[Politics] Brexit

[Maldini]

Short term = 10 years+ ?

10 years is short term compared to 50/60/100 years + in the EU.Personally I don't believe it will be more than 3 if any at all.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So we go with plan D as Blair/Brown plan A didn't work Cameron and whatever his name was plan B didn't work, Cameron solo plan C didn't work.

I am voting plan POINTS to have a better impact and take back control.

You're not voting POINTS as no one has proposed it! The current government hasn't proposed it, the Leave campaign have only mentioned it. It isn't in any manifesto, and once we leave, there is nothing to say any future government would need to take the system on. You're voting on a guess!

 

[larus]

Comment article from the Telegraph.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at the hairdresser, head under the mixer tap, with several women using the basins either side of me. On the wall in front of us was a TV screen. The volume was muted, but we could read the headlines scrolling along the bottom.

I forget which particular warning from Project Fear was making news that day – Third World War, feta cheese shortage, pensioners to lose the right to watch Countdown… they all blur into one, don’t they?

Suddenly, the woman at the far end burst out laughing. The laughter was contagious. Soon, all five of us were cracking up. “Does anyone believe this stuff?” asked one of the salon’s mystified juniors. “No!” we snorted.

If the Remain campaign could have heard that laughter, they should have been afraid. Very afraid. Ridicule is dangerous stuff. Cynicism you can talk round, anger defuse. But mockery is something else. Mockery is like mercury. Once it’s out the bottle, there’s no getting it back in again.

Of course, five women with a fit of the giggles do not a focus group make, and yet that was the first time I truly believed that Britain might vote to leave the European Union. That hunch seems to have been correct. The latest YouGov poll gives Brexit a seven-point lead with women now more likely to support Leave (as are people aged 25 to 49). Guess what – women don’t like condescending, mainly male politicians lecturing them. Who knew?

There is panic in the Remain camp, and rightly so. Each new tactic comes across as an increasingly desperate Mr Punch beating up Judy and squawking, “Oh, yes, you will!”

“Oh, no, we won’t!,” the people shout back.

The female vote will be absolutely crucial on June 23rd. Judging by the vast daily postbag to this newspaper, women have overcome their instinctive caution and see the EU not as a source of stability but as a beast that devours its own children – and ours could be among them if we’re not careful.

Look how Brussels and Berlin are utterly indifferent as the young people of Spain, Greece and Italy are sacrificed on the Euro bonfire.

Notice how no one on the Remain side even bothers to pretend that Brussels is anything other than hideously dysfunctional. With its nepotism, protectionism, centralism, cronyism and sexism (not one of the seven Presidents is female), the EU has got more rotten ‘isms’ than a medieval Papacy.

How can that corrupt bunch of old freeloaders be the future when they are so clearly the discredited past?

But, hark! To win women voters back to Remain, here comes Samantha Cameron in “her first-ever newspaper article”. SamCam says she knows that people will think she has “a vested interest” in expressing her views. “They’re right,” says the PM’s wife, “I have got a vested interest: my children and their future.”

Mrs Cameron goes on to tell us how easy her posh leather goods company finds it to trade with the EU in contrast to the “expensive, bureaucratic nightmare” that is the rest of the world.

Funny, when I spoke last week to Sir James Dyson, our greatest living inventor and billionaire exporter, he had nothing but praise for the “expanding and exciting” global markets, compared to the shrinking EU whose politicised courts dispense not justice but shameless patronage to big manufacturers in Germany, France and Italy.

In a long article, SamCam finds space to warn about “the prospect of another recession”, but there isn’t a single sentence about the problems created for millions of British families by uncontrolled EU migration. Not for heiress Mrs Cameron the worry of getting her kids a place at a decent school or a foot on the housing ladder. Her attempts to identify as ordinary are painful. “I look at my daughter Nancy,” she says, “and think that in only six years she could be starting an apprenticeship.”

Eh? Nancy Cameron – an apprenticeship? What will that be in, then, sweetie? Welding?

Oh, puhleese. It’s patronising, Marie Antoinette-stuff like that which is inciting Britons to rebel. I don’t mean to be ungenerous, but if Samantha Cameron wrote that article herself then I am Jane Austen.

How typical of the Remain campaign that their appeal to female voters should be drafted by some special adviser who has even less clue about normal women’s lives than Mrs Cameron.

Samantha Cameron says she doesn’t want to take a “gamble” with her children’s future by leaving the EU. But women know the future of her children will always be safe because immense wealth and privilege will make sure of that. The kids we should be worrying about are those who will have to compete for jobs and collapsing public services if immigration continue at the rate of 240,000 every single year.

Just imagine the strain that will put on our schools, our housing, our hospitals and our environment in 10 years’ time. Only by leaving the EU can we guarantee a decent quality of life for children whose daddy isn’t the Prime Minister.

This week, the Archbishop of Canterbury told us that he was voting Remain, signalling that this was somehow the moral choice. Personally, I think a more Christian view comes from the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Dr Sacks has warned that, while a well-integrated, multi-ethnic society feels like a home, a multicultural society overwhelmed by immigration feels like a hotel where “everyone is a guest”.

What do we want for our children? A home or a hotel?

Next Thursday, we get to choose.




Wherever I drive now, all I see is Leave posters. I know of very few people who intend to vote remain. I am finally believing that Brexit can actually pull this off. Remain are running scared, as although people realise that there will be an economic impact, a lot don't care and don't believe the Remain camp lies.

 

[portslade seagull]

The Remain's immigration plans are the current government's as remaining means we stay as we are - there is no need to provide a new plan as it is current government policy. There will be some that will blame immigration on the EU, but of course the government has done nothing to curb immigration from outside the EU, a power which it has to do so.

As we don't know what the political landscape will be if we Leave, then it is surely incumbent on the Leave campaigners to provide the blueprints of the shape of the country that is not in the EU. Or is everyone convinced by the 2 words 'points system', and believe our politicians when they say they will reduce immigration?

At the heart of the Leave campaign are current government cabinet ministers who could outline what an out immigration policy will look like. We already know what an in one looks like.

So it will still be failing if remain win the vote then

 

[The Rivet]

Unfortunately, thanks to the Referendum, it will be tetchy for many years to come - whatever the outcome on 23rd June.

Something we entirely agree on.

I do however agree with having the referendum. Ignored people tend to get very demonstrative.

 

[Maldini]

10 years ago we weren't plunged into a deep global recession. People always look for things to blame for their hardship in a recession, right now that blame is focussed on the EU. The Leave campaign is fought upon ground that immigrants are responsible for: the strain on our NHS, Education, Health etc. They are not responsible for that, severe cuts are responsible. The Tory plan requires the population to increase in order for the economy to recover. It is not going to turn away people bringing skills, spending their money and paying their taxes in this country. That is not the fault of the EU, that is the policy of our current government. The proof of this is the growth in non EU immigration - something they could control if they wished.

I'm sure most people wouldn't vote leave if we weren't in austerity and weren't in recession. Don't confuse what Leaving or Remaining actually means with how the tactics of the campaigns are manifesting themselves. Positive what we can achieve on our own - so we've not been our own country all this time? That isn't hope, that is just nonsense.

10 years ago we weren't plunged into a recession.Correct.10 years ago migration started to rise to the uncontrollable numbers it is today.10 years ago the EU started their push on political union.As I said most Brits I'm sure would be all for a union that consisted of only economic issues/trading issues.Migrants are of course not responsible for ALL the strain on the NHS,Housing,Schools but they sure as hell don't help.Right?Yes we shouldn't turn away people with SKILLS.SKILLS that we need.Not skills we don't need and not the millions of unskilled who are taking the jobs of the low paid and affecting the poor in this country.Taking jobs and driving down wages.Damn it now you're going to tell me it isn't sK whatever.CONTROLLED immigration is where it's at.Most people on Leave have not say NO to ALL immigration.We are just saying let's CONTROL it.

You think most people wouldn't vote leave if we weren't in austerity or in recession?We are not in a recession.What are you talking about?As for austerity it's just not on the level of say Greece.However for most Leavers economics doesn't come into it so I totally disagree with you.

We use to be our own country but that's slipping away.It's more about where we will be in 10/20/30 years times if we vote Remain.Not where we will be in 3/5 years.God help us if we have another 30 years of the EU.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So it will still be failing if remain win the vote then

It depends what you mean as failing.

Over 60 years, we have not looked to restrict immigration, EU or otherwise. Our economy has grown with our population, the two are linked.

The smoke and mirrors is that the government don't want to curb immigration, even if they say they do, so they blame other things, like EU rules, or the cost of border control etc. It hides the fact that you can go back to after the war, and we've needed people coming in.

So, if you want reduced immigration, the EU isn't to blame, the own function of our government, our economy is to blame. There is no answer to the burning question of, why don't we already have this mystical all solving points system of immigrants coming from outside the EU? Why are we not able to in this debate say 'it works for non-EU immigrants, so should work once we leave the EU'. We can't because the government has no motivation to do so.

Anyone thinking we're going to leave then suddenly have reduced immigration is going to be bitterly disappointed over the next decade or so.

 

[portslade seagull]

Comment article from the Telegraph.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at the hairdresser, head under the mixer tap, with several women using the basins either side of me. On the wall in front of us was a TV screen. The volume was muted, but we could read the headlines scrolling along the bottom.

I forget which particular warning from Project Fear was making news that day – Third World War, feta cheese shortage, pensioners to lose the right to watch Countdown… they all blur into one, don’t they?

Suddenly, the woman at the far end burst out laughing. The laughter was contagious. Soon, all five of us were cracking up. “Does anyone believe this stuff?” asked one of the salon’s mystified juniors. “No!” we snorted.

If the Remain campaign could have heard that laughter, they should have been afraid. Very afraid. Ridicule is dangerous stuff. Cynicism you can talk round, anger defuse. But mockery is something else. Mockery is like mercury. Once it’s out the bottle, there’s no getting it back in again.

Of course, five women with a fit of the giggles do not a focus group make, and yet that was the first time I truly believed that Britain might vote to leave the European Union. That hunch seems to have been correct. The latest YouGov poll gives Brexit a seven-point lead with women now more likely to support Leave (as are people aged 25 to 49). Guess what – women don’t like condescending, mainly male politicians lecturing them. Who knew?

There is panic in the Remain camp, and rightly so. Each new tactic comes across as an increasingly desperate Mr Punch beating up Judy and squawking, “Oh, yes, you will!”

“Oh, no, we won’t!,” the people shout back.

The female vote will be absolutely crucial on June 23rd. Judging by the vast daily postbag to this newspaper, women have overcome their instinctive caution and see the EU not as a source of stability but as a beast that devours its own children – and ours could be among them if we’re not careful.

Look how Brussels and Berlin are utterly indifferent as the young people of Spain, Greece and Italy are sacrificed on the Euro bonfire.

Notice how no one on the Remain side even bothers to pretend that Brussels is anything other than hideously dysfunctional. With its nepotism, protectionism, centralism, cronyism and sexism (not one of the seven Presidents is female), the EU has got more rotten ‘isms’ than a medieval Papacy.

How can that corrupt bunch of old freeloaders be the future when they are so clearly the discredited past?

But, hark! To win women voters back to Remain, here comes Samantha Cameron in “her first-ever newspaper article”. SamCam says she knows that people will think she has “a vested interest” in expressing her views. “They’re right,” says the PM’s wife, “I have got a vested interest: my children and their future.”

Mrs Cameron goes on to tell us how easy her posh leather goods company finds it to trade with the EU in contrast to the “expensive, bureaucratic nightmare” that is the rest of the world.

Funny, when I spoke last week to Sir James Dyson, our greatest living inventor and billionaire exporter, he had nothing but praise for the “expanding and exciting” global markets, compared to the shrinking EU whose politicised courts dispense not justice but shameless patronage to big manufacturers in Germany, France and Italy.

In a long article, SamCam finds space to warn about “the prospect of another recession”, but there isn’t a single sentence about the problems created for millions of British families by uncontrolled EU migration. Not for heiress Mrs Cameron the worry of getting her kids a place at a decent school or a foot on the housing ladder. Her attempts to identify as ordinary are painful. “I look at my daughter Nancy,” she says, “and think that in only six years she could be starting an apprenticeship.”

Eh? Nancy Cameron – an apprenticeship? What will that be in, then, sweetie? Welding?

Oh, puhleese. It’s patronising, Marie Antoinette-stuff like that which is inciting Britons to rebel. I don’t mean to be ungenerous, but if Samantha Cameron wrote that article herself then I am Jane Austen.

How typical of the Remain campaign that their appeal to female voters should be drafted by some special adviser who has even less clue about normal women’s lives than Mrs Cameron.

Samantha Cameron says she doesn’t want to take a “gamble” with her children’s future by leaving the EU. But women know the future of her children will always be safe because immense wealth and privilege will make sure of that. The kids we should be worrying about are those who will have to compete for jobs and collapsing public services if immigration continue at the rate of 240,000 every single year.

Just imagine the strain that will put on our schools, our housing, our hospitals and our environment in 10 years’ time. Only by leaving the EU can we guarantee a decent quality of life for children whose daddy isn’t the Prime Minister.

This week, the Archbishop of Canterbury told us that he was voting Remain, signalling that this was somehow the moral choice. Personally, I think a more Christian view comes from the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Dr Sacks has warned that, while a well-integrated, multi-ethnic society feels like a home, a multicultural society overwhelmed by immigration feels like a hotel where “everyone is a guest”.

What do we want for our children? A home or a hotel?

Next Thursday, we get to choose.




Wherever I drive now, all I see is Leave posters. I know of very few people who intend to vote remain. I am finally believing that Brexit can actually pull this off. Remain are running scared, as although people realise that there will be an economic impact, a lot don't care and don't believe the Remain camp lies.

This in bundles

 

[drew]

10 years is short term compared to 50/60/100 years + in the EU.Personally I don't believe it will be more than 3 if any at all.

Care to give us some reasoning as to why you think it will only be 3 years or is it just gut instinct?

 

[Maldini]

So you must think the 10 year prediction is gut instinct also?

 

[cunning fergus]

Unfortunately, it will not be the "intelligentsia" who suffer. Virtually everyone (even pro-Brexit economists) think the UK will be worse off financially - certainly in the short to medium term, and mostly in the long term, too. It's very unfair, but those who will suffer as a result will be the low paid, the unemployed, those requiring health and social care. The average bloke in the pub may be able to say "yah boo sucks" to the establishment after a Brexit vote, but he may live to regret a decision taken in anger...

You are living in a fantasy world, that cohort would typically capture core labour voters, however it is the core support of labour that is turning their backs on their pro EU MPs.

These are the very people who have already been burnt by the politicians and their chums at Goldman Sachs, who were also implicated today in the stripping out of BHS Pensions with pro EU supporting multi billionaire Monaco domicile Tory ******* SIR Philip Green.

I know whose side I am on.........

 

[portslade seagull]

It depends what you mean as failing.

Over 60 years, we have not looked to restrict immigration, EU or otherwise. Our economy has grown with our population, the two are linked.

The smoke and mirrors is that the government don't want to curb immigration, even if they say they do, so they blame other things, like EU rules, or the cost of border control etc. It hides the fact that you can go back to after the war, and we've needed people coming in.

So, if you want reduced immigration, the EU isn't to blame, the own function of our government, our economy is to blame. There is no answer to the burning question of, why don't we already have this mystical all solving points system of immigrants coming from outside the EU? Why are we not able to in this debate say 'it works for non-EU immigrants, so should work once we leave the EU'. We can't because the government has no motivation to do so.

Anyone thinking we're going to leave then suddenly have reduced immigration is going to be bitterly disappointed over the next decade or so.

I agree that we will always need a degree of immigration to cover skill shortages. Successive governments and now the remain camp have tackled it badly. In the years to come with all nations suffering ageing populations and a need for youth can forsee incentives then being offered which will negate both sides of this argument

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

That's the way democracy works. The only way of preventing it would be to introduce some level of qualification to vote: passing certain exams, owning property (like the old days) or something equally unlikely to be democratic. We do prevent convicted prisoners and those detained in mental hospitals from voting; it wouldn't be impossible to extend this. But not sensible, as I'm sure you already agree.

I do think the In campaign are going about things the wrong way - or they appear to be doing so to me. The warnings are getting to be of "the sky is falling" intensity - and they are just being ignored. Or they are saying "look at how the clever and pretty people are voting" or just shouting at them, neither of which are really the way to persuade people.

Well, yes and no. Democracy generally works by electing knowledgeable, experienced people to represent us and making informed decisions on our behalf. I can accept anyone making a decision if its informed, what I worry about here is people making a choice based on nothing of the sort. I mean, look at that Telegraph article posted by larus a couple of posts up - women choosing which way to vote based on 'not liking to be lectured to by condescending men' - thats no way to make a decision of this importance.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

You're not voting POINTS as no one has proposed it! The current government hasn't proposed it, the Leave campaign have only mentioned it. It isn't in any manifesto, and once we leave, there is nothing to say any future government would need to take the system on. You're voting on a guess!

Isn't voting all about guess? It's gut instinct and I have had enough of the lack of CONTROL of our borders for the past couple of decades.
Nobody knows who there next-door neighbour is nowadays.

Do you have kids? Well I do and I see it's my job to protect them, so I will be voting Leave and taking back control of our borders.

 

[cunning fergus]

Leaving the EU, with power handed to Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan-Smith, Chris Grayling and Priti Patel...oh yeah, they're going to be on the side of the working class and not the rich aren't they! That is what will happen. Cameron will resign, and we'll have 4 years with these 4 in charge of the country, as far right a government we've had going back half century or more!

You can't have it both ways, they are not on the same side as Goldman Sachs and all the pro EU capitalists that caused the economic collapse in 2008.

What could be worse than the problems the euro is causing in the EZ with unemployment above 50%, rampant QE and effective coup d'etat courtesy of an unelected troika.

If this is the good times I will take my chances with the unknown, not least if it's the opposite of Goldman Sachs advice.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Isn't voting all about guess? It's gut instinct and I have had enough of the lack of CONTROL of our borders for the past couple of decades.
Nobody knows who there next-door neighbour is nowadays.

Do you have kids? Well I do and I see it's my job to protect them, so I will be voting Leave and taking back control of our borders.

We control our borders now. You still need a Passport or National Identity Card to enter the UK - hence the stream of migrants into Europe haven't been able to get into the UK unless we let them. We wouldn't have the Calais camps if we didn't control our borders.

Free movement allows EU nationals in to work, reside and look for a job, just as every UK national can and do the same within the EU. A vote to Leave is unlikely to change this, even the examples of Norway allow free movement as part of their individual deal.

We again, already control our borders to non-EU immigrants.

Why is leaving the EU going to give you more control - it will just be the EU free movement you could change, but we'll probably still have that anyway because we'll still have to negotiate a trade deal.

You're still going to have neighbours you don't know in or out. We'll have no greater capacity for controlling our borders to the extent we can control them now. The border/immigration argument is a massive red herring.

 

[cunning fergus]

Farage is an absolute bell end. A massive hypocrite, interested in nothing but lining his pockets.

He trousers tens of thousands in EU expenses / allowances, for being an MEP, yet never attends or votes.
Campaigns against immigrants taking 'British jobs' yet employs his German wife using public funds.
Is a former City banker from a public school who pretends to be a man of the people.

If it wasn't all so depressing, it would be funny.

Seriously - anyone who buys this guy's front isn't somebody whose 'respect' is anything to worry about losing.

Three questions.

1) do you feel the same about Sinn Fein MPs that take expenses and don't turn up to Parliament?

2) do you think those that vote for Sinn Fein care about the conduct of their MPs?

3) do you think the Sinn Fein MPs and their electorates would prefer delivery of their cause or the status quo?

Replace Sinn Fein with UKIP and You will get a sense of some people's motives.

As for Farage himself, there is one attribute he does deserve credit for, not least in comparison to fellow eurosceptic Corbyn, a man whose strong anti EU beliefs go back publicly far longer than Farage.

One has the strength of his political beliefs, the other, just like his predecessor Kinnock doesn't.

You might not like that, and it pains me, but it's the truth........and why labour support is being shredded in traditional working class constituencies.

 

[5ways]

We control our borders now. You still need a Passport or National Identity Card to enter the UK - hence the stream of migrants into Europe haven't been able to get into the UK unless we let them. We wouldn't have the Calais camps if we didn't control our borders.

Free movement allows EU nationals in to work, reside and look for a job, just as every UK national can and do the same within the EU. A vote to Leave is unlikely to change this, even the examples of Norway allow free movement as part of their individual deal.

We again, already control our borders to non-EU immigrants.

Why is leaving the EU going to give you more control - it will just be the EU free movement you could change, but we'll probably still have that anyway because we'll still have to negotiate a trade deal.

You're still going to have neighbours you don't know in or out. We'll have no greater capacity for controlling our borders to the extent we can control them now. The border/immigration argument is a massive red herring.

Yep. A vote for Brexit isn't a vote for reduced immigration despite what people think.. Free movement is not going anywhere, a points system is a fantasy. Just as well because that would be very damaging to this country.

 

[Driver8]

We control our borders now. You still need a Passport or National Identity Card to enter the UK - hence the stream of migrants into Europe haven't been able to get into the UK unless we let them. We wouldn't have the Calais camps if we didn't control our borders.

Free movement allows EU nationals in to work, reside and look for a job, just as every UK national can and do the same within the EU. A vote to Leave is unlikely to change this, even the examples of Norway allow free movement as part of their individual deal.

We again, already control our borders to non-EU immigrants.

Why is leaving the EU going to give you more control - it will just be the EU free movement you could change, but we'll probably still have that anyway because we'll still have to negotiate a trade deal.

You're still going to have neighbours you don't know in or out. We'll have no greater capacity for controlling our borders to the extent we can control them now. The border/immigration argument is a massive red herring.

I imagine "free movement of our citizens" will be high up the list of demands if/when we start trade negotiations.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Why do people keep sharing that post from facebook?

It just makes you look like an imbecile!