Quote from: sharpshot on March 16, 2017, 14:00

The UK is the 5th biggest economy in the world and if we don't get a good deal, it will probably become the biggest tax haven.  Any tariffs will have to be offset by lower taxes, I think that's a good incentive for the EU to come up with a beneficial deal for both sides.  I do think some of the car industry will go but as the UK has some of the best robotics, it wont all go and it would be great if we started making our own cars again.  I was against leaving the EU if it reformed but that hasn't happened and I'm not that disappointed to be leaving now.  Going to be fun to see how it works out.

what makes you think the EU doesn't want a good deal for the UK? All members wanted and want a good deal for the UK of course they have a good maybe selfish interest in keeping good (trade) relations with the UK. What it makes complicated is the behaviour of the leading politicians in the UK, I'm pretty sure there will be no deal at all in the end this would be bad for all but the UK can only blame itself.

I certainly agree that at the moment the UK politicians are not looking very competent but I think their paymasters in big business will knock them into shape....theres too much money involved on both sides of the channel to allow politicians to play games.

Complete freedom of movement isn't working because millions of people will move from the poorer countries to the more wealthy ones. 

A) The average GDP per person in Latvia (for example) is 2.6 times less than the UK. The average GDP per person in Luxembourg is 2.6 times more than the UK. So how come there are only 6,000 Brits in Luxembourg? I thought millions of people from the poor countries would be moving to the wealthier ones?

B) Maybe they should erect a wall around London, so people won't move from the poorer counties to the more wealthy ones? Or is that ok, as they're not pesky foreigners?

C) And? What if they do?

Quote from: sharpshot on March 16, 2017, 18:56

Complete freedom of movement isn't working because millions of people will move from the poorer countries to the more wealthy ones. 

A) The average GDP per person in Latvia (for example) is 2.6 times less than the UK. The average GDP per person in Luxembourg is 2.6 times more than the UK. So how come there are only 6,000 Brits in Luxembourg? I thought millions of people from the poor countries would be moving to the wealthier ones?

B) Maybe they should erect a wall around London, so people won't move from the poorer counties to the more wealthy ones? Or is that ok, as they're not pesky foreigners?

C) And? What if they do?

Sorry this level of debate really doesn't help. You are obviously a very smart guy so why throw out such misleading stats?

It is clearly true that there is a exodus from poorer countries to wealthy ones. Looking at the the relationship of just the three countries you chose. Unemployment levels in Britain are under 5%, Luxembourg over 6% Latvia over 10% (setting aside that Luxembourg only has half a million people in it so is more of a tiny city state). Latvia has seen a mass exodus which has almost halved their population since 1990, and still has almost twice the unemployment rate of the UK. The ones who are losing out most aren't the UK and Luxembourg who are absolutely draining all the youth and talent from the poor countries. It is the poor countries themselves. Read up on what has happened to Latvia since their workers could easily relocate to other countries.

Both Luxembourg and the UK are very wealthy countries who have benefited off the back of forcing poor countries like Latvia onto the Euro making them unable to compete and by skimming off their best and brightest. The EU has been absolutely parasitic on the working poor of the poorest nations in the block. Look at what they have done to Greece. The UK hardly bothers training their own doctors anymore. They let poor countries like Hungary fork out to train doctors then steals them away to better paying jobs in the UK. It is bad for UK nationals who want to be doctors, but 1000 times worse for the countries being used and abused by the rich nations of Europe.

Quote from: sharpshot on March 16, 2017, 18:56

Complete freedom of movement isn't working because millions of people will move from the poorer countries to the more wealthy ones. 

A) The average GDP per person in Latvia (for example) is 2.6 times less than the UK. The average GDP per person in Luxembourg is 2.6 times more than the UK. So how come there are only 6,000 Brits in Luxembourg? I thought millions of people from the poor countries would be moving to the wealthier ones?

B) Maybe they should erect a wall around London, so people won't move from the poorer counties to the more wealthy ones? Or is that ok, as they're not pesky foreigners?

C) And? What if they do?

Luxembourg is a well known place for businesses to use to reduce the amount of tax they pay.  The population is low because the cost of living is high. "Cost of living in Luxembourg is 14.19% higher than in United Kingdom (aggregate data for all cities, rent is not taken into account). Rent in Luxembourg is 49.33% higher than in United Kingdom (average data for all cities)." https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Luxembourg
So obviously most people from less wealthy countries with a very low cost of living are going to find it impossible to afford to live in Luxembourg.

I'm not against the movement of people from one country to another, I just don't think it should be limitless.  What if 400 million people all decided to go and live in Luxembourg?  Do you think that would be sensible?  That's not going to happen but millions of people are moving across Europe every year.  That obviously means the countries they are moving to need to spend more on things like housing, schools and the health services but governments aren't investing enough in to those.  It also causes problems in the countries they leave, they have a much smaller work force, their GDP goes down, they can't pay their debts and have to borrow more.  Immigration is a good thing but having no limits isn't sensible.

Voted remain and would do so again.

I've no doubt the British people will make the best of it - but there are tough times ahead both for the economy and society as a whole.

Would be better if we had a fearsome and efficient political opposition to counter extremes -  but at present the UK Labour party is headed up by a beard.

I agree, and find the lack of a real opposition by the Labour particularly disturbing.

Especially since in my view the whole Brexit thing started with a miscalculation by Mr Cameron, trying to gain more power within his own party with a Remain win. Why Mr Corbin is voting - and forcing MPs to vote - for Brexit is beyond me.

But it's not the only thing that I can't understand.
How can they call 52%-48% in a consultative only referendum a "very clear result", when most other countries require a qualified majority, well above 50%, for such important decisions?
How can they say they are delivering on the will of the British people when a small majority won by voting on very uncertain terms?
How can MPs say they are respecting the vote when most are voting against their own constituency? (by the way, they are not tied, and should vote for what they believe in)
Why don't they allow us to vote again once the real terms are clear? That would be the will of the British people.

Why not? Voting again should sound great for the leave camp too, if you are sure that the majority is (still) real.

By the way I said "again" but the word is a bit misleading: I don't mean repeating the referendum until we win, I mean voting on the final terms which is a totally different thing*.

And I would like a legally binding referendum this time, not an advisory one.
Once all the terms of the deal with the EU and the rest of the world are perfectly clear.

I wouldn't dare speak again if leave wins again.

*Note that I don't like referendums. I believe elected MPs should decide what they think is best for our country. This poll forced them to vote against their own will. They are afraid to lose the next general elections. And the Labour (my party) will lose, despite submitting to the "will of the people". But since all started with an advisory poll, let's close with a binding one.

The lack of a proper opposition is a worry ...currently the job seems to be being done by Conservative backbenchers...I'm really hoping May does call a general election...in the current climate she would get in with a huge majority...think she is too cautious though.

With Britain outside the EU ... Unemployment and porness increases.

Porness? What does it mean? Porn + happiness?

P.S.
Freudian slip, my friend. Freudian slip. If you think about ... too much you'll shows it in your words.

If there was another referendum and stay narrowly won, Nigel Farage and UKIP would be back.  They would want a 3rd referendum.  I really think it's best to see what it will be like outside the EU.  If it's a disaster, at least the far right will be silenced and we can rejoin, hopefully with a bit more enthusiasm.  If it works out well, then we have got rid of one tier of politicians ruling over us and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Remain would not win a second referendum if they held one today the leave camp would increase the majority according to latest polls.

Reason? The predicted implosion of the UK did not happen.
trade increased
other countries are making positive moves to sign trade deals with the UK

the wretched bullying talk from the EU commision turns people against the EU

Finally asshats like Tony Blair calling for the people to rise up against Brexit really soured things

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 18, 2017, 07:58

Reason? The predicted implosion of the UK did not happen.
trade increased
other countries are making positive moves to sign trade deals with the UK

You do realise that we are still in post-referendum and pre-Brexit days let alone the UK is still a full member of the EU?
If May triggers article 50 coming Wednesday things will change the Pound will fall further in the coming months though the UK is still a full member of the EU but triggering article 50 is like triggering the ejection seat in a jet there is no easy stop from there.
But things will get very ugly in two years and yes most countries in the EU want a fair trading deal with the UK (especially Germany after the UK they have most to loose) but people seem to forget that for every major deal/decision the EU needs unity among their member states. Some (mostly smaller) member states and their people working in the UK have been treated quite badly and they are out for revenge so chances are quite big that there will be no deal at all after the two years period. This will terrible for all but it will be a catastrophy for the UK! So please come back in two years and we can discuss the real post-Brexit times.

You don't think the markets have factored in article 50 its not like no-one is expecting it? The dire forecasts pre the vote said the impact would be immediate nothing about it being OK it the short term no wonder people are doubtful about future forecasts. How were people in smaller countries treated badly?...it seems they  quite like the working conditions here. I would have thought the smaller countries such as Greece would be more concerned about the treatment meted out by the EU to maintain their Euro currency status. I'm sure it won't be easy and I think there will be a deal and life will go on.

Quote from: TG1112 on March 16, 2017, 12:28

Two requirements that it will not be granted an exemption are:

- Introduction of right-hand traffic
- Introduction of the same time zone as France and most of Europe uses, i.e., CET, which is GMT + 1

Bad news for Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, then.
Seriously, nobody is going to insist on reversing the traffic flow in the UK, it would cause chaos.

I assumed the post was either not serious or delusional

Second one:
Okay let's make it the other way round, I hear the argument the EU can't afford to have no trade deal with the UK because they wanna continue to sell their wine, their cheese and their Mercedes and Audis etc to the UK for sure this is true, but not all EU countries produce this items and trade with them. Instead of trading goods with the UK they send their people to work there. Why should these countries agree to any future EU-trade deal with the UK then their people are not allowed to work in the UK anymore? You see the difficulty? Against to popular (British) belief the EU is very democratic and the Veto of this countries will count in this case there will no deal at all.