planetf1.com

1. What do you want to see happen and why?
2. How is it going to be achieved?
3. How long will it take?
4. Who should be in charge of making it happen?
5. What do you hope to personally gain from Brexit?
6. What are you as an individual going to do to help realise the dream?
7. How much pain and suffering are you willing to accept, or inflict on others, to achieve the dream?

Scotland seem to think they can do what the **** they like. I think they are deluded. London has way more clout than Scotland.

I was hoping to gain a better understanding of what is was people thought they wanted, without bashing anyone for having a differing opinion, but if you just want have a dig at Scotland, that's OK too (not really).

Like many people, I didn't want this situation but if there's a light at the end of the tunnel, I'd like to be able to see it, so all sensible and realistic suggestions are very welcome. I'd like specifics though, not just the same general rhetoric - again.

ALESI wrote:Scotland seem to think they can do what the **** they like. I think they are deluded. London has way more clout than Scotland.

I think you'll find that London is less powerful than people think.

Personally, I can't help with the OP. I tried my best to find out what Brexit campaigners wanted and thought I'd failed. Clearly I didn't fail to understand as nobody knows!

I think that only now are many people finding the "facts" as opposed to rhetoric and are thinking, in the style of the morning after the works party, God, Did I really do that.


I can only hope that a negotiating team go to the EU, cobble some bull about cutting a deal to regain the outright say on some issues, we pay a sort of fine and continue as we were.

The referendum was not binding, and most of the politicians who were in place prior to it, seem to have wiped them selves out by now, so a new government can blame them and just carry on.

Asphalt_World wrote:

ALESI wrote:Scotland seem to think they can do what the **** they like. I think they are deluded. London has way more clout than Scotland.

I think you'll find that London is less powerful than people think.

Personally, I can't help with the OP. I tried my best to find out what Brexit campaigners wanted and thought I'd failed. Clearly I didn't fail to understand as nobody knows!

London has all the power. Anything else is illusion. The civil service is almost totally driven from there as is law.
The agreement with EU are all with London and all payments to EU go from there, and most money from EU arrives there for the earmarked region.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I don't think that Scotland will vote to leave. The turnout was very low in Scotland on the Brexit referendum relative to the rest of the UK, while staying in the EU is the preferred choice, that was in the EU with the UK and as the UK.

Being in a poorer EU and a small economy with a small population, plus the fact they will have to adopt the Euro (exceptions on eurozone membership only apply to pre EU member countries, and the only two who secured opt outs were Denmark and the UK) will mean that EU membership post Brexit is not as appealing as existing UK membership.

If the UK rejoined later, it's POSSIBLE the EU would not force Euro membership (because the UK is a huge economy) - but with Scotland, it would not have the economic clout for the EU to ever consider an exception.

There is a case for Northern Ireland to leave, though, although only if it became reunified with Ireland. Of course, the depends entirely on the politic appetite on that specific issue. When I said there was a case - I meant economically. Northern Ireland would just be absorbed into Ireland's existing membership. Northern Ireland as a separate EU state makes no sense whatsoever given that Scotland is not really feasible.

I know there are smaller countries who are a part of the EU, but going from having the muscle of the UK in the EU to having the clout of one of the Baltic states is probably not an appealing prospect with voters.

No one has mentioned Scotland and Ireland (with or without the south) as an entity.
Scotland and NI are the same country now, why not remain the same country with sort of federal governance.

moby wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I don't think that Scotland will vote to leave. The turnout was very low in Scotland on the Brexit referendum relative to the rest of the UK, while staying in the EU is the preferred choice, that was in the EU with the UK and as the UK.

Being in a poorer EU and a small economy with a small population, plus the fact they will have to adopt the Euro (exceptions on eurozone membership only apply to pre EU member countries, and the only two who secured opt outs were Denmark and the UK) will mean that EU membership post Brexit is not as appealing as existing UK membership.

If the UK rejoined later, it's POSSIBLE the EU would not force Euro membership (because the UK is a huge economy) - but with Scotland, it would not have the economic clout for the EU to ever consider an exception.

There is a case for Northern Ireland to leave, though, although only if it became reunified with Ireland. Of course, the depends entirely on the politic appetite on that specific issue. When I said there was a case - I meant economically. Northern Ireland would just be absorbed into Ireland's existing membership. Northern Ireland as a separate EU state makes no sense whatsoever given that Scotland is not really feasible.

I know there are smaller countries who are a part of the EU, but going from having the muscle of the UK in the EU to having the clout of one of the Baltic states is probably not an appealing prospect with voters.

No one has mentioned Scotland and Ireland (with or without the south) as an entity.
Scotland and NI are the same country now, why not remain the same country with sort of federal governance.

Thread title is implicit of a Scotland/Northern Ireland exit of the UK

None of this will matter when the Great Khaleesi invades on dragonback.

Interesting proposal from the Italian PM that the young people of the UK be offered the EU passport so that they don't be the losers due to this Brexit.

Jimbox01 wrote:I was hoping to gain a better understanding of what is was people thought they wanted, without bashing anyone for having a differing opinion, but if you just want have a dig at Scotland, that's OK too (not really).

No, you're right I shouldn't sink to the level of the Remain crowd who brand the Leavers as illiterate, poorly educated, pie eating idiots...

What I think Scotland maybe doesn't consider is the EU maybe don't want Scotland without England (well London). I'm guessing that as Scotland are so desperate to stay they would be a net beneficiary of remaining? Does Germany want to lose a contributor AND keep a dependent? Doubtful.

The second referendum will probably be held no later than February or March next year - that should give everyone enough time to climb down off their high horses and come up with sensible solutions.

The EU will allow the UK to stay in, and impose an emergency break on immigration from the EU, but the UK may have to make concessions in other areas.

The new PM will sell the new deal to the people on the basis that it helps solve 'the immigration crisis', and at the same time protects jobs and future prosperity.

Hopefully not too many big businesses will have committed to moving out of the UK by then, and it hopefully won't take too long to recover from this mess, but while the government dithers, there are meetings being held in boardrooms across the world to decide what to do next and how to move forward.

What I would like to see:

1. More investment in infrastructure and services so that the country can actually cope with the increased population. Larger businesses could easily pay a slightly higher rate of corporation tax, or some form of social charge based on the number of employees, and if they're benefitting from the free movement of labour in the EU, then they should contribute towards solving the problems it causes.

2. Better efforts (and funding) to integrate immigrants into society and help communities cope with change.

3. Better control of immigration from outside the EU and better tracking of non EU immigrants after they enter the country - if they no longer entitled to be here then they should leave.

4. Better funding for the immigration service, so that they can properly tackle the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

5. Stricter controls over who can receive free NHS treatment (e.g. non EU citizens and health tourists), and the NHS has to claim back the millions it's owed from other EU countries - it can't be bothered at the moment.

6. Compulsory top up public/private health insurance for all higher rate tax payers (contributions should be allowable against tax though), and/or a similar scheme to pensions, e.g. employees and employers both pay towards health insurance. The money from this should go directly to healthcare, in addition to what is already paid from taxes, and the NHS and private healthcare sector should work together to provide a better service.

7. More support for the regions and encouragement/assistance for business, to try and get them to set up operations outside London and the south - maybe even regenerate areas that lost out when heavy industry disappeared.

8. The UK government should stop measuring success just in terms of GDP, budget deficits, trade deficits, etc., and switch its' focus to the wellbeing of the people.
Methodologies exist to measure the key factors that contribute towards quality of life and wellbeing (income, economic stability, employment, health, education, infrastructure, income equality, governance, environment), and the size of the economy is not necessarily indicative of how we perform against these measures. If the government refocuses attention on the wellbeing of the people (the people it's supposed to serve), the economy will still continue to grow and prosper, but so will the people. There has to be a balance.

I don't want the UK to cut itself off from the rest of the world, and I don't want to feel like an outsider in Europe.
The UK can't have its' cake and eat it, but it can change.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

moby wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I don't think that Scotland will vote to leave. The turnout was very low in Scotland on the Brexit referendum relative to the rest of the UK, while staying in the EU is the preferred choice, that was in the EU with the UK and as the UK.

Being in a poorer EU and a small economy with a small population, plus the fact they will have to adopt the Euro (exceptions on eurozone membership only apply to pre EU member countries, and the only two who secured opt outs were Denmark and the UK) will mean that EU membership post Brexit is not as appealing as existing UK membership.

If the UK rejoined later, it's POSSIBLE the EU would not force Euro membership (because the UK is a huge economy) - but with Scotland, it would not have the economic clout for the EU to ever consider an exception.

There is a case for Northern Ireland to leave, though, although only if it became reunified with Ireland. Of course, the depends entirely on the politic appetite on that specific issue. When I said there was a case - I meant economically. Northern Ireland would just be absorbed into Ireland's existing membership. Northern Ireland as a separate EU state makes no sense whatsoever given that Scotland is not really feasible.

I know there are smaller countries who are a part of the EU, but going from having the muscle of the UK in the EU to having the clout of one of the Baltic states is probably not an appealing prospect with voters.

No one has mentioned Scotland and Ireland (with or without the south) as an entity.
Scotland and NI are the same country now, why not remain the same country with sort of federal governance.

Thread title is implicit of a Scotland/Northern Ireland exit of the UK

I mean as a single unit much as England and Wales is now. It would be a much larger applicant to EU with lots of North Sea area. Combined with Southern Ireland I think it would be a very attractive unit both to those concerned and to EU.

Jimbox01 wrote:The second referendum will probably be held no later than February or March next year - that should give everyone enough time to climb down off their high horses and come up with sensible solutions.

The EU will allow the UK to stay in, and impose an emergency break on immigration from the EU, but the UK may have to make concessions in other areas.

The new PM will sell the new deal to the people on the basis that it helps solve 'the immigration crisis', and at the same time protects jobs and future prosperity.

Hopefully not too many big businesses will have committed to moving out of the UK by then, and it hopefully won't take too long to recover from this mess, but while the government dithers, there are meetings being held in boardrooms across the world to decide what to do next and how to move forward.

What I would like to see:

1. More investment in infrastructure and services so that the country can actually cope with the increased population. Larger businesses could easily pay a slightly higher rate of corporation tax, or some form of social charge based on the number of employees, and if they're benefitting from the free movement of labour in the EU, then they should contribute towards solving the problems it causes.

2. Better efforts (and funding) to integrate immigrants into society and help communities cope with change.

3. Better control of immigration from outside the EU and better tracking of non EU immigrants after they enter the country - if they no longer entitled to be here then they should leave.

4. Better funding for the immigration service, so that they can properly tackle the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

5. Stricter controls over who can receive free NHS treatment (e.g. non EU citizens and health tourists), and the NHS has to claim back the millions it's owed from other EU countries - it can't be bothered at the moment.

6. Compulsory top up public/private health insurance for all higher rate tax payers (contributions should be allowable against tax though), and/or a similar scheme to pensions, e.g. employees and employers both pay towards health insurance. The money from this should go directly to healthcare, in addition to what is already paid from taxes, and the NHS and private healthcare sector should work together to provide a better service.

7. More support for the regions and encouragement/assistance for business, to try and get them to set up operations outside London and the south - maybe even regenerate areas that lost out when heavy industry disappeared.

8. The UK government should stop measuring success just in terms of GDP, budget deficits, trade deficits, etc., and switch its' focus to the wellbeing of the people.
Methodologies exist to measure the key factors that contribute towards quality of life and wellbeing (income, economic stability, employment, health, education, infrastructure, income equality, governance, environment), and the size of the economy is not necessarily indicative of how we perform against these measures. If the government refocuses attention on the wellbeing of the people (the people it's supposed to serve), the economy will still continue to grow and prosper, but so will the people. There has to be a balance.

I don't want the UK to cut itself off from the rest of the world, and I don't want to feel like an outsider in Europe.
The UK can't have its' cake and eat it, but it can change.

That sounds sensible and feasible, and I've said all along that even if the vote is 'Out' it will never happen.

ALESI wrote:Scotland seem to think they can do what the **** they like. I think they are deluded. London has way more clout than Scotland.

We (Scotland) can because the (SNP Governing party in Scotland aren't fighting each other unlike the Labour Party and to lesser extent the Conservatives at Westminster.

Nicola Sturgeon is playing blinder and looking after the interests of Scotland unlike down south.

scotlandforever wrote:

ALESI wrote:Scotland seem to think they can do what the **** they like. I think they are deluded. London has way more clout than Scotland.

We (Scotland) can because the (SNP Governing party in Scotland aren't fighting each other unlike the Labour Party and to lesser extent the Conservatives at Westminster.

Nicola Sturgeon is playing blinder and looking after the interests of Scotland unlike down south.

Scotland could declare UDI and take the risks that go with that?

After all the UK is only a joint agreement of crowns of England and Scotland.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:If England and Wales were to secede from the UK, then Scotland could continue in the EU as the UK (of Scotland and Northern Ireland)

Well the EU doesn't seem very receptive to that idea. Can't imagine why.

ALESI wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:I was hoping to gain a better understanding of what is was people thought they wanted, without bashing anyone for having a differing opinion, but if you just want have a dig at Scotland, that's OK too (not really).

No, you're right I shouldn't sink to the level of the Remain crowd who brand the Leavers as illiterate, poorly educated, pie eating idiots...

What I think Scotland maybe doesn't consider is the EU maybe don't want Scotland without England (well London). I'm guessing that as Scotland are so desperate to stay they would be a net beneficiary of remaining? Does Germany want to lose a contributor AND keep a dependent? Doubtful.

I think the point of the EU is everyone is a net beneficiary. Scotland wishes to remain because Scottish people wish to remain. Scotland is much more European in nature (I know that is a vague, loose term) than England.

I think England are now recognizing that despite the scare stories, they were also net beneficiaries of the EU. Everyone contributes, everyone benefits.

Jimbox01 wrote:The second referendum will probably be held no later than February or March next year - that should give everyone enough time to climb down off their high horses and come up with sensible solutions.

Why hold a second referendum months after officially notifying the EU that the UK is leaving? Or are there signals the politicians of both sides are now too afraid to press the detonator?

Since the only way for the UK to leave the EU is via parliament, I think a lot of British citizens are going to be very surprised in the coming few months. It will be up to responsible politicians to clean up after the mess that has been made. Now, where to find those...?

Fiki wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:The second referendum will probably be held no later than February or March next year - that should give everyone enough time to climb down off their high horses and come up with sensible solutions.

Why hold a second referendum months after officially notifying the EU that the UK is leaving? Or are there signals the politicians of both sides are now too afraid to press the detonator?

Since the only way for the UK to leave the EU is via parliament, I think a lot of British citizens are going to be very surprised in the coming few months. It will be up to responsible politicians to clean up after the mess that has been made. Now, where to find those...?

We've only verbally told the EU that we intend to leave. There is no guarantee that this will happen, no paperwork submitted and a total and utter lack of planning on the part of all those involved with the Brexit as to how and when this will happen.

I'm not in the least bit surprised so many politicians from other EU countries are playing the hard game with us over this. Out country deserves it.

Prema wrote:Interesting proposal from the Italian PM that the young people of the UK be offered the EU passport so that they don't be the losers due to this Brexit.

Where did you see that? I am not young, but if I had the choice I would take an EU passport every time over British.

moby wrote:

Prema wrote:Interesting proposal from the Italian PM that the young people of the UK be offered the EU passport so that they don't be the losers due to this Brexit.

Where did you see that? I am not young, but if I had the choice I would take an EU passport every time over British.

He said it in the interview to Amanpour on CNN. But reading it now, it comes that it was foremost about the students. Angela Merkel also mentioned something of the kind in her address to German parliament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... nts-after/

moby wrote:

Prema wrote:Interesting proposal from the Italian PM that the young people of the UK be offered the EU passport so that they don't be the losers due to this Brexit.

Where did you see that? I am not young, but if I had the choice I would take an EU passport every time over British.

So would I. I have not seen the bit from the Italian PM specifically, but a politician in the UK, can't remember who, said it would be good in we all had a choice about which passport we had. I'd happily pay more for an EU one.

Asphalt_World wrote: I'm not in the least bit surprised so many politicians from other EU countries are playing the hard game with us over this. Out country deserves it.

Well, Nigel Farage the Troll at least did his best to make the EU Parliament understand how they need more UK than UK needs them. And now they all understand it.

Asphalt_World wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:The second referendum will probably be held no later than February or March next year - that should give everyone enough time to climb down off their high horses and come up with sensible solutions.

Why hold a second referendum months after officially notifying the EU that the UK is leaving? Or are there signals the politicians of both sides are now too afraid to press the detonator?

Since the only way for the UK to leave the EU is via parliament, I think a lot of British citizens are going to be very surprised in the coming few months. It will be up to responsible politicians to clean up after the mess that has been made. Now, where to find those...?

We've only verbally told the EU that we intend to leave. There is no guarantee that this will happen, no paperwork submitted and a total and utter lack of planning on the part of all those involved with the Brexit as to how and when this will happen.

I'm not in the least bit surprised so many politicians from other EU countries are playing the hard game with us over this. Out country deserves it.

What an appropriate typo...

I realize that at this point only the result of the referendum has been transmitted to the EU. But the British government can't stall the official procedure indefinitely; that much has been made clear in the EU-parliament yesterday.

I would not be surprised at all, if Westminster were to vote not to implement Brexit. But a lot of damage has already been done.

Fiki wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:The second referendum will probably be held no later than February or March next year - that should give everyone enough time to climb down off their high horses and come up with sensible solutions.

Why hold a second referendum months after officially notifying the EU that the UK is leaving? Or are there signals the politicians of both sides are now too afraid to press the detonator?

Since the only way for the UK to leave the EU is via parliament, I think a lot of British citizens are going to be very surprised in the coming few months. It will be up to responsible politicians to clean up after the mess that has been made. Now, where to find those...?

We've only verbally told the EU that we intend to leave. There is no guarantee that this will happen, no paperwork submitted and a total and utter lack of planning on the part of all those involved with the Brexit as to how and when this will happen.

I'm not in the least bit surprised so many politicians from other EU countries are playing the hard game with us over this. Out country deserves it.

What an appropriate typo...

I realize that at this point only the result of the referendum has been transmitted to the EU. But the British government can't stall the official procedure indefinitely; that much has been made clear in the EU-parliament yesterday.

I would not be surprised at all, if Westminster were to vote not to implement Brexit. But a lot of damage has already been done.

Genuine typo as well! Good spot.

The stalling issue is something I simply don't know about though. They have not triggered the exit in any official capacity. We have voted and they know how that went. There is nothing signed and sealed that says the government has to obey it. To some extend, they can wait as long as they like before starting the procedure to withdraw.

For Brexiters, this could be a relief. If they had to start the official procedure now, nobody would know what to do. They all appear to be scrabbling around now trying to find a pen and paper to start it off!

Fiki wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Jimbox01 wrote:The second referendum will probably be held no later than February or March next year - that should give everyone enough time to climb down off their high horses and come up with sensible solutions.

Why hold a second referendum months after officially notifying the EU that the UK is leaving? Or are there signals the politicians of both sides are now too afraid to press the detonator?

Since the only way for the UK to leave the EU is via parliament, I think a lot of British citizens are going to be very surprised in the coming few months. It will be up to responsible politicians to clean up after the mess that has been made. Now, where to find those...?

We've only verbally told the EU that we intend to leave. There is no guarantee that this will happen, no paperwork submitted and a total and utter lack of planning on the part of all those involved with the Brexit as to how and when this will happen.

I'm not in the least bit surprised so many politicians from other EU countries are playing the hard game with us over this. Out country deserves it.

What an appropriate typo...

I realize that at this point only the result of the referendum has been transmitted to the EU. But the British government can't stall the official procedure indefinitely; that much has been made clear in the EU-parliament yesterday.

I would not be surprised at all, if Westminster were to vote not to implement Brexit. But a lot of damage has already been done.

Judging from today's Q & A session in Parliament, it is but a form of some brainstorming that is starting taking place, a far cry from any sort of a plan. Apparently, EU has understood that and they do not expect any official notification to happen during this 3 months period, which is assumed good enough for UK to come up with a "blue print". The eventual stalling would occur after that period. And the reasoning behind such stalling would be the idea of holding EU in a hostage situation, thus forcing them to succumb to UK demands for whatever best deal they may be up to. EU has been very clear that they wanted and expected from GB the swift activation of the exiting button, which is in the hands of GB. So that becomes the leverage point. Don't give to the other side that what they want without playing it first as your bargaining chip on the negotiation table.
(how much GB economy/situation would also be hurt by such stalling, that may be another question, but it seems there are too many unanswered questions already anyway)

Every day of stalling some businesses may leave Britain. Every day of stalling brings closer to forced departure by the EU.

IMO the EU has had it up to HERE and are making concrete plans to continue on without Britain. They aren't going to wait, they are assembling the process to make sure Britain stops being such a nuisance. If you believe that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, my sympathies.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Every day of stalling some businesses may leave Britain. Every day of stalling brings closer to forced departure by the EU.

IMO the EU has had it up to HERE and are making concrete plans to continue on without Britain. They aren't going to wait, they are assembling the process to make sure Britain stops being such a nuisance. If you believe that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, my sympathies.

I don't believe that for a second, but they are mutually beneficial. But the EU won't act until Britain acts by invoking the now infamous Article 50.

I have always thought that the Govt would never leave whatever the vote, but... I am surprised by the way politicians are expressing themselves now. I still think that there will be some kind of compromise which means the UK stays in Europe, France is already breaking ranks and suggesting that migration may not be completely off the table.
On the other hand the more I hear about the EU the less I want to remain in it. It sounds completely corrupt to me, not least Junkers and his dodgy tax haven. Why should we support that?
As for the students with their banners 'We HEART the EU', I wonder if they think all the worlds problems can be solved by making daisy chains and friending others on Facebook.
Yes Farage and Boris are comic book characters, but I sense that the 'proper' politicians are getting a sniff that maybe this might not work out so bad after all and are getting behind it because they want to steal the glory.

ALESI wrote:I have always thought that the Govt would never leave whatever the vote, but... I am surprised by the way politicians are expressing themselves now. I still think that there will be some kind of compromise which means the UK stays in Europe, France is already breaking ranks and suggesting that migration may not be completely off the table.
On the other hand the more I hear about the EU the less I want to remain in it. It sounds completely corrupt to me, not least Junkers and his dodgy tax haven. Why should we support that?
As for the students with their banners 'We HEART the EU', I wonder if they think all the worlds problems can be solved by making daisy chains and friending others on Facebook.
Yes Farage and Boris are comic book characters, but I sense that the 'proper' politicians are getting a sniff that maybe this might not work out so bad after all and are getting behind it because they want to steal the glory.

I think the bump will hit home when many people realise what they were protesting about was not actually the EU, but other European agreements and treaties such as ECHR and the central court.
I am gutted that the leave vote won, but if we are doing it, we need to know exactly what we are doing before committing ourselves to anything. The international equivalent of reading the small print before signing.

If this takes 2 years then so be it. The 2 year guillotine on negotiations only comes into effect from when Art 50 is formally activated, and if that is in 5 years time than that is when the 2 years negotiations begin. It is like working your notice. It starts when you tell the boss "here is my notice" not when his friend at the golf club tells him you were at his office today job hunting. ( although you may well not get the best treatment in the meantime )

I do wonder how it will work though, say we sit on this for a long time, how is the UK going to sit at the EU table and make decisions in the meantime? To advance your analogy, say you have evidence that your business partner is going to set up a rival business, how long do you let him make decisions in your board room because he hasn't actually told you he's off?

Ennis wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Every day of stalling some businesses may leave Britain. Every day of stalling brings closer to forced departure by the EU.

IMO the EU has had it up to HERE and are making concrete plans to continue on without Britain. They aren't going to wait, they are assembling the process to make sure Britain stops being such a nuisance. If you believe that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, my sympathies.

I don't believe that for a second, but they are mutually beneficial. But the EU won't act until Britain acts by invoking the now infamous Article 50.

It is indeed mutually beneficial at the moment. The problem is, the UK will be attempting to get a new agreement which removes some of the supposed negatives about EU membership, whilst keeping, or indeed improving the areas of benefit to the UK.

You can hardly blame the rest of the EU for simply wanting to cut their loses and assisting the UK's leave. How fair would it be for the UK to vote leave and then basically end up with a far better situation for themselves, leaving those countries still in the EU having a worse deal?

Asphalt_World wrote:
It is indeed mutually beneficial at the moment. The problem is, the UK will be attempting to get a new agreement which removes some of the supposed negatives about EU membership, whilst keeping, or indeed improving the areas of benefit to the UK.

You can hardly blame the rest of the EU for simply wanting to cut their loses and assisting the UK's leave. How fair would it be for the UK to vote leave and then basically end up with a far better situation for themselves, leaving those countries still in the EU having a worse deal?

It's not going to happen, I agree. UK is not walking away from this better off than it was as a member.

My point was moreso that the EU won't kick anyone out. They'll apply pressure to get this over and done with, but they won't pull a trigger.

Sure the country won't necessarily get a better deal from Europe (but I think it will be less draconian than people are saying), but there are other places. Plus you have to say there comes a point where you have to look beyond just more GDP, more growth and start to consider the negatives. On the one hand we're told we need immigration because our economy needs more and more workers, but the money from that prosperity doesn't seem to flow back into the infrastructure necessary to support itself. So if big business requires 300,000 immigrants to come and work here then fine, but those companies need to be brought to book when it comes to the taxes they pay so that they can contribute to maintaining the country. At the moment it seems like (lets say) Amazon create employment here, but pay their taxes elsewhere so the Govt only gets some of the money it needs to provide those workers with a functioning health service etc etc. Plus the issue of housing raises it's head again. We import people but we don't build enough houses and the Govt seem incapable of addressing this issue. The house builders don't want to build enough because it will lead to a reduction in prices, so this decision needs to be taken out of their hands.

Obviously, the Brexiters had no "Plan B", but had they even a "Plan A" ?

The funny side of this melodrama is that the whole EU mess that England (mostly) voted to leave, is exactly what was shaped by our continental cowards to comply 30 years of preferential deals and "blackmailing" from successive British governements... The current EU is certainly closer to what the British powers wanted it to be than it is to the original purpose. And anyway as far as possible from what European citizens want it to be.

ALESI wrote:Sure the country won't necessarily get a better deal from Europe (but I think it will be less draconian than people are saying), but there are other places. Plus you have to say there comes a point where you have to look beyond just more GDP, more growth and start to consider the negatives. On the one hand we're told we need immigration because our economy needs more and more workers, but the money from that prosperity doesn't seem to flow back into the infrastructure necessary to support itself. So if big business requires 300,000 immigrants to come and work here then fine, but those companies need to be brought to book when it comes to the taxes they pay so that they can contribute to maintaining the country. At the moment it seems like (lets say) Amazon create employment here, but pay their taxes elsewhere so the Govt only gets some of the money it needs to provide those workers with a functioning health service etc etc. Plus the issue of housing raises it's head again. We import people but we don't build enough houses and the Govt seem incapable of addressing this issue. The house builders don't want to build enough because it will lead to a reduction in prices, so this decision needs to be taken out of their hands.

I think you need to look at the Government rather than just big business. Immigrants provide a net benefit to the economy, we run at a deficit overall. These are 2 known facts but the only conclusion I can find based on that is that British people are a net deficit.

If immigrants are putting in more in to the country than they take out, but that money isn't being used correctly, the fault is with the government. I find it crazy that they've managed to strip the NHS to its bare bones, cut funding to everyone and everything, and then blame a group who are actually putting in more than they take out for the strain on services.

Our health service is stretched, our housing is stretched. How about taking some of that profit that immigrants bring and investing more in the health service and housing? This all comes back to the bonkers idea of austerity - an ideologically driven idea that has been wrongly spun as economically sound.

Edit - I wrote government rather than just big business, I meant government MORE than big business.

ALESI wrote:I do wonder how it will work though, say we sit on this for a long time, how is the UK going to sit at the EU table and make decisions in the meantime? To advance your analogy, say you have evidence that your business partner is going to set up a rival business, how long do you let him make decisions in your board room because he hasn't actually told you he's off?

Good point, and I suggest that the business options of make a better employment offer, or give gardening leave may well apply.