By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
CuCabeludo said:
OlfinBedwere said:

So, you're saying it's going to collapse... and then turn into something that's almost as big of a threat?

Every country will ultimately regain the power they lost after they entered this supertate, like the control of their borders. You can't run a welfare state that keeps importing migrants that don't work, but keep receiving free money from the government at the cost of taxing the middle class into oblivion. Protests in France just tell you that people are fed up with paying higher and higher taxes.

Migration is only good if the undiviuals come to a place to work and produce due to the lack of native people to work, bad if it is only about sucking the public tits.

This is demonstrably false. Any EU Country can kick out an immigrant from another EU Country if they don't have a job or can't financially support them-self after 3 months so they don't become a burden on that nations tax payers.

The UK government actively decided not to implement that rule.



phinch1 said:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/british-swiss-relations_swiss-government-approves-trade-agreement-with-britain/44619068#.XBcA6yhenBc.facebook

Swiss have already accepted a trade deal with us, even in the event of no deal, bet other countries do the same, we're a huge buying country

That's not a new trade deal, that's just maintaining the status-quo.



phinch1 said:
Stocko2k17 said:

We haven't left yet you fool, I love how people say 'employment is up despite Brexit', yet we still haven't left have we?

Maybe stop focusing on yourself and see how this will effect our employment of NHS workers, doctors and manufacturing industries after we leave the single market.

I'm not fear mongering, I'm listening to facts and not getting deluded by ideas of 'getting our sovereignty back' or blue bloody passports.

Fact it, if we leave GDP decreases, the economy decreases - this has been proven - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46366162 - 3.9% decrease under May's plan or 9.3% under a 'no deal scenario' - I don't think that was on the voting slip, no?

No matter how much you want to sugar coat it of 'cheaper food on WTO' if people are poorer, they can't buy any food can they?

You can say 'hurrah' to more employment now, BUT WE HAVEN'T LEFT YET. 

Like I said, if you can read? We were told by just "voting to leave" the £ would collapse and we'd be in a recession (before we even leave)

 

It hasn't

 

We have 63 thousand EU NHS workers we also have 3.8 million EU Nationals living in the UK

So EU workers living here definitely put more stress on the NHS than help

Those statistics, interesting they're the same people who predicted the recession, and the instant job losses, (which again they were wrong on) why should anyone believe they're predictions now? It's fear mongering at its finest

The £ did collapse.

The BoE staved off recession by reducing the interest rates to 0.25% and pumping an additional £70 billion into the economy (quantitative easing is generally not a good sign). We were also fortunate that the global economy improved.

EU migrants pay in more than they take out, are far more likely to be of working age and therefore will rarely use the NHS. On the other hand we have a shortage of staff and a government that isn't training enough UK doctors and nurses. EU workers do not put more stress on the NHS than they contribute to it either directly via working for the NHS or indirectly through taxes.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk

 

At the moment you're arguing how it's not as bad as people made it out... but how is leaving with no deal going to improve your life?



Scoobes said:
I have to ask (I'm probably going to regret this), what do some of you guys think "no deal" actually means?

"no deal" means that Britain will leave the EU without a plan how the future relationship between the EU and Britain will look like and without knowing what will happen to the 1000s of laws and institutions in GB who are based/dependen on EU law and EU institutions.



Scoobes said:
phinch1 said:

Like I said, if you can read? We were told by just "voting to leave" the £ would collapse and we'd be in a recession (before we even leave)

 

It hasn't

 

We have 63 thousand EU NHS workers we also have 3.8 million EU Nationals living in the UK

So EU workers living here definitely put more stress on the NHS than help

Those statistics, interesting they're the same people who predicted the recession, and the instant job losses, (which again they were wrong on) why should anyone believe they're predictions now? It's fear mongering at its finest

The £ did collapse.

The BoE staved off recession by reducing the interest rates to 0.25% and pumping an additional £70 billion into the economy (quantitative easing is generally not a good sign). We were also fortunate that the global economy improved.

EU migrants pay in more than they take out, are far more likely to be of working age and therefore will rarely use the NHS. On the other hand we have a shortage of staff and a government that isn't training enough UK doctors and nurses. EU workers do not put more stress on the NHS than they contribute to it either directly via working for the NHS or indirectly through taxes.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk

At the moment you're arguing how it's not as bad as people made it out... but how is leaving with no deal going to improve your life?

Non-EU migrants even have to pay twice into the NHS, as they have to pay 200 pounds a year unless they're on a student visa on top of their part of their paycheck. And the visa prices of the UK will keep many people out even if their expertise would be needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvzTOmEPYyE

 

For anybody who wants to know about Brexit in detail, I suggest TLDR News on Youtube, as they have a very detailed and impartial series on Brexit:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa9zPc4IBEBfE1YnVyKd9rjYVZgRaIGJh



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Scoobes said:

The £ did collapse.

The BoE staved off recession by reducing the interest rates to 0.25% and pumping an additional £70 billion into the economy (quantitative easing is generally not a good sign). We were also fortunate that the global economy improved.

EU migrants pay in more than they take out, are far more likely to be of working age and therefore will rarely use the NHS. On the other hand we have a shortage of staff and a government that isn't training enough UK doctors and nurses. EU workers do not put more stress on the NHS than they contribute to it either directly via working for the NHS or indirectly through taxes.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk

At the moment you're arguing how it's not as bad as people made it out... but how is leaving with no deal going to improve your life?


For anybody who wants to know about Brexit in detail, I suggest TLDR News on Youtube, as they have a very detailed and impartial series on Brexit:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa9zPc4IBEBfE1YnVyKd9rjYVZgRaIGJh

Yeah their videos are really informative.



One of two things are going to happen. Either there will be a no deal Brexit, or there will be a second referendum. There are no other possibilities with the timescales involved here. The referendum is already getting close to impossible due to time constraints, but the EU has said they would extend the deadline if a second referendum was being held, so I think it's still possible. Anyone who thinks there's another possibility at this point is fooling themselves. So there's no point in asking what the "best way" to leave the EU is.

That said, while I'm an American and thus not directly affected by it, I do care about the UK on some level so for their sake I hope there's a second referendum. Specifically, I hope there is a second referendum that has ranked choice voting, allowing people to choose "No Deal", "May's deal", or "Remain" and I hope "Remain" wins. Now that people understand much better what leaving would entail (either no deal or May's deal, the latter of which would only be possible under a referendum like this anyway since it was already voted down in parliament), the people will be better informed, and the result this time will be indisputable. Every citizen that votes will have as full an understanding as could be reasonably asked for exactly what each choice means. I don't think there'd even be need for time to campaign, just enough to organize the vote and advertise that it was happening.

With ranked choice voting, if Remain loses again, Remainers can choose whether they'd like No Deal or May's Deal as their second choice, so they'd feel like they had at least some say in their future even if they didn't get to remain. I've seen opinions from Remainers on both sides of this debate, some saying May's deal is so bad that no deal would be better, and some still maintaining that any deal is better than nothing. So that would be at least a little more fair than simply leaving however the UK's incompetent parliament manages to. While I'd personally love to see Remain win, I'd still be happy for the people of the UK if they voted for No Deal under these circumstances as it would be a fully informed vote, as democratic as I can imagine it being.

Even the No Dealers and May's Dealers would benefit here, as there are some who would rather leave in some way, shape, or form even if it isn't their preferred way, and there are some who would rather remain than have a Brexit they don't want. I've seen all of these opinions expressed at least once since the first referendum, and a second referendum where all three are a possibility and people get to rank their preferences is much more fair than a simple yes or no vote. A ranked choice referendum would be the fairest way to do things, in my opinion, because not only is it more democratic, it's just a better, more legitimate referendum, that more accurately takes the people's opinion. So the people saying that a second referendum isn't fair because they're afraid their first referendum would be invalidated, the truth is that it wouldn't. In fact, the most likely outcomes would be a very similar number of leavers and remainers voting for a leave option or the remain option respectively for their first choice, likely not changing the outcome there, but with some possibility of the second choice coming into play and deciding what kind of Leave the UK really wants, or if the UK as a whole feels torn on leaving and only wants to do so if it can leave a certain way. I suppose there's also a chance that Remain would get over 50% on the first round and thus make the ranking unecessary, but I doubt it, honestly. If it did, it would be really close, but hopefully the second round would still be counted anyway so that the UK would get to see exactly how much consensus is formed by the second round. For all you know, maybe once the second choice is selected, one choice will have a supermajority, and the UK will feel a bit better about their choice since it wouldn't feel as much like one half the country dragged the other half into something they hated. I'd imagine that such a supermajority would be possible for any of the three choices.

As I said before, I'd be cheering for Remain, but like I also said, I'm from the US so it's not something I directly have a stake in. But I hate seeing you guys so torn up over it, so if anything, I'd prefer any outcome of a second, ranked-choice referendum to simply crashing out with no deal when you run out of time, or parliament miraculously deciding on a deal that the EU also accepts before the deadline (or an extended deadline, since the EU also said they'd accept an extension until the European elections so long as the UK had a direction they wanted to go in during the extra time that could arrive at a new deal). The latter would happen too fast and leave too many unhappy, and splinter the UK further, and no deal would make Remainers and anyone that wanted some kind of deal unhappy and generally make everyone feel hopeless, like they can't count on their government at all, and even the hard Brexiteers would be mad that all that time was wasted arguing over a deal when trade deals could have been worked on and prepared in time to be ready so that when Brexit happened the UK had a system of trade deals already in place. The second referendum, if it is ranked choice, just seems like it would have the most potential to make the most people happy, while the current course is by all accounts a disaster and making as many people as possible unhappy.



HylianSwordsman said:
One of two things are going to happen. Either there will be a no deal Brexit, or there will be a second referendum. There are no other possibilities with the timescales involved here. The referendum is already getting close to impossible due to time constraints, but the EU has said they would extend the deadline if a second referendum was being held, so I think it's still possible. Anyone who thinks there's another possibility at this point is fooling themselves. So there's no point in asking what the "best way" to leave the EU is. 

That's not true. For one the house of commons could either decide a vote of no confidence again, the second being a general election, and the other option being revoking article 50 ...

HylianSwordsman said:

That said, while I'm an American and thus not directly affected by it, I do care about the UK on some level so for their sake I hope there's a second referendum. Specifically, I hope there is a second referendum that has ranked choice voting, allowing people to choose "No Deal", "May's deal", or "Remain" and I hope "Remain" wins. Now that people understand much better what leaving would entail (either no deal or May's deal, the latter of which would only be possible under a referendum like this anyway since it was already voted down in parliament), the people will be better informed, and the result this time will be indisputable. Every citizen that votes will have as full an understanding as could be reasonably asked for exactly what each choice means. I don't think there'd even be need for time to campaign, just enough to organize the vote and advertise that it was happening. 

There is no consensus for what the format of a second referendum would be and campaigning is absolutely mandatory since it is THE LAW ... (a minimum of at least 10 weeks and even then that length would be heavily criticized by the Electoral Commission)

HylianSwordsman said: 

Even the No Dealers and May's Dealers would benefit here, as there are some who would rather leave in some way, shape, or form even if it isn't their preferred way, and there are some who would rather remain than have a Brexit they don't want. I've seen all of these opinions expressed at least once since the first referendum, and a second referendum where all three are a possibility and people get to rank their preferences is much more fair than a simple yes or no vote. A ranked choice referendum would be the fairest way to do things, in my opinion, because not only is it more democratic, it's just a better, more legitimate referendum, that more accurately takes the people's opinion. So the people saying that a second referendum isn't fair because they're afraid their first referendum would be invalidated, the truth is that it wouldn't. In fact, the most likely outcomes would be a very similar number of leavers and remainers voting for a leave option or the remain option respectively for their first choice, likely not changing the outcome there, but with some possibility of the second choice coming into play and deciding what kind of Leave the UK really wants, or if the UK as a whole feels torn on leaving and only wants to do so if it can leave a certain way. I suppose there's also a chance that Remain would get over 50% on the first round and thus make the ranking unecessary, but I doubt it, honestly. If it did, it would be really close, but hopefully the second round would still be counted anyway so that the UK would get to see exactly how much consensus is formed by the second round. For all you know, maybe once the second choice is selected, one choice will have a supermajority, and the UK will feel a bit better about their choice since it wouldn't feel as much like one half the country dragged the other half into something they hated. I'd imagine that such a supermajority would be possible for any of the three choices.

@Bold Actually, the critics would be correct that it isn't fair in principle if a supposed second referendum included a remain option which led to a remain vote in contrast to a leave vote with the first referendum since the result of the first referendum wouldn't be respected when it has yet to be enacted ...

If you actually cared about respecting the result of the first referendum then a remain option shouldn't even be included in a potential second referendum and should be just either May's deal, no deal or another possible way to leave. Democracy is not all about holding votes but it's also about coming to terms with the consequences that comes with it ... 

"It wouldn't feel as much like one half the country dragged the other half into something they hated"

This view is incompatible with the consequences of democracy. If it were that simple then we wouldn't need a democracy and would instead opt for unity. A democracy exists solely to separate the mandate from the opposition ... 

HylianSwordsman said: 

As I said before, I'd be cheering for Remain, but like I also said, I'm from the US so it's not something I directly have a stake in. But I hate seeing you guys so torn up over it, so if anything, I'd prefer any outcome of a second, ranked-choice referendum to simply crashing out with no deal when you run out of time, or parliament miraculously deciding on a deal that the EU also accepts before the deadline (or an extended deadline, since the EU also said they'd accept an extension until the European elections so long as the UK had a direction they wanted to go in during the extra time that could arrive at a new deal). The latter would happen too fast and leave too many unhappy, and splinter the UK further, and no deal would make Remainers and anyone that wanted some kind of deal unhappy and generally make everyone feel hopeless, like they can't count on their government at all, and even the hard Brexiteers would be mad that all that time was wasted arguing over a deal when trade deals could have been worked on and prepared in time to be ready so that when Brexit happened the UK had a system of trade deals already in place. The second referendum, if it is ranked choice, just seems like it would have the most potential to make the most people happy, while the current course is by all accounts a disaster and making as many people as possible unhappy.

The hard brexiteers were already negotiating trade deals across the world. The only party that weren't willing to negotiate before the exit was the EU and solely the EU because they wanted a withdrawal agreement ... 

Just as America came to terms with Trump it is now time for Britain's turn to come to terms with Brexit ... 



fatslob-:O said:

The hard brexiteers were already negotiating trade deals across the world. The only party that weren't willing to negotiate before the exit was the EU and solely the EU because they wanted a withdrawal agreement ... 

Just as America came to terms with Trump it is now time for Britain's turn to come to terms with Brexit ... 

*Looks at record-long Shutdown*

Yeah, right



fatslob-:O said:

"It wouldn't feel as much like one half the country dragged the other half into something they hated"

This view is incompatible with the consequences of democracy. If it were that simple then we wouldn't need a democracy and would instead opt for unity. A democracy exists solely to separate the mandate from the opposition ... 

In theory, yes. In practice, trying to pretend that the opposition doesn't exist after the vote - or worse, openly treating them with contempt and hostility while dismissing their views as being irrelevant - almost never ends well in the longer run.