The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[trekka]

Saying that I'm a tad disappointed is an understatement.  This just blew the bottom shelves off of the UK antique sideboard. 

The question now is... is Clint Eastwood representing the EU or the UK? 

(for those who haven't seen it, watch it, wait until the end and then make your opinions).  

Edited June 24, 2016 by trekka

[brommy]

1 minute ago, BigJim said:

It is essential to big business. German industries built their power on hiring cheap immigrant labour and laying them off again when it suited them.

Why is it essential? Why can't each country decide what their current labour requirements are?

[BigJim]

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

My example was a bad one. Ignore it. The fundamental question is 'you don't understand something, should you vote on it?'. Gut feel isn't a viable position to run a country, you have to have insight and understanding. If this was about gut feeling why where there campaigns running around 'explaining' (stretching the term to near breaking point) positions?

The referendum was obscenely stupid and lo and behold, ignorance was 'wot won it'.

It isn't a surprise the most vocal leavers are not the most articulate or nuanced of people.

Do you mean, should it be put to the vote, or should you abstain/be barred if you haven't understood the issues to somebody's (whose?) satisfaction?

If it is a fundamental constitutional issue it must be put to the vote, as it was when we joined in the first place. If the people had the right to decide then, they had the right to decide now.

I agree with you that such a system is full of imperfections, it's the worst system there is, apart from all the others, as somebody once said.

[BigJim]

4 minutes ago, brommy said:

Why is it essential? Why can't each country decide what their current labour requirements are?

I believe the Leave argument was that it keeps labour rates low, and that the other side propounded that it foments economic growth in the poorer countries. 

I may be wrong and I'm not saying I agree with either camp.

[Chindie]

11 minutes ago, BigJim said:

Do you mean, should it be put to the vote, or should you abstain/be barred if you haven't understood the issues to somebody's (whose?) satisfaction?

If it is a fundamental constitutional issue it must be put to the vote, as it was when we joined in the first place. If the people had the right to decide then, they had the right to decide now.

I agree with you that such a system is full of imperfections, it's the worst system there is, apart from all the others, as somebody once said.

I mean it shouldn't be put to a vote.

This was a different proposition to the vote in the 70s. A much more complicated one.

The referendum was stupid. But we did it to keep a Tory revolt under control.

[Chindie]

17 minutes ago, brommy said:

Why is it essential? Why can't each country decide what their current labour requirements are?

It's an extension of the single market, effectively creating a single labour market, and ties into the EU's founding principles of bringing Europe closer by allowing and encouraging mixing of people more easily. The idea being to combat 'Othering' to develop 'we feeling' (not my term).

[krisagg75]

31 minutes ago, trekka said:

Saying that I'm a tad disappointed is an understatement.  This just blew the bottom shelves off of the UK antique sideboard. 

The question now is... is Clint Eastwood representing the EU or the UK? 

can't like this enough.one of my fav films of all time.

[brommy]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's an extension of the single market, effectively creating a single labour market, and ties into the EU's founding principles of bringing Europe closer by allowing and encouraging mixing of people more easily. The idea being to combat 'Othering' to develop 'we feeling' (not my term).

Doesn't a single labour market disadvantage those countries with weaker economies to the extent that they lose skills and productive population? Doesn't a single labour market also risk alienating the local population of the more successful economies?

[krisagg75]

33 minutes ago, CastleBromVilla said:

Yes, it is. It makes me sad that so many in this country would gladly sell us up the river to Europe.

No more though Mr Mooney!

you are nick griffin and i claim my £5.

one thing though nick,is it just those dirty poles,czechs,romanians,etc or is it also the irish,blacks and muslims as well.

[Gary Thomas]

43 minutes ago, CastleBromVilla said:

You can put at that project fear crap to one side now, it's all finished. That isn't really going to happen, is it? There might me a bit of a bump, but its certainly not going to destroy our economy.

This ain't going to be a bump - there's going to be a lot of pain - the economy, jobs and investment will suffer because of this decision and the cost of navigating our way through the mess will be astronomical. That's not project fear, it is the reality we have to face for a few years.  I hope all the pain is worth it in the long run but at the moment I can only see a weaker, more fragmented and isolated UK that could eventually become a weaker, more fragmented and isolated England and Wales.  I pray I am wrong and the gamble pays off.

[villakram]

from the graun

Jeroen Dijsselbloem "A few years ago, London took out adverts in the Asian edition of the Financial Times saying it was the place to come if you wanted to do business in the EU. Now they can’t place that advert, and the Asians will go to Amsterdam or Frankfurt instead"

but ya, freedom from furryners and back under Lizzies thumb!!!

 

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, brommy said:

Doesn't a single labour market disadvantage those countries with weaker economies to the extent that they lose skills and productive population? Doesn't a single labour market also risk alienating the local population of the more successful economies?

It can do. But the EU has always benefitted some nations more than others, which is why it was keen to develop its less well off members to try to remove problems of economic disparity in part. It's aim is more or less to develop an even playing field in every element that it can.

[cyrusr]

55 minutes ago, CastleBromVilla said:

It will give us far greater control and allows us to decide who enters the country. We'll be able ensure those we do allow to come here, add value and will stop those that won't be able to support themselves and are just using the EU as a passage way into the country.

And how about the immigration from other countries? They do account for more immigrants than EU as shown in the latest figures:

 

This is my problem, the misrepresentation of the issues. Don't get me wrong I agree the remain camp did it as well; but to the extent that even Farage finally admitted the £350 million figure was wrong today is just infuriating. 

There are people who voted remain that clearly wanted it, having considered the information and felt they wanted out. I have no issues with that, they are entitled to, but the ones that have done it as a "protest vote" or to "get the immigrants out"; those who I am afraid are ignorant of the bigger picture and what seems to be coming through is that there were enough of these voters to swing it. That's the frustration with it.

[brommy]

Just now, Chindie said:

It can do. But the EU has always benefitted some nations more than others, which is why it was keen to develop its less well off members to try to remove problems of economic disparity in part. It's aim is more or less to develop an even playing field in every element that it can.

It is possible to see why significant numbers of those in the more successful economies would not necessarily want to dilute their economies to create 'an even playing field' amongst a large number of countries with a great variation in living standards.

[krisagg75]

i would like to know the percentage of people on benefits who voted out.all i've seen this evening on the various news outlets is incarnations of white dee saying immigrants out.

[Chindie]

Just now, brommy said:

It is possible to see why significant numbers of those in the more successful economies would not necessarily want to dilute their economies to create 'an even playing field' amongst a large number of countries with a great variation in living standards.

Certainly. I also don't think the EU would ever quite achieve the even playing field, certainly not within the lifetime of anyone here now.

There is also more than an element of the exploitation of developing the weaker nations, brain drain and customer base. This is more of the immediate desire for free movement.

Unfortunately I don't think much of that played into the minds of many Leave voters. And the Leave campaign knew it full well.

[BigJim]

3 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

There are people who voted remain that clearly wanted it, having considered the information and felt they wanted out. I have no issues with that, they are entitled to, but the ones that have done it as a "protest vote" or to "get the immigrants out"; those who I am afraid are ignorant of the bigger picture and what seems to be coming through is that there were enough of these voters to swing it. That's the frustration with it.

Here we go again: The Leave vote was mainly xenophobic thickos who don't understand the bigger picture. The Remainers clearly thought the issue through like the thoroughly decent, intelligent, cosmopolitan chaps they are.

Apologies cyrusr, it's not just you. But I think you can all do a bit better than that.

[BigJim]

41 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I mean it shouldn't be put to a vote.

This was a different proposition to the vote in the 70s. A much more complicated one.

The referendum was stupid. But we did it to keep a Tory revolt under control.

More complicated now than then, but that's part of the reason why many of those that voted in originally have voted out now: the system was never supposed to get so inflated and complicated.

The referendum was stupid only if you think it was valid to remain in an increasingly federalist union against the wish of the people which was increasingly clear from democratic election results (partly prompting the revolting Tories). Cameron's hand was forced by the workings of our democratic political system. You can lament the outcome, as you clearly do, but you can't argue against the process without sounding like a bit of a fascist (not helped actually by making out you're more intelligent than the plebs).

[tinker]

 Randy Lerner was spotted leaving number 10 shortly before the results were announced.......

On a serious note, overnight how divided have we become? Even on here the divisions are clear. The very things we all wanted , leave or  stay, now seems further away than ever , its a sad day for us all no matter which way we voted .

 

[jon_c]

6 minutes ago, BigJim said:

Here we go again: The Leave vote was mainly xenophobic thickos who don't understand the bigger picture. The Remainers clearly thought the issue through like the thoroughly decent, intelligent, cosmopolitan chaps they are.

Apologies cyrusr, it's not just you. But I think you can all do a bit better than that.

The only representation of vote leavers that I have are those posting on social media, those shown in reports on the broadcast media, and those I have spoken to face to face. 

I won't pre-judge a group of people in their entirety. 

However the majority of those leavers I have experienced have said something to me that was either ignorant, xenophobic or outright racist. Be it complete ignorance of what the EU is or does, to telling me they don't want the German's telling them what to do 'cause they killed my granddad' (and that is a direct quote)

So I understand when there is a tendency by some (be it wrongly) to group you with the people with whom you have allied your vote.

After all I share no political ideals personally with David Cameron bar that we were both for Remain.