OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[AdiSalisbury]

Haha, you didn't sway it, but challenged my perspective on one aspect, just one small piece of the jigsaw.

[BaaLocks]

They have compulsory voting in Oz, works for them. I personally don't like the idea but after the last election was very much in favour of a 'None Of The Above' as an option on all ballot papers. Thinking it through a bit I'm not quite sure how it would work but we currently only have one way to register disinterest in the political system and that is to not vote - the trouble with that being it is hard to determine whether it is due to laziness or positive disengagement. I find it rather interesting that the automatic reaction to a low turnout is that somehow the public are failing the system whereas the truer analysis would be that it is the system that is failing the voters by failing to provide anything worth walking to the local school or village hall to vote for.

[BaaLocks]

We were not led out of the EU by a minority

No, we were led out of the EU on a tissue of lies, false conclusions and unanswered question. BTW - this is not just a criticism of Boris and Gove, both sides failed to truly evaluate the true cost and scale of the decision which is why it came down to one number (350m) and some scare stories on immigrants. This was the fault of making it a simple 'In/Out' answer - had it been a clearer set of considerations on the consequences of the decision then we would have had to answer the reality rather than our own conclusion of what the answer led us to. Which is why I believe we need to reconfirm our decision once we are clear on what we are getting ourselves into. It's not a second referendum, it's a more clear, more detailed, more outcome based consideration. 'If leaving the EU means no freedom of movement within the European Union (i.e. a visa needed to enter France) would you still like to proceed with exit from the EU?' 'If leaving the EU means all British passport holders currently residing in the EU would have to return to the UK within two years would you still like to proceed with exit from the EU?".

To be clear, I am not suggestion a wriggle out of the decision - I don't believe that is fair to our democratic process, the decision has been made and we should respect it. However, I simply do not believe all parties understood the exam question - on all sides - and we would all benefit from just clarifying what we meant, on all sides.

[BaaLocks]

Surely we have to accept that, above all, the referendum result was never actually 'binding', that the 'majority' never represented a genuine mandate, that the matter of EU membership was hijacked by those with a different agenda and that damage has subsequently been done to our economy on an almost daily basis. Let's take serious note of the concerns expressed via the referendum but is there really any point in putting even more complex details in front of an electorate who frankly don't understand them?

I don't think it's a question of being thick or clever, educated or not, old or young - I think it more the point that when you go to a referendum you have to be clear not only on the question you are asking but that the consequences of that decision. Sadly both in the case of the Scottish independence and Brexit that was not well defined. Example: the question 'would you like to shag Angelina Jolie?' would probably get a 'yes' majority. 'Would you like to shag Angelina Jolie, realising that she expects to be flown at your expense to a private island and put up in a millionaire villa for two weeks, with costs likely to exceed £2m. Plus Brad Pitt has contacts in the mafia and will get you killed as a result?' Answer might be that you'll go upstairs and have a tug instead. OK - my example is a bit silly, nay flat out daft, but my point is that we need to make sure people truly understand what they have agreed to before we act. Interesting that I get a cooling off period if I buy a Sky Sports subscription and then read the small print but for taking a country on a path of irreversible economic direction we don't even get to sleep on it. Again, I'm not saying 'it was wrong' 'we wuz robbed' or 'it wasn't fair' but I am saying 'let's just make sure we know what we've agreed to'.

[swaledale]

I don't think it's a question of being thick or clever, educated or not, old or young - I think it more the point that when you go to a referendum you have to be clear not only on the question you are asking but that the consequences of that decision. Sadly both in the case of the Scottish independence and Brexit that was not well defined. Example: the question 'would you like to shag Angelina Jolie?' would probably get a 'yes' majority. 'Would you like to shag Angelina Jolie, realising that she expects to be flown at your expense to a private island and put up in a millionaire villa for two weeks, with costs likely to exceed £2m. Plus Brad Pitt has contacts in the mafia and will get you killed as a result?' Answer might be that you'll go upstairs and have a tug instead. OK - my example is a bit silly, nay flat out daft, but my point is that we need to make sure people truly understand what they have agreed to before we act. Interesting that I get a cooling off period if I buy a Sky Sports subscription and then read the small print but for taking a country on a path of irreversible economic direction we don't even get to sleep on it. Again, I'm not saying 'it was wrong' 'we wuz robbed' or 'it wasn't fair' but I am saying 'let's just make sure we know what we've agreed to'.

You make some very sensible points, there was a discussion today on the Radio how the BBC was so anxious to appear impartial *because it is legally obliged to do so) that there was not enough criticism of either sides arguments, the £350 million to the NHS" plus Farages picture of refugees just two examples which werent challenged enough. What this meant is that other than by acting on instincts or preformed prejudices people really did not have enough information to make an informed decision.

Interestingly Trump and his outlandish statements are causing issues for the American media, because there the mainstream press is impartial, there isn't the partisan agendas that our mainstream media have - cable TV isa diferent matter as anyone who has wtahced FOX news will know! A review of Trump's utterings has shown that around 70% of what he says is false, but he has got away with it until now because of a fear of being overly critical of him.

Trump is of course doing what Farage and the other Brexits did, which is to identify peoples genuine fears and then exaggerate them or find convenient scapegoats for people to latch onto.

On the Referendum, yes 52% of those voting voted in favour, but it was an advisory referendum, so it would not be anti democratic to hold another once the terms of any deal for exit from the EU were known .

[ramAnag]

Anyone who can get us from Brexit to shaggin' Angelina Jolie gets my vote.

Seriously...three top contributions...and 800 up.

[AngryRam]

No, we were led out of the EU on a tissue of lies, false conclusions and unanswered question. BTW - this is not just a criticism of Boris and Gove, both sides failed to truly evaluate the true cost and scale of the decision which is why it came down to one number (350m) and some scare stories on immigrants. This was the fault of making it a simple 'In/Out' answer - had it been a clearer set of considerations on the consequences of the decision then we would have had to answer the reality rather than our own conclusion of what the answer led us to. Which is why I believe we need to reconfirm our decision once we are clear on what we are getting ourselves into. It's not a second referendum, it's a more clear, more detailed, more outcome based consideration. 'If leaving the EU means no freedom of movement within the European Union (i.e. a visa needed to enter France) would you still like to proceed with exit from the EU?' 'If leaving the EU means all British passport holders currently residing in the EU would have to return to the UK within two years would you still like to proceed with exit from the EU?".

To be clear, I am not suggestion a wriggle out of the decision - I don't believe that is fair to our democratic process, the decision has been made and we should respect it. However, I simply do not believe all parties understood the exam question - on all sides - and we would all benefit from just clarifying what we meant, on all sides.

350 and some scare stories about immigration. Bit simplistic and wrong IMO.
I agree with the simple in/out question.. I am glad that was the question but it left the govt with nowhere to go. Always leave yourself some wiggle room, if you can.
Yes if I need a visa for France, I would still like to proceed. The benefits, again IMO, will out weigh the negatives. I have no issue with entering another country and proving that I am fit to visit and or work there.
Reconfirmed the decision, Swaley has already deducted the majority of the British public are thick ****s.. This would cause a melt down.
Suck it up and get on with it now.
Rule Brittania.

[southernram22]

do you think i could get into agelina jolie without a visa . cant decide if i should get my coat or have a lay down .

[swaledale]

Not sure about the colouring RR...simple numbers would have sufficed.

I recognise that you know more about economics than me...that's not terribly hard, but I have to take issue with two or three points.

1. 'Yes it was badly designed and should have been more precise in its definition'.
2. Think you'll find it was always absolutely clear that it isn't 'binding' and is only - technically - 'advisory'.
3. 'Was the referendum hijacked? Yes I think it probably was, and no doubt all the issues were neither clearly explained nor understood'.

Given these two concessions of yours (1&3) and the fact about #2, why should I, and others, accept things and 'move on'?
Maybe I'm being stubborn but I don't think acceptance of an error and blind adherence to the consequence of that error is ever a good idea.

You say yourself, '...that's life...decisions are often made for the wrong reasons, and the basis for those decisions corrupted by spin doctors and mouths in suits. Get over it!'

But isn't that the whole point? When bad decisions are made they have to be challenged.
The acceptance of bad decisions is what killed a man in Huddersfield yesterday, it's what leads to children being placed in the care of sometimes dangerous people, it's why inflexible football managers end up being sacked just before their team is relegated and why soldiers are slaughtered in misguided military campaigns.
We have to challenge bad and ill thought out decision making before the damage is compounded and to tell me simply to 'get over' what you yourself describe as a decision made for the wrong reasons on the basis of 'corruption by spin doctors and mouths in suits' (aka establishment liars) is something I, respectfully, find hard to accept.

Actually the legal status of the referendum is "advisory" which means that the elected parliament could choose to ignore it, but I do agree that moaning about whether it was a true majority or not is pointless. My only repost is when those who favour Brexit talk about the majority of people in this country voted leave, which is not true. Whats more in the course of my work I find a wide a quite surprising variation in the people who voted leave and many different reasons, many of which (but not all) can be proven to be misconceptions or often completely false. Now its hardly scientific but I suspect a good many people might change thier view IF a second vote was held.

All this talk of negotiating with Poland or France etc. is wide of the mark, as long as those countries are in the EU, then it will be with the EU that the UK will be negotiating with and unless there is a complete breakdown of the EU mechanism then we are going to have a tough time.

Economically we need access to the single market and the price for that is likely to be high - if we dont get that then it is very likely that the financial services industry will suffer (a big earner for the UK and a severe hit to our GDP if we lose it). Norway may be different in trading terms, but as things stand and unless somehow we pull off an unlikely coup, I don't see that the deal we need economically will satisfy the Brexit vote...interesting times ahead.

[swaledale]

do you think i could get into agelina jolie without a visa . cant decide if i should get my coat or have a lay down .

If you have a few million dollars in the bank i dont think visa's are an issue!!!

[swaledale]

350 and some scare stories about immigration. Bit simplistic and wrong IMO.
I agree with the simple in/out question.. I am glad that was the question but it left the govt with nowhere to go. Always leave yourself some wiggle room, if you can.
Yes if I need a visa for France, I would still like to proceed. The benefits, again IMO, will out weigh the negatives. I have no issue with entering another country and proving that I am fit to visit and or work there.
Reconfirmed the decision, Swaley has already deducted the majority of the British public are thick ****s.. This would cause a melt down.
Suck it up and get on with it now.
Rule Brittania.

Angry that is so not true! there are people who state reasons why they voted leave which are clearly not true, there are those who state reasons which are at best a misunderstanding of the facts and at worst a belief in something that is not reality and there are those who have genuine reasons.

Anyway a majority of the Uk public did not vote Leave.. that is a fact! So why would i conclude they are as thick as ****!

Yeah well when we leave the EU and it does not change anything in the way that SOME who voted leave thought it would, or in fact it gets worse for them, might that not cause meltdown????

[swaledale]

We are all ****ed anyway!

[Andy_Faber]

All this talk of negotiating with Poland or France etc. is wide of the mark, as long as those countries are in the EU, then it will be with the EU that the UK will be negotiating with and unless there is a complete breakdown of the EU mechanism then we are going to have a tough time.

...interesting times ahead.

Actually we can TRY what the bloody hell we want now, and there is a genuine reversion to the old national self-interests throughout Europe. I wish I was part of the fight to be honest

[swaledale]

It all comes down to the horse trading. Will the various eu countries be prepared to gamble on taking a significant hit on their own interests to force conditions like the free movement of labour? We're not going to stop immigrant labour altogether, that's ridiculous.

Also, people keep talking about a Norway style eu lite deal. You can't compare Norway with us because we import a significant amount of eu goods, compared with Norway. Would the German car industry suffer losing Norwegian sales, would the Spanish and Greek tourist industries miss all the Norwegian tourists, would the Polish workers be able to find as many jobs elsewhere in the eu?

Obviously, we will not be able to have everything we want, that's what negotiations mean. We will probably end up paying some tariff on our exports, the USA average is 3%, but the recent devaluation of the pound will have more than swallowed up that kind of tariff.

It's all about a group of adults, hopefully, acting responsibly and not damaging their own interests just to prove a point.

The deal Norway and SWitzerland have is access to the single market in return for accepting EU rules and regulations, paying into the EU fund and accepting free movement of labour.

The Uk will be negotiating with the EU, not each country individually, unless a country decides to leave like the UK, then they are legally bound to those joint negotiations and whilst it would be nice to think that a mutually beneficial agreement can be made, unfortunately this politics, with various different agendas and countries depending upon others support, political egos etc. that will influence things. The EU may well feel that collectively it is able not to grant concessions to the UK, it would weaken the EU after all if we could leave and still benefit from access to the single market, after all I suspect more German cars get sold in the rest of the EU and the USA, whilst Greece already gets more Russian tourists to replace the Brits.

The economic effects to the UK could well be severe if we dont get a decent deal.

[swaledale]

Actually we can TRY what the bloody hell we want now, and there is a genuine reversion to the old national self-interests throughout Europe. I wish I was part of the fight to be honest

But its not going to happen, the other countries won't negotiate with us individually, they can't legally as long as they remain part of the EU, if one country starts ignoring legally binding treaties and agreements as it chooses, then it will suffer sanctions from the EU which many wont risk because it is not in their interests to do so. Germany and France are hardly going to break ranks are they, seeing as they are the founding members, so we either deal with the EU or we don't.

There might be factions in most EU countries that support nationalist tendencies, however, before that changes anything, they have
get into power and then leave the EU. Thats not going to happen before the UK leaves and in any case those we will be negotiating with don't have that agenda, so again thats not going to happen.

Its hardly a fight, more an intricate game of chess, I really hope we have sophisticated and intelligent negotiators on this.

Whilst superficially appealing, the collapse of the EU and a seizing of power by those national self interests is not something most rational people would welcome, it would cause immeasurable economic and political instability and the lessons are there from history the last time that happened in europe.