Britain is doomed!! (How is that going to affect you)

[Biscuit]

H'mm If your wife said "48% of me wants to remain with you" maybe you would talk it over......................................................

Is the 48% the fun part?

[opel80uk]

H'mm If your wife said "48% of me wants to remain with you" maybe you would talk it over......................................................

Not a hope in hell! IMO, I'd have to be some mug of a man if the missus said 'I'm in 2 minds whether to leave you or not', and I asked her to talk it over...... I'd give her the house that i've virtually paid off, and wish her good luck!

[excalibur2]

Not a hope in hell! IMO, I'd have to be some mug of a man if the missus said 'I'm in 2 minds whether to leave you or not', and I asked her to talk it over...... I'd give her the house that i've virtually paid off, and wish her good luck!

Even if you didn't want her to leave you....I'd persuade her to change to 52% to stay

[opel80uk]

Even if you didn't want her to leave you....I'd persuade her to change to 52% to stay

Nope..... 48%, 50%, 52%, it doesn't matter, i'd be off!

[excalibur2]

Nope..... 48%, 50%, 52%, it doesn't matter, i'd be off!

How this all relates to the other EU countries was:- they didn't think the UK was important enough to offer changes for the UK to stay and persuade the voters in the referendum. A lost opportunity to reform the EU to something better.
The odd thing is:- in the UK, Scotland, Wales and NI wanted more powers and decentralised government, yet the EU want everything more centralised in Brussels and this IMO is what most countries in the EU don't want.

[Corky34]

You've taken a post i made, responding to a post on a specific point. And your arguing against points I never made in that post.
Although i voted leave, you can't direct your anger at me for claims that i clearly wasn't talking about in the post you quoted.
Did you even read the OP from CAT, read the context? Understand the context?
Now if you want to debate on the specific point just say so, don't jump onto a different conversation with someone else and pretend it was about something it was not.

So you're saying you never said...

Nobody is going to think migration would stop completely, migration at '0' ...... I think that's a case of you catching half a conversation or taking a phrase out of context tbh.
The conservative party were elected on a promise of getting migration below 100,000. That's not a unreasonable figure at all.

Is that not what you said in response to this post hear that quoted from the Telegraph article that said the following...

Speaking on BBC News this morning, Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said: “People are grown up and they understand this isn’t something that can happen tomorrow.

“No one has ever suggested there is going to be no immigration.

“There will be EU nationals watching this programme now and I want to underline - no one has suggested any change in their status.

“In terms of migration from the EU the one thing we can do as a result is we will no longer be citizens of the European Union.

“If people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU they are going to be disappointed

“Of course there is still going to be immigration. There are still going to be people coming here to work and you will look in vain for anything the Leave campaign said at any point that suggested there would be any kind of border closure or pulling up of the drawbridge.”

Feel free to explain how I've misrepresented or have been pretending you said something else, because it seems to me you're saying nobody is going to think migration would stop completely when that's clearly not true as over 4 million people not only wanted migration at '0' they wanted to send migrants back home.

[Andy3536]

So you're saying you never said...

Is that not what you said in response to this post hear that quoted from the Telegraph article that said the following...

My original post was actually in response to what Cat wrote himself under that post. Not the article itself.
He seemed to understand that and responded in kind.

All through this entire process, the migration system talked about was the Australian points style system. Nobody has said migration would be at 0, nobody should expect that. The idea that a few people think migration will go to 0 isn't typical. Or right.

[Corky34]

My original post was actually in response to what Cat wrote himself under that post. Not the article itself.
He seemed to understand that and responded in kind.

All through this entire process, the migration system talked about was the Australian points style system. Nobody has said migration would be at 0, nobody should expect that. The idea that a few people think migration will go to 0 isn't typical. Or right.

Yes it was but as has been pointed out numerous times despite you saying "Nobody has said migration would be at 0, nobody should expect that." that's exactly what 4m people expected, whether they should've expected that or not doesn't matter, they voted for leave because they want not only migration at 0 but they wanted people deported.

[Andy3536]

Yes it was but as has been pointed out numerous times despite you saying "Nobody has said migration would be at 0, nobody should expect that." that's exactly what 4m people expected, whether they should've expected that or not doesn't matter, they voted for leave because they want not only migration at 0 but they wanted people deported.

I think 4m people is a gross over exaggeration. That is, though. Just my opinion. But i think this is just another case of sensationalist reporting.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
4m people believe something they were never told? I can't see it.

[excalibur2]

Yes it was but as has been pointed out numerous times despite you saying "Nobody has said migration would be at 0, nobody should expect that." that's exactly what 4m people expected, whether they should've expected that or not doesn't matter, they voted for leave because they want not only migration at 0 but they wanted people deported.

What's wrong with deporting criminals back to their country? Australia deported a criminal Brit that had been in Australia for over 30 years (didn't become an Australian citizen).

[aramil]

Kind of but not really. You don't seem to grasp the hypothetical nature of the question. I'm not suggesting a particular real life outcome will actually happen, I'm asking what eventuality it would take for you to take a moment of self reflection and consider the alternative might have been better.
In this hypothetical situation, If you're willing to go so far as to martyr the entire nation and then still say, "we tried" then fair enough, I guess I'm just hoping this isn't the widespread opinion.

Edit: Or have I misunderstood your answer?

I really don't want to misrepresenting people's opinions.

Not really a misunderstanding, After not paying much (if any) attension the either side of the "parties" arguement and their "promises", that niether could actually keep, I spent many months reading EU/UN/UK/etc, government/University/economic/etc papers, and made a descission based on how i felt after that. The responsability of my vote (and not anyone elses) is squarely on my own shoulders, but many people seem to feel that "all" leave voters where either lied too, or nut jobs... etc which is wrong.

As for any "possible worst case cost", weigh a failed UK economy on it's own, against being part of a failed EU economy, as in any hypothetical situation you must compare like for like and decide which you feel is worse for you.

The problem from the question comes when, "in one persons opinion" that the EU economy will never fail and so that is best, but "someone elses opinion" is that actually it is more likely to fail and so is worst, neither is wrong or right, there are good strong econimic and statical models that show either could (worst case) happen if the surrounding circumstanses are correct.

In short, if "you personnally" have looked at the issue in a structured manner that "you feel" best suits your needs and weighed up the possable pro's and conns of both arguements, then you already know the worst/best cases (however unlikely) that either side of the decission holds and have already answered your question, and voted accordingly.

*But hey, what do I know, I am only one person and my opinion is but only the value of one vote eh, and as recently I (because I voted leave) have been classed as a "closset Nazi/rasist/closed minded/little Britain/moron" I feel that the country (and myself) would be best served If I tried to make the most of this oppertunity. LLAP

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

http://www.industryleadersmagazine.c...ntial-effects/

Here’s why: The European Union funds a majority of science and technology research for its member countries, with 74.8 billion euros budgeted from 2014 to 2020. British taxpayers, on the other hand, prefer keeping their contribution and spending it at home.

The British research and innovation sector, which generates 16 percent of top-impact papers worldwide, will have to brace solid downfall. While Britain paid 5.4 billion euros into the EU research budget between 2007 and 2013, it received 8.8 billion euros back in grants.

British labs, in particular, depend on a quarter of public research funds. A cut in the funding (which could possibly drag on for another decade) will leave a dent on the innovation sector.

The European Union catalyzed collaboration. A majority of EU funds were shared on account of collaboration with other EU countries. After all, collaborative work leads to be higher-impact publications. A special association agreement will have to be signed so British researchers can continue to participate in EU research. In order to ink a deal, Britain will need to open the door to free movement of people from the EU, the very factor Brexitors object the most.

Even if an association agreement is signed, the UK-funded research will be tad expensive. Past figures depict that association countries are expected to pay into the EU research budget and then compete for collaboration-projects. Researchers estimate that the whole affair would be 20 percent more expensive than it is now.

British researchers have a limited choice left. British chancellor George Osborn announced last week that he would have to slash public spending to pay for costs of Brexit. The estimated cost is amounting to $100 billion by 2020. Science is vulnerable to the most cuts.

Innovative British companies, including Rolls-Royce and British Telecom rely on single market access and common regulations with 27-nation bloc to save expenses and access free movement. Research and development teams across British companies have made their views clear. It’s clear from the Brexit analysis that Britain would be making huge near-term losses with long-term negative impact.

It won’t participate in EU’s magnetic containment fusion experiments, the most advanced in the world. The EU’s JET reactor has given British engineers a unique edge in technology. The 3.3-billion-euro Innovative Medicines Initiative won’t be open to Britons. British labs will lose R&D opportunities from the EU pharmaceutical industry.

Not looking good!

[outwar6010]

What would it take for you to conclude that it was a mistake to leave?
It was absolutely not a mistake to Leave ( in the first place )



Are things rosy now ? Can they get any worse?
National debt is more than £1 trillion.
Over a million unemployed.
House prices are through the roof.
Takes 3 weeks to see a GP.
Police stations have been closed.
Prices of grocery products have gone up while quality has gone down or quantitiy has reduced.
I could go on and on

The national debt is mainly from the bank bailout and the rest is tory policy...

[Biscuit]

https://www.facebook.com/SHEmazingIE...8134053548683/

[Corky34]

I think 4m people is a gross over exaggeration. That is, though. Just my opinion. But i think this is just another case of sensationalist reporting.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
4m people believe something they were never told? I can't see it.

Obviously you're free to think what you like but *statistically *over* 4m who voted leave not only wanted to end the free movement of labor, end immigration, but also deport johnny foreigner back to their own country


*based on the poll that showed 26% of brexit supports want to deport immigrants and the known number of voters for leave.

What's wrong with deporting criminals back to their country? Australia deported a criminal Brit that had been in Australia for over 30 years (didn't become an Australian citizen).

We're not talking about criminals.

[opel80uk]

Just as I suspected, the assumption that the EU would start informal discussions because the UK wanted them appears wrong. And arrogant.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...brexit-fallout