote said government "out" when the next election comes around.
This particular option isnt applicable with Brexit, unless there is a second referendum.
Maybe this would be the right thing for the country, as we would actually know what we were voting for ?

We can't stay in "the" customs union, and indeed we aren't - as has been confirmed by No.10 many, many, many times. We're also leaving the single market. Of course "a" customs union would be lovely, as long as we don't have to accept EU rules such as freedom of movement, and we can sign our own trade deals independently. Unfortunately the EU are very unlikely to agree to that, although they could surprise us bearing in mind the Irish and Channel borders, and the high levels of trade and economic integration between the UK and the EU. A (not quite free) trade agreement is also likely.

I'm perfectly happy to leave it to our elected representative to negotiate it as long as they honour the vote. That's why they were elected. I'd say the same if it was Labour (except Diane Abbott). They understand that 'leave means leave', and are largely ignoring the bluster and those seeking to block Brexit. Oh, of course if you listen to the BBC, C4 and left-wing rags you probably aren't happy, but in fact negotiations have gone pretty much as most reasonable people predicted.


Tough, that's democracy in action. You don't keep going back until the minority get the result they want.

Unless you're the EU.

No you get a chance to kick them out a few years later, and I bet you spend the intervening years moaning about how stupid the electorate were to vote them in in the first place.
The reason I say it should have been 60% is that there will be no chance to change our minds 4/5 years down the line. We should have another vote, confirm the last one if for no other reason than that the decision is so final.

Perhaps we should leave it to the editor of the Daily Mail? After all he's as constant as the North Star. Or maybe he isn't.
What did he say about the House of Lords the other week? "Traitors" "IT'S TIME TO PULL THE PLUG ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS... WITH EACH DAY THIS HOUSE LOOKS RIPER FOR THE ABATOIR"
Funny that, because in 1998 when New Labour wanted to start reforming the Lords what did he say?
"What Blair wants isn't a more modern House of Lords but a more pliant House of Lords"
Or in 1999 on the same subject "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
Or in 2000 when the Lords blocked the removal of the iniquitous Clause 28 ""the Lords have shown they are truly representative of the people"
Or in 2001 "We are moving to a form of elective dictatorship" funny then that he supported Theresa May's attempt by using powers granted to Henry VIII to by-pass parliament entirely.
2007, on another Labour defeat "Praise be to the Lords"
or finally in 2011 with the coalition in power, again on Lords reform "Nick Clegg has chosen to clog up parliamentary time with the utterly irrelevant distraction of a bill to reform the Lords"

In other words they'd do anything, say anything, bend any rule, to get their own way. It's THAT important to them. The question we should all be asking ourselves is why these normally self centred men should be expending such large amounts of their time, money and influence to get this through. What's in it for them? But unfortunately, no one on either side of the political divide seems to have the guts to ask that question

Well, you'll be able to moan about how stupid the 52% are forever.



Why 60%? It's an arbitrary number with no basis in psephology whatsoever. Why not 55%? 70%? Or even...52%?

Yes, I realise we get the opportunity to change the government after their term, but you don't get to spit your dummy and re-run the General Election if you don't like the result. Political discussion on the left has devolved to school-yard levels: too many believe that if you don't win and don't agree, shout and shout until you get your way.

Here's a lesson for you: voting in a democracy does not mean trying again and again until the minority win.

Always been sore losers, the left.

"You lost - get over it."

"If you don't like it, go live in the EU."

and...



Lovely stuff.

The battle may have been lost but, the war, it seems, is still ongoing.
He who laughs last and all that



Mind you, even though YOU knew what YOU were voting for, I'll be really surprised if you get it and it's that thought that is keeping me going for now.

I'm glad I'm in your thoughts so much.



We'll see. Ultimately the government can ignore the Lords, the Scots and all the bluster and get on with their negotiations, which are actually going pretty well. Any interference weakens the UK and I'll warn you here and now that if the opposition start playing politics with the 'meaningful vote', things could crash quickly and that's when we could face a cliff edge.

The cliff edge was there all along but, no issue with getting your excuses in early.
Even Brexitiers like your good self have said that we are likely to be worse off financially after Brexit and if this was, in any way, the optimistic outlook, who knows where we will end up.
The price of democracy always affects some more than others and many Brexitiers were convinced that we would all be better off

Unlike Jeremy Corbyn and his cronies, of course, whose stance on various issues (especially Brexit) swings and changes as part of their cynical vote-winning strategy.

A blatant example would be their u-turn on the customs union. Contrary to the previous party line, Corbyn suddenly decided the UK would stay in the customs union, but an all-singing, all-dancing bespoke customs union offering the absolutely perfect Brexit scenario in some weird dreamland.

He knows the EU would sooner invade Crimea that agree to his claims, yet Labour shout it from the rooftops knowing some people will be fooled. Even many Labour MPs and voters were up in arms. Cynical and dishonest.

It's THAT important to them.

Of course the possibility of a cliff edge was always there. What naive Remoaners didn't seem to understand is that the bluster and hard talk from both sides was simply tactical positioning prior to the negotiations. In reality discussions have been reasonable and aimed at achieving the best result for both sides. Not perfect, but progressive.

However, there's always the chance the opposition will decide to play political hardball and kibosh ANYTHING the government proposes, which would mean WTO terms at best and the hardest possible Brexit (although I hate the hard/soft terminology). I don't actually think they will - I think even Labour realise the backlash would be of biblical proportions and would ultimately backfire on them. But it probably won't stop the SNP and Liberals.

As I've said many times on here, yes, slightly worse off in the short term, better off in the long term. In more ways than just the economy.

Why are you quoting Corbyn to me? I thought I made my thoughts on Corbyn's antics crystal clear a post or two ago. If Corbyn wants to retain the young peoples' votes who flocked to Labour last year he should get his act together where Brexit is concerned. Again as I posted earlier, with Labour, the SNP, the Lib/Dems and dissident Tories there is an anti Brexit majority in the Commons. Mr Corbyn should wise up. It's not the 70's. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the only resemblance Russia bears to it is in its suppression of its people. Come down off the fence and lead the opposition for once.

Of course you did

After Mark Carney's pretty damning report as to the financial effects of Brexit, suggesting that each household is already £900 / year worse off, mainly due to the weaker value of the £ following the referendum result and the expected additional squeeze on real income, once we are actually out.https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media ... 7298EA8163. Could some of our "experts" who are in the "leave" camp, please explain the negative effect of the past 40 years of membership of the Common Market and EU. Apart from the headline grabbing issues surrounding the European Courts and the rules regarding "straight bananas". Fundamentally, how has the UK been "damaged" by our continued membership ?

After Mark Carney's pretty damning report as to the financial effects of Brexit, suggesting that each household is already £900 / year worse off, mainly due to the weaker value of the £ following the referendum result and the expected additional squeeze on real income, once we are actually out.https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media ... 7298EA8163. Could some of our "experts" who are in the "leave" camp, please explain the negative effect of the past 40 years of membership of the Common Market and EU. Apart from the headline grabbing issues surrounding the European Courts and the rules regarding "straight bananas". Fundamentally, how has the UK been "damaged" by our continued membership ?

Who is to say the £ wouldn't have tanked even if we had stayed in?

The value of the £ is about speculation rather than reality and there are a number of factors that determine the demand for a currency.

In terms of what it has cost us to be members of the EU - let's start with the value of our net contributions to the EU - how many billions is that?

Come on Sal, that's not even funny.

The value of the pound fluctuates all the time.

However, the instant drop, which occurred at the very moment that "brexit" became likely, is down to the "no" vote and to attempt to slant it in any other direction just makes you look daft/desperate.

IF Carney is right, it may not quite be the "cliff edge" that some politicians have been talking about.
However, a couple of grand per household, every year, just so that we can pretend that we have "control" is a huge price to pay and will very quickly overtake our net contributions (we'll not count any benefits of membership at this stage as this would make our position look even more bleak).

We're still awaiting Mrs May's fantasy solution to "customs union" and a "frictionless" border between Ireland and N.Ireland.

The 12 cabinet ministers cannot agree the way forward, let alone "selling" their idea (assuming they can agree on one) to Parliament, The EU and the general public.

The instant drop was because those traders who deal in this area took a view on the currency it is as simple as that. The cost of raising bonds doesn't appear to be costing the government anymore which is a much better indicator of the real view of the economy from the outside world.

The remainers all said a no vote would be catastrophic for the economy - as yet that hasn't proved to be the case - inflation hasn't gone through the roof - interest rates haven't moved - unemployment has gone down and wages look like they are on the up.

A couple of grand per household suggests you don't have an alternative as to how you spend your money - why can you not buy British goods that will not be impacted by the leave vote - perhaps that is a positive externality of the vote? Carney is without doubt the worst forecaster he has yet to get a forecast correct - so I would take everything he says with a pinch of salt.


The biggest costs in a household are mortgage/rent - utilities - not impacted by EU, Food - possible to avoid much of the impact by selective buying, fuel - price fluctuation nothing to do with EU membership. Council tax - adversely impact by being a member so potentially a gain. Clothes again most are manufactured in the far east so limited impact.

I always thought we would end up with WTO tarrifs - let's face it plenty of countries trade with the EU that are not members so why can't we? It is not as if we are a huge manufacturing powerhouse anymore?

On Ireland the idea that if there is no border huge amounts of goods are going to flow across the border is quite simply a stupid notion. The north is a small place so there is so much it can consume and it is an island so it would all have to be smuggled off the island there are only so many BMW's you can get away with.


I ask again - what have been our net contributions to the EU in 40 years of members I bet in today's value close to £500bn

You are very flippant with a drop of "a couple of grand per household".
For many people, certainly those at the lower end of the wage scale, this would be absolutely huge, although, as the figure is an average, this monetary effect would affect those on higher household incomes by far more than those at the bottom of the scale.

Again, you seem to be in utter denial about the currency shift and the subsequent impact on trade in the UK.

As a huge net importer, particularly in "visible" trade, the effect is significant and although many companies have tried to absorb some of this increased cost and delayed increasing consumer prices, again, you are in denial.

Haven't you noticed the good that you buy, either increasing in price and/or shrinking in size ??

Regarding our trade with the EU, of course this is critical to The UK's future.

Although trade in both directions (EU - UK and UK - EU) could be said to be similar, the imported goods are spread between 26 countries, whereas our trade with the EU is from 1 (unless you say that the UK is 3 nations). Again, you are in denial.

As for our net contributions, some would say this has been money well spent and of course, they haven't always been at current levels and the cost of being on the outside looks to be significantly higher so, in actual fact, we would still be "winning".

I'm pleased that Mr Farage & Co have done such a good "selling" job on you and I just hope that he is somewhere near right but, sadly, I fear that he's a long way from being right and assuming that we wish to continue supplying the £250 billion to the EU, we will still have to comply with their rules and regulations, oh the irony

[I'm pleased that Mr Farage & Co have done such a good "selling" job on you and I just hope that he is somewhere near right but, sadly, I fear that he's a long way from being right and assuming that we wish to continue supplying the £250 billion to the EU, we will still have to comply with their rules and regulations, oh the irony



'"

This is perhaps the most simplistic of Brexiter's many simple views of the world. It's all black/white, our money/no benefit. The idea of the EU, proven over many years is mutual economic benefit. We get access to the markets of other countries, they get access to ours. We pay more into the central funds because we are rich. But then EU expenditures help areas become more prosperous so they can buy more of our goods and have better infrastructure so our goods can get to market more quickly.

The UK's economic performance before and after being in the EU are so divergent (and our economy post vote so divergent from other economies) that the factual benefits of membership are so obvious that it's increasingly rare to find a Brexiter dispute them. Instead they are retreating to their nationalistic "control" argument despite all plausible scenarios leaving us with less control and no say in the rules we will inevitably have to abide by.