After brexit ...?

It's in no one's interest to restrict useful individuals from easy travel, but some countries are trying to force free movement for all.
Cash and trade are always more powerful than political bonds, so I believe it's more likely the more 'aggressive' countries will be told compromise is happening, even if they veto it.

Its kind of debatable whether the UK people really wanted this - out of the 70% or so who bothered to vote just over 50% vote 'leave'.  Unfortunately, the popular press turned the whole thing into an immigration issue, completely forgetting that this can work both ways - travel restrictions for British people wanting to holiday/work/live in Europe.

The British Government have stated that they will not force EU nationals to leave the UK.  However many want to see immigration restrictions put in place.  Equally, there will be nothing to prevent other European countries from imposing similar restrictions on British travellers.  It already looks as if Britain cannot have free trade and closed borders, with Europe.  The other aspects and benefits of being members of the EU seem to have been rather sidelined.  Yes the UK economy has picked up, but this may be a factor of the weaker £ and no one knows how it will go in the long term.

Nevertheless, the government hasn't invoked Article 50 yet.  Originally it was planned to invoke it immediately after the referendum, then it was delayed until September 2016, now March 2017.  Until it actually happens, Britain remains a member of the EU!

Longonot62 wrote:

Its kind of debatable whether the UK people really wanted this

No, the ones with interest enough to vote decided they wanted out.
Many of the pro Europe group question voters, but I see that as an insult to the people, a claim they aren't clever enough to decide what they want.
Democracy has spoken.

Those that voted, voted for their idea situation to an ever increasing dominance from Europe which was made worse by sensationalistic journalism which failed to foresee what would happen after the vote.
So as GB pull out of Europe the criticism aimed at the government will be harder but at the end of the day, the people spoke, ill informed or otherwise. The remainers will feel slightly more smug than the leavers but all will soon realise that being in Europe had some uses other than subsidies, no visa required travel through Europe and straighter carrots.

Not to mention bananas that aren't too bendy.
Europe has its advantages, especially if you can't stand curvy fruit.

OMG the racism, the injustice, the common sense

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-37590044

The London School of Economics says some of its academics have been barred from advising the Foreign Office on Brexit because they are not British.
The university said the leader of a project had been told only UK passport-holders should be involved in talks on national security and foreign trade.

The LSE is complaining foreign nationals with obvious potential for pushing their own country's agenda can't advise on such matters as defense and foreign trade at a time when most of Europe is hunting every penny they can get after Brexit.

"Many of the pro Europe group question voters, but I see that as an insult to the people, a claim they aren't clever enough to decide what they want."

I think that many based their vote on the 'hot potato' of immigration, and lies about NHS funding which was driven by the popular press.  Its not that people aren't clever enough to make the decision, they were misinformed, by both sides.  I certainly know of several people who wished that they had voted 'stay', as the various truths came out after the referendum.

It's still too late to change anything so best sit back and watch what unfolds.

lukereg wrote:

It's still too late to change anything so best sit back and watch what unfolds.

Surely not, as the government hasn't actually done anything about it.............yet.  Surely it will become progressively more difficult to invoke Article 50 the longer they leave it.

Saw an online survey yesterday in which 52% now wish that the UK had voted to remain in the EU!   Personally, I believe that where there is an almost 50/50 split, a referendum should be re-run, especially for something as vital as this.

Longonot62 wrote:

lukereg wrote:

It's still too late to change anything so best sit back and watch what unfolds.

Surely not, as the government hasn't actually done anything about it.............yet.  Surely it will become progressively more difficult to invoke Article 50 the longer they leave it.

Saw an online survey yesterday in which 52% now wish that the UK had voted to remain in the EU!   Personally, I believe that where there is an almost 50/50 split, a referendum should be re-run, especially for something as vital as this.

Yes, keep re-voting until you get the result that suits you.

People will change their minds about the Brexit but it was voted for legally so it is hard for the government to back out from the will of the people. The new leadership of the country will try to get a good balance from the deal of leaving. But Europe are not exactly going to let the UK just walk all over them.

The UK has to push now to leave Europe but also ensure trade and finance links and prevent barriers for trade and movement of people quickly. Whilst this process will take years, the damage will come sooner.

Longonot62 wrote:

I think that many based their vote on the 'hot potato' of immigration, and lies about NHS funding which was driven by the popular press..

If the voters aren't intelligent enough to make informed choices, the only path is a dictatorship that tells the people what is best for them.

<<Yes, keep re-voting until you get the result that suits you.>>

Fred;  not what I really meant. 

<<If the voters aren't intelligent enough to make informed choices, the only path is a dictatorship that tells the people what is best for them.>>

As mentioned above, you can't make a proper informed choice if you don't have the right information, can you?

Longonot62 wrote:

As mentioned above, you can't make a proper informed choice if you don't have the right information, can you?

Ah, you want politicians to tell the truth.
Lovely; good luck with that.

Many of the pro Europe group question voters, but I see that as an insult to the people, a claim they aren't clever enough to decide what they want.

I don't think making a decision based on incorrect data is a solid example of sound democracy. I see that as a casualty of the fact that some of the Leave voters cast their vote because of the idea that a given figure of money was going to the EU, and that that money would post-Brexit be routed to NHS and other public services. Now quite a few of my friends and relatives that either voted Leave or were at least sympathetic to the impetus for it are angry and feel the vote was a farce.

That's a bit like signing a contract that contains incorrect terminology or inaccurate figures. The signature may not be held as legally viable depending on just how flawed the inaccuracies are.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu- … m-36574526http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 … a-mistake/http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/n … 2c5638fc17http://news.sky.com/story/backtrack-on- … e-10325543

At last, someone who gets what I was talking about!

Both sides put their versions of reality to the public, and both lied.
Why should the vote be rerun because your liars weren't as good as the winning liars?
The main argument still seems to be the British public aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote, but the remain camp will say they are if they can force a repeat poll and they win.
Then some item is trying to stop democracy in court, whilst others are trying to block the vote in parliament, seemingly claiming the voters who put them there are incapable of making the correct choice.
They might well have a point there.

Democracy is great as long as they win, but lose and they claim the voters are too stupid to listen to.

Anyone MP who tries to destroy democracy should be barred from parliament for life.

I'm inclined to think you're determined to cast it as a direct generalized insult to all regardless of the diversity of the voter base's motives, and be content with a level of oversimplification that I can't validate. I'll keep basing my take on it on input from people who put a bigger priority on nuance.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why the vote must be rejected, but a new vote accepted.
Even if that was done, politicians from both sides would still lie, and many will still votes for reasons others will disagree with.
I'm very sure there was a silly racist element, but there is also a 100% chance some will have voted on Marxist, communist, capitalist and every other ist's principals you can think of.
Big deal, but if you reject the voice of the voter, you reject democracy.
I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim democracy is perfect (or even desired by all), but that's how the UK's political system works, thus any attempt to remove it because you dislike the result is disturbing.

Ask yourself this - if elements within politics decide the voters' choice is unacceptable and must be rejected in this case, when do you stop rejecting the voice of the people?
Will the next general election be rejected if whatever side someone support fails to gain power, and how far are supporters of that side willing to go to win?

Let's move on.
Scotland's nationalists want out of the UK, citing Scotland's pretty solid support for the EU as the main reason for their attempt to overturn the popular vote.
If they leave, that means England had a massive majority in favour of leaving, thus 'remain' lost in epic fashion as far as England goes.
If your new vote produces a 'remain' win but Scotland presses ahead and leaves the UK, does that mean another referendum?

Politics is always a rough subject, and some will always think their version of the truth is so correct the opinions of the majority should be rejected for the good of the people, but those who reject that are rejecting the very principals they claim to love, and they're starting down a road that always leads to serious problems.

You also notice I have favoured neither side in this post, but I'll still be accused of showing support for a given team.
There goes politics, and the willingness to read into anything the message those with strong opinions want to see, even if it isn't there.

Hello,

If I may, I'll also put my two cents in this discussion.

There is an aspect that many English have not taken into account. And which the English media have not voluntarily speak. It is the look of other European countries over England.

With all requirements / quirks that England has had since its partial accession to the European community, there are settling of scores that will be "bloody" ...

As a Belgian, I am not in favor of brexit. But I frankly think it will be very expensive for England.

After brexit.... grexit is coming :p

xaris52 wrote:

After brexit.... grexit is coming :p

Very possibly.
It seems the population is very anti Europe in general, and the debt crisis won't get any batter for many years. That means the country's economy has no hope of anything unless it defaults, and that means no hope of staying in the EU.
A referendum there would (assuming the opinion polls are even close to accurate) produce a massive 'escape' vote.

Political opinions are one thing, but no hope of a decent future is something that tends to amplify opinions and cause problems no politician can control.
Greece has already seen mass violence, and I see the possibility of a real popular revolution if their government do something about the terrible situation, or a fake popular revolution by whatever more extreme group that sees an opportunity to grab power.
They have only two options:
Default and leave the EU, meaning short term serious financial issues for the country
Stay and pay (with someone else's money), but have nothing for many years to come.

Grexit is a strong possibility because people dislike being uncomfortable.