Brexit Referendum

gcomeau wrote:And there goes the last AAA credit rating the UK had. Downgraded *2* levels by S&P and one level by Fitch. Ouch.

How many Leave voters who had no grasp of what they were actually voting for do you think want a do-over right about now?

Not many. Many commentators seem to think of this purely in economic terms & it was NOT just about economics. And yes, the economic situation has worsened for now. That was only to be expected in the aftermath of the result. But eventually the situation will stabilise one way or the other.

What this referendum was really about was regaining control from a bunch of corrupt, unelected bureaucrats & their ex-politician cronies.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:They were going to throw out Greece if they did not agree to stipulations of EU. The EU lay down the ultimatum to Greece. Dress the language up however Daryl sees fit but that does not change the reality of what the EU did. Why did the EU not address the major issue of unlimited immigration that caused Great Britain to leave the EU.

It is astonishing to me how a keen observer of european politics such as yourself has entirely missed the fact that there are no provisions in the core treaties defining the EU and its organs that would allow for a country to be ejected from the Union against its will. All the EU can do (as it has done in the past) is enact sanctions against a member state found to be in violation of the treaties. Ejection of a country would require unanimous consent of all member states (including the country to be ejected), which is highly unlikely to occur.

Secondly, that "major issue of unlimited immigration"? It's an inescapable consequence of the free market. As a union, we decided that citizens of EU member states should be free to move within the EU, whether as tourists or immigrants, a freedom british citizens have made enthusiastic use of over the past few decades. There is a certain level of hypocrisy in the british desire to retain that freedom for themselves while at the same time denying it to others that is hard to swallow.

It is NOT the same thing. Having the ability to travel freely between countries for tourism is not the same as allowing the citizens of other countries the right to settle in our country just to claim benefits. Nor is it the same as deliberately bringing in workers from another country to this country & paying them less than half what English workers are being paid for doing the same job; (and coincidentally below the National Living Wage).

If we want to talk about hypocrisy lets talk about all those attacks on immigrants & refugee centres in Germany recently. Or all the immigrants in Calais who are trying to get into Great Britain? They have had to pass through several EU countries to get there so why didn't they settle in those countries? Because they knew they would not be able to claim the same level of benefits that they can in the UK.

(NB I am NOT referring to those refugees fleeing Syria, Iraq & other war torn countries. That is an entirely separate matter & I, for one believe that these poor unfortunates SHOULD be allowed to settle in the UK. Great Britain has a long history going back centuries, of providing sanctuary for people like that; people such as the actor Andrew Sachs who played Manuel in Fawlty Towers. You know him, he was a German Jew who fled Berlin on one of the last Kindertransport trains just before the start of WW2).

Rincewind wrote:That will NEVER happen. If it did then both the Basques & the Catalans would be the next in line to break away, citing the example of Scotland & Northern Ireland & both France & Spain would never stand for it.

They do not want to be opening that can of worms.

Also, speaking of Brussels there could be a revival of the movement for the two regions of Belgium, the Flemish North & the French speaking Walloonians to separate.

My understanding of the constitutional situation is that Spain and France both most strongly oppose the proposed federalisation approach whereby Scotland remains in both the EU and the UK. They offer less opposition to an independent Scotland joining the EU, as long as that independence is achieved legally in accordance with the UK's constitution(or what passes for one).

In other words, that recognition depends on Westminister granting consent for a second referendum and accepting a result for secession as binding.

The reason for that stance is, Spain's constitution permits secession only if all of Spain votes on it. France's doesn't permit secession except for overseas territory, but that provisio was added after the practice which set a precedent allowing French secession with the national government's consent.

Rincewind wrote:Not many. Many commentators seem to think of this purely in economic terms & it was NOT just about economics. And yes, the economic situation has worsened for now. That was only to be expected in the aftermath of the result. But eventually the situation will stabilise one way or the other.

What this referendum was really about was regaining control from a bunch of corrupt, unelected bureaucrats & their ex-politician cronies.

Agreed. It wasn't about the economics.

Unfortunately, there are at least as many(if not more) corrupt and unelected cronies in the UK. They now have a mandate to gather up more power for themselves. We'll have 50 fewer MPs overall after 2020 if there isn't an early election(constituency border redrawings - aka gerrymandering). Thanks to the referendum fallout, the Labour chicken coup and the Chilcot report, most people have forgotten that the Tories are being investigated for electoral fraud during last year's general election in about twice as many seats as the margin of their majority in Parliament.

Rincewind wrote:It is NOT the same thing. Having the ability to travel freely between countries for tourism is not the same as allowing the citizens of other countries the right to settle in our country just to claim benefits. Nor is it the same as deliberately bringing in workers from another country to this country & paying them less than half what English workers are being paid for doing the same job; (and coincidentally below the National Living Wage).

And yet, Brexit campaigners have and are promising that everything will more or less stay the same post-Brexit when it comes to UK citizen's right to travel and emigrate to other countries.

Secondly, and this is the part where you need to get your head out of UKIP's arse and look at the reality of immigrants in the UK, almost none of the ones that were used as examples by the Brexit campaigners came to the UK in search of benefits. They came there in search of jobs and business opportunities. Employment records show that most immigrants are gainfully employed, not mooching off your precious benefits.

Finally, your assertion that immigrants as a whole are paid "less than half what English workers are being paid" is blatantly false. Immigrants are, on average, being paid the same, sometimes slightly more than what english natives are making.

Rincewind wrote:It is NOT the same thing. Having the ability to travel freely between countries for tourism is not the same as allowing the citizens of other countries the right to settle in our country just to claim benefits. Nor is it the same as deliberately bringing in workers from another country to this country & paying them less than half what English workers are being paid for doing the same job; (and coincidentally below the National Living Wage).

Load of keech. It is illegal to pay legal migrants below the NMW/NLW. Under the current system, those migrants are perfectly eligible and entitled to bring charges against their employer.

Now, illegal migrants are obviously denied that recourse - they'd be deported eventually if they objected. That game isn't changing in any way or form.

So what do you think the eventual consequences of a crackdown on legal migration are? I think it's most likely to bring about the increased human smuggling, more illegally low-paid jobs not even open to applications from UK nationals and a boom in crime(if merely being here is illegal and the penalty is a £92,000/year state-funded prison bunk followed by a flight home, what incentive is there to respect our laws and customs?) the proponents of Brexit feared happening if we didn't leave the EU.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... s-matters/ - indicates that EU nationals should have brought 12,000 cases to tribunal in the last three years. They only brought ~1,500.

munroburton wrote:

Rincewind wrote:That will NEVER happen. If it did then both the Basques & the Catalans would be the next in line to break away, citing the example of Scotland & Northern Ireland & both France & Spain would never stand for it.

They do not want to be opening that can of worms.

Also, speaking of Brussels there could be a revival of the movement for the two regions of Belgium, the Flemish North & the French speaking Walloonians to separate.

My understanding of the constitutional situation is that Spain and France both most strongly oppose the proposed federalisation approach whereby Scotland remains in both the EU and the UK. They offer less opposition to an independent Scotland joining the EU, as long as that independence is achieved legally in accordance with the UK's constitution(or what passes for one).

In other words, that recognition depends on Westminister granting consent for a second referendum and accepting a result for secession as binding.

The reason for that stance is, Spain's constitution permits secession only if all of Spain votes on it. France's doesn't permit secession except for overseas territory, but that provisio was added after the practice which set a precedent allowing French secession with the national government's consent.

Rincewind wrote:Not many. Many commentators seem to think of this purely in economic terms & it was NOT just about economics. And yes, the economic situation has worsened for now. That was only to be expected in the aftermath of the result. But eventually the situation will stabilise one way or the other.

What this referendum was really about was regaining control from a bunch of corrupt, unelected bureaucrats & their ex-politician cronies.

Agreed. It wasn't about the economics.

Unfortunately, there are at least as many(if not more) corrupt and unelected cronies in the UK. They now have a mandate to gather up more power for themselves. We'll have 50 fewer MPs overall after 2020 if there isn't an early election(constituency border redrawings - aka gerrymandering). Thanks to the referendum fallout, the Labour chicken coup and the Chilcot report, most people have forgotten that the Tories are being investigated for electoral fraud during last year's general election in about twice as many seats as the margin of their majority in Parliament.

And I can remember in 1974 when Labour gerrymandered the constituency boundaries just to guarantee themselves more seats. And let's not forget that of eleven Labour governments eight relied on the Scottish vote to get them into power.

munroburton wrote:

Rincewind wrote:It is NOT the same thing. Having the ability to travel freely between countries for tourism is not the same as allowing the citizens of other countries the right to settle in our country just to claim benefits. Nor is it the same as deliberately bringing in workers from another country to this country & paying them less than half what English workers are being paid for doing the same job; (and coincidentally below the National Living Wage).

Load of keech. It is illegal to pay legal migrants below the NMW/NLW. Under the current system, those migrants are perfectly eligible and entitled to bring charges against their employer.

Now, illegal migrants are obviously denied that recourse - they'd be deported eventually if they objected. That game isn't changing in any way or form.

So what do you think the eventual consequences of a crackdown on legal migration are? I think it's most likely to bring about the increased human smuggling, more illegally low-paid jobs not even open to applications from UK nationals and a boom in crime(if merely being here is illegal and the penalty is a £92,000/year state-funded prison bunk followed by a flight home, what incentive is there to respect our laws and customs?) the proponents of Brexit feared happening if we didn't leave the EU.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... s-matters/ - indicates that EU nationals should have brought 12,000 cases to tribunal in the last three years. They only brought ~1,500.

Whether it is legal or not it is actually happening. At the Fawley Refinery near to Southampton British workers have gone on strike because an agency, Nico, is employing foreign workers for £48 a day whereas British workers would get £115. And if those workers are working eight hours a day then they will be getting £6.00 an hour which is £1.20 below the National Living Wage of £7.20.
(Reported by the BBC on their Red Button service).

The E wrote:And yet, Brexit campaigners have and are promising that everything will more or less stay the same post-Brexit when it comes to UK citizen's right to travel and emigrate to other countries.

Secondly, and this is the part where you need to get your head out of UKIP's arse and look at the reality of immigrants in the UK, almost none of the ones that were used as examples by the Brexit campaigners came to the UK in search of benefits. They came there in search of jobs and business opportunities. Employment records show that most immigrants are gainfully employed, not mooching off your precious benefits.

Finally, your assertion that immigrants as a whole are paid "less than half what English workers are being paid" is blatantly false. Immigrants are, on average, being paid the same, sometimes slightly more than what english natives are making.

I did not say that was ALL EU workers. I just said that there were SOME cases that it WAS happening. As an example there has been a strike by British workers at Fawley Refinery because foreign workers employed by an agency, Nico, were being paid less than half what British workers were &, what is more, BELOW the National Living Wage. There have also been instances where firms have ONLY recruited foreign workers & excluded British workers.

Certainly there are some industries which tend to rely on migrant workers because of the difficulty in recruiting British workers; (farming & quarrying spring to mind). And yes they DO get paid the same rate that British workers do. I have NO problem with that.

And if we are going to talk about inequalities or hypocrisy then what about Turkish Migrant Workers in Germany? Certainly there was a time when, although they may have lived in Germany nearly all their lives & paid the same level of taxes as Germans they were only entitled to 2/3 of the benefits that German citizens were.

Rincewind wrote:
And if we are going to talk about inequalities or hypocrisy then what about Turkish Migrant Workers in Germany? Certainly there was a time when, although they may have lived in Germany nearly all their lives & paid the same level of taxes as Germans they were only entitled to 2/3 of the benefits that German citizens were.

If you could find a citation on that, that would be great. It's your argument, now support it with something factual.

Oh, and regarding the rest of your post: I notice you attaching a lot of qualifiers to your statements. So, while you're doing research, why not try to figure out how large the problem actually is, taking into account all the people you say you have nothing against.

Rincewind wrote:And I can remember in 1974 when Labour gerrymandered the constituency boundaries just to guarantee themselves more seats. And let's not forget that of eleven Labour governments eight relied on the Scottish vote to get them into power.

Eight? More like two. Only three times have Scottish MPs made a material difference to the UK Government since WW2.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content ... itans1.jpg

The other times were happy coincidences. Doesn't the EU Ref result demonstrate that? 62% Remain plus England's 53% Leave equalling 52% leave. A fifteen point margin barely made one percent difference to the overall result.