Would you vote the same again?

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:37 pm

F*ck aye, out. And when the Euro-elitist wet dream implodes, the 'remainders' will be glad we are out as well.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:39 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Worth posting again, just in case anyone still thinks everyone who voted leave did some proper research

Hi Lancaster,

Suggest we all drop the idea that those who voted leave did so from ignorance (and worse) and those who voted remain voted with intelligence and altruism worthy of a democracy.

It's unworthy of everyone to denigrate their fellow citizens in this way.

It's odd, don't you think, that a significant number in the political arena both claim that the leave vote was a vote by the ignorant, while the proposal to expand the number of grammar schools is a policy in favour of elitism and segregation in educational opportunities.

Agree, I've no "hard facts" to back up this assertion - but I'm sure we could all identify positive correlations with the politicians expressing these two independent views.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:41 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:I liked the private email I got from our CEo saying dont vote leave as we do 20% of our business with EU.
Then after the vote getting one saying dont worry we do 80% of our business outside the EU and most EU airlines rent anyway so wont have any effect.

Now to be fair, what did you expect your boss to say post - Brexit? "We're all doomed"?
Obviously his view pre-Brexit was that the 20% was at risk and that "Remain" was the best option, but once the vote had been cast it's his job to maintain confidence in the company and put a brave face on it. Sending out a negative message could have potentially disastrous consequences.
As we're on a football messageboard, here's a comparison:
Dyche wants to keep Keane (obviously). If the board sell Keane from under his nose in the January transfer window, do you think Dyche will go on SKY and say "We're all doomed", or will he say, "We've a strong squad and we'll be fine.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:42 pm

Voted leave, without question would do the same tomorrow... wait until the Italian Banks and Deutsche Bank hit the buffers in the next 18-24 months or so, if not sooner...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:48 pm

android wrote:It would be a lot easier to answer the original question if we all had access to the same information as Imploding Turtle.

Apparently we are going to have to pay in the same amount of money as currently to the EU in order to continue trading with it. Can't see how anyone in any government in the world knows this at the moment. But fortunately for us IT knows so please share the figure with us?

Also IT seems to know the immigration figures from the EU after we have left so again please share these figures with us?

A Norway-style deal with the EU would cost us about as much as being a member of the EU does - https://infacts.org/norwegians-pay-same ... eu-access/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A couple of key differences are that we get no say on how that contribution is spent, and we'd have absolutely no influence in the EU at all, yet we'd still have to follow their laws and rules.

We'd also have to accept EU rules on free movement, which means no curbs on immigration from the EU that we can't already do.

Terrier · Post by **Terrier** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Drop in pound costing me big time but i would still vote leave!

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:50 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It fascinates me how woefully ill-informed some people are that they think leaving the EU is going to help the working class.

These people have voted to remove us from an EU that has laws protecting working people by requiring its member nations to protect collective bargaining, protect maternity and paternity leave, protect holiday pay, protect sick pay, etc. and have given this Tory government (who many Leave voters think will be in for a decade or longer "because Corbyn") the responsibility of protecting all these workers' rights.

It's like removing the fence surrounding a chicken coop and saying "don't worry, the foxes will keep an eye on things".

It's the dumbest thing we've ever done as a country.

The same government who's declared that all current laws/legislation will stay in place until after Brexit has been sorted out and only then will they make decisions about them?
Nah you can't be talking about that government....

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:53 pm

Out, and probably more certain it was right than I was then (which was pretty certain).

By and large it is no surprise that everyone would vote the same way. I know dozens of people who voted out and dozens more who voted remain and none have changed their view, although it must be said many of my remain friends were a bit wobbly and if the economics were more certain they could have voted differently.

So far so good:

Pound down - tick
Cameron gone - tick
Inflation soon to be rising - tick
House prices set to fall - tick

Ok yes, we are in for a bumpy ride, but it will be worth it when we get through it. The economy needed rebalancing. Some people cannot get on the housing ladder while older people borrow at rock bottom rates to build extensions. It isn't right. I can understand the average person not getting it, but I genuinely think much of the media intelligencia and a good chunk of our MPs don't understand economics and how knock on effects of political decisions affect people.

Add to it that we weren't voting for EU-now we were voting for EU-future and I can't see any way we would have got it of the cycle of stagnant growth, mass QE, high debt, whilst funding poorer EU nations to have a better infrastructure than even we have.

As for whether politicians have a mandate - good grief, what if we were at war? Do we expect an election or referendum every time we are due to risk our country being bombed? It's our political system, we elect a Government, they choose their own leader, and in the case of Brexit, the new leader is clearly moving in the direction we voted for. Thank heavens.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:56 pm

android wrote:It would be a lot easier to answer the original question if we all had access to the same information as Imploding Turtle.

Apparently we are going to have to pay in the same amount of money as currently to the EU in order to continue trading with it. Can't see how anyone in any government in the world knows this at the moment. But fortunately for us IT knows so please share the figure with us?

Also IT seems to know the immigration figures from the EU after we have left so again please share these figures with us?

Sad as I am, I did say I discussed this with a norwegian, I did watch a parlimentary committee meeting whoch discussed thevpossible outcomes.
One was the norway version, they per head the same as the uk, so and I hate to agree with IT, if we went down the norway route it would be expected that we would pay in exactly the same as we do today but get less benefits.
As. said I would leave compketely

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:57 pm

I voted stay and would do so again despite hating the things the European leaders say, as I think that our leaving will have an impact on the EU economies.

Over 50% of our exports go tho the EU. What hurts them hurts us. We will all be worse off but dazzler will be ok coz he's got backbone.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:59 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:An odd post. From your first sentence I guess you're not Scottish or in favour, yet you describe it as "good news".

An Eire in the EU and a Scotland in the EU with the other parts of the UK out of it could potentially be absolutely chaotic and dangerous.
There could potentially be all sorts of issues regarding Free movement of people, potential border controls, and security and more than a possibility that some financial services could relocate from the City to Edinburgh, where notionally at least they speak the same language.
The EU getting access to export goods freely to the UK via Scotland, which shares our border would presumably be very attractive to them if we go for a "hard" Brexit.
Then there's also the issue that with tens of thousands now applying for Irish EU passports there would be a rush for the new Scottish EU passport for all the Scots and descendants currently resident south of the border.

Hi nil_d,

I'm a democrat, so, if our Scottish friends want to vote, again, to be independent, we should let them have their vote. But, given that the oil price is (approx.) $50/bbl and will never again be above $100/bbl - plus Scotland has banned the opportunity to frack - do you see the "canny Scots" voting to leave the UK? Best we let them put this issue to be for a long time, again.

If Scotland was to gain independence, and if Scotland was to be admitted to the EU (not guaranteed, I understand), border controls - for both goods/services and people - can be resolved, if required. (There are other countries in Europe with land borders with EU countries that aren't themselves members of the EU and don't have access to the single market. Borders don't have to be defined by water).

I doubt the City of Edinburgh is attractive to financial services. Scottish law does not have the international recognition of English law (they are quite different). The BofE view is that only New York can be an alternative to the City of London (though, I guess you might argue "they would say that"). Why do you think RBS does the largest part of it's business in London, and HBOS is owned by Lloyds Bank?

As for multiple passports, it changes nothing. If you work in the UK you pay taxes in the UK (tax dodgers excepted...) however many passports you hold. US passport holders working in UK pay UK taxes. The French do likewise. Etc, etc. Of course, an EU passport may give (small) advantages when travelling across the EU, but does holding a UK passport prevent any of us from holidaying in Thailand, Florida or Turkey or many other "far flung" countries?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:59 pm

Sidney1st wrote:The same government who's declared that all current laws/legislation will stay in place until after Brexit has been sorted out and only then will they make decisions about them?
Nah you can't be talking about that government....

Well they can hardly start gutting them while we're still in the EU, for a few reasons. 1) It would be political suicide, 2) we'd still be in the EU so it wouldn't be legal, and 3) even if they ignored those other two reasons and went ahead with preparing legislation to come into effect that guts working regulations beginning on a certain date, it would cripple the UK's negotiating position with regards to setting up a post-membership UK-EU deal because it would be telling them "OK, we absolutely have to have this sorted by X date", so the EU could just hold out until we're desperate for any deal the EU offers.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:02 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Well they can hardly start gutting them while we're still in the EU, for a few reasons. 1) It would be political suicide, 2) we'd still be in the EU so it wouldn't be legal, and 3) even if they ignored those other two reasons and went ahead with preparing legislation to come into effect that guts working regulations beginning on a certain date, it would cripple the UK's negotiating position with regards to setting up a post-membership UK-EU deal because it would be telling them "OK, we absolutely have to have this sorted by X date", so the EU could just hold out until we're desperate for any deal the EU offers.

So you fully expect them to rip out all the good things that have been introduced in the last 20 years when Brexit is sorted?
THAT would be political suicide and set the country way back.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:06 pm

levraiclaret wrote: We will all be worse off

One slight issue I would take with that is that the same line is being trotted out by the media, who fail to add the word "financially".

There are many reasons why we would be better off in other aspects. Many high profile pundits fail to grasp that, they think it is all about the economics (where I hold a different view long term, but accept there will be a short term hit).

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:08 pm

Sidney1st wrote:So you fully expect them to rip out all the good things that have been introduced in the last 20 years when Brexit is sorted?
THAT would be political suicide and set the country way back.

Yes. It would set the country way back. And no, it wouldn't be political suicide if they did it bit-by-bit over a long time. Similar to how the NHS is being gradually privatised against our will but right under our noses.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:09 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Sad as I am, I did say I discussed this with a norwegian, I did watch a parlimentary committee meeting whoch discussed thevpossible outcomes.
One was the norway version, they per head the same as the uk, so and I hate to agree with IT, if we went down the norway route it would be expected that we would pay in exactly the same as we do today but get less benefits.
As. said I would leave compketely

Hi Lowbank,

Population of Norway is 5.2 million (end 2015), while the population of the UK is 65 million - or only (approx.) 55 million if we count England alone.

I've never understood why UK should negotiate the same deal as Norway, a country more than 10 times smaller than the UK, or Switzerland (8.3 million, 8 times smaller). The only logic appears to be "these are the deals that have already been negotiated."

Is this "lack of imagination" on behalf of the UK or the EU or the media?

android · Post by **android** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:17 pm

IT and Lowbank. As per Paul Waine's comment. My point was it's all conjecture at this stage. We don't know what sort of deal we will end up with.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:19 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lowbank,

Population of Norway is 5.2 million (end 2015), while the population of the UK is 65 million - or only (approx.) 55 million if we count England alone.

I've never understood why UK should negotiate the same deal as Norway, a country more than 10 times smaller than the UK, or Switzerland (8.3 million, 8 times smaller). The only logic appears to be "these are the deals that have already been negotiated."

Is this "lack of imagination" on behalf of the UK or the EU or the media?

No one is saying that we have to make those deals. but it's reasonable to assume that we'll have to pay the same amount per head as any other non-member to have the same level of access as them. Can you think of any reason why we shouldn't expect to?

turbo5 · Post by **turbo5** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:19 pm

Yes out the same as the first time

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes. It would set the country way back. And no, it wouldn't be political suicide if they did it bit-by-bit over a long time. Similar to how the NHS is being gradually privatised against our will but right under our noses.

About 12 years ago I had a knee operation done on the nhs , but by the NHS doctor who saw me originally at a private hospital where he also worked.

That was during Labour's tenure and they didn't really seem to do much to change it all.

Maybe the people running the NHS should look at improving how they do their jobs instead of looking after each other with their ridiculous salaries.

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:24 pm

I voted remain but would vote leave now.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:27 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Out, and probably more certain it was right than I was then (which was pretty certain).

By and large it is no surprise that everyone would vote the same way. I know dozens of people who voted out and dozens more who voted remain and none have changed their view, although it must be said many of my remain friends were a bit wobbly and if the economics were more certain they could have voted differently.

So far so good:

Pound down - tick
Cameron gone - tick
Inflation soon to be rising - tick
House prices set to fall - tick

Ok yes, we are in for a bumpy ride, but it will be worth it when we get through it. The economy needed rebalancing. Some people cannot get on the housing ladder while older people borrow at rock bottom rates to build extensions. It isn't right. I can understand the average person not getting it, but I genuinely think much of the media intelligencia and a good chunk of our MPs don't understand economics and how knock on effects of political decisions affect people.

Add to it that we weren't voting for EU-now we were voting for EU-future and I can't see any way we would have got it of the cycle of stagnant growth, mass QE, high debt, whilst funding poorer EU nations to have a better infrastructure than even we have.

As for whether politicians have a mandate - good grief, what if we were at war? Do we expect an election or referendum every time we are due to risk our country being bombed? It's our political system, we elect a Government, they choose their own leader, and in the case of Brexit, the new leader is clearly moving in the direction we voted for. Thank heavens.

Good post, Crosspool.

Re "extensions at rock bottom rates" - a large part of this is the "sky high" stamp duty and the "sunk/wasted costs" of moving to a larger house. I'm sure that, unless stamp duty rates are cut - including the "economic nonsense" of an extra 3% for buy-to-let landlords etc - house ownership will move further and further away from the next generation. Penalising house purchases through excessive taxation will reduce critical flexibility in the economy; the flexibility to move house and go where the jobs are; the flexibility to move up the housing ladder when larger accommodation is required and to move down ("downsize") when less space is required, or economies are required in housing costs.

The differential taxation is "economic nonsense" as only "bad taxation" differentiates between assets based on the perceived (or actual) status or motives of the owner. George Osbourne's (and David Cameron's) Inheritance Tax favouring of main residence if inherited by the deceased children is equal nonsense. Why differentiate/discriminate between the beneficiaries of a will? Why discriminate between different asset classes? Won't this bias towards main residence result in higher house prices (up to the £1 million level) - again disadvantaging the younger generations.

Perhaps Theresa May will understand this. Perhaps these "bad taxes" will be changed....

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:33 pm

"One slight issue I would take with that is that the same line is being trotted out by the media, who fail to add the word "financially"."

Oh the air may be cleaner, the rivers less poluted and the roads less congested but the disadvantaged will be financially worse off. We can luxuriate in being in control just like we were in the Suez crisis.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:34 pm

funniest one so far.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No one is saying that we have to make those deals. but it's reasonable to assume that we'll have to pay the same amount per head as any other non-member to have the same level of access as them. Can you think of any reason why we shouldn't expect to?

Hi IT,

Does Norway contribute the same, per capita as Switzerland? If/when the Canadian deal is signed will Canada pay anything to the EU?

What Norway gives to and gets from the EU is unique to Norway. The same for Switzerland.

What the UK will provide to the EU and what we will get from the EU will be negotiated specifically between these groups.

I don't see any logical reason why the financial transfers will be the same.

If you think about it, it's a peculiar scam that the EU is operating: we will trade with you on these terms, but only if you "bung" us some extra money to support some of our little financial needs. Sounds a bit like a conversation with a sports agent.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:48 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes. It would set the country way back. And no, it wouldn't be political suicide if they did it bit-by-bit over a long time. Similar to how the NHS is being gradually privatised against our will but right under our noses.

Separate - but related subject, IT.

What is "so great" about the NHS? Why is this the only health service model that the UK can/should have?

If the NHS is "so great" why do many (all?) the other EU countries operate different systems? Personal health insurance schemes operate in many of the EU nations

I lived in Netherlands for a time. Health care service providers in Netherlands are private entities and not owned by the state. First question I was asked when I took my young son to "Eerste Hulp" (A&E) was "how are you going to pay." Health insurance is compulsory - and the higher earners pay something towards the costs of the unemployed. Plus you pay an excess, if you require health treatment each year.

Experiences of health services can vary - and, I will not fault NHS are emergency care - but the Netherlands health service was very good and, quite possibly betters the NHS in a number of ways.

You mentioned in an earlier post "why do I think we won't have to pay the same as Norway" for EU single market access.

Can I ask you, why do you fear the NHS being privatised?

Burnleybabe · Post by **Burnleybabe** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:17 pm

Yes I would and not from the media nor crap the two parties told me.
But by research read from various places.
My Children never questioned by vote, but strangers who do not know me did.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:18 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lowbank,

Population of Norway is 5.2 million (end 2015), while the population of the UK is 65 million - or only (approx.) 55 million if we count England alone.

I've never understood why UK should negotiate the same deal as Norway, a country more than 10 times smaller than the UK, or Switzerland (8.3 million, 8 times smaller). The only logic appears to be "these are the deals that have already been negotiated."

Is this "lack of imagination" on behalf of the UK or the EU or the media?

Norway's politicians, like ours, were all in favour of joining the EEC and then the EU. But the generasl public voted them down, both times. So the politicians decided they could have the 'benefit' of joining the EU anyway, by joining on their terms.

As Norway is a very rich country (loads more oil per head of population than we ever had, and loads of fish anyway - they weren't fool enough to give their fish stocks to the EU) they could have negotiated a much better deal. Not only with the oil, but they're sitting on a massive hydroelectric "well" as well. They chose not to.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:18 pm

levraiclaret wrote:"One slight issue I would take with that is that the same line is being trotted out by the media, who fail to add the word "financially"."

Oh the air may be cleaner, the rivers less poluted and the roads less congested but the disadvantaged will be financially worse off. We can luxuriate in being in control just like we were in the Suez crisis.

If you think the "disadvantaged" will be worse off in general, with the finances their main consideration, could I ask why a greater proportion of this group voted for out? Not being clever enough to know what they were doing is not allowed to be the answer though.

I suspect 65% of the attendance against Everton will have voted out. I'm not convinced people grasp that finances aren't the most important thing in the lives of many of them.

Gnulty · Post by **Gnulty** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:44 pm

Peace between nations, after two big and plenty of smaller wars, was the main purpose behind the creation of the EU(ECC,Common Market...). Maybe worth a thought fellow members of the universe, earth, europe and UpTheClarets.com..?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:54 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:
I suspect 65% of the attendance against Everton will have voted out. I'm not convinced people grasp that finances aren't the most important thing in the lives of many of them.

I always find your posts interesting although there are often many elements that I disagree with, but on this point I am surprised by your viewpoint.
Are you really suggesting that when people go to the ballot box (in general terms, not the referendum), their main concern isn't the money in their pocket and how it will be affected ?
By and large people vote out of self interest and whether they believe it will lead to an improved standard of living.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:57 pm

A fair point Paul Waine, but basically admitting that you did no research and don't care if what you think is proved to be ******** is a reason for satire on a thread such as this.

Not everyone who voted remain is a genius, and not everyone who voted leave is ignorant, just in case anyone thinks otherwise.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:00 pm

I think nil desperandum the point made by Claret Moffit (I apologise if it wasn't you) in the original thread about "what have we got to lose" is the issue.

The remain camp completely failed to get its point across, and allowed the leave camp to spread its message (despite the vast majority of it being total B/S) and we are where we are.

Lets hope that people like me are wrong, and we can get out of this for the better.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:02 pm

Reality btw

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37650077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:06 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I think nil desperandum the point made by Claret Moffit (I apologise if it wasn't you) in the original thread about "what have we got to lose" is the issue.

The remain camp completely failed to get its point across, and allowed the leave camp to spread its message (despite the vast majority of it being total B/S) and we are where we are.

Lets hope that people like me are wrong, and we can get out of this for the better.

Don't think it was me to be honest.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:10 pm

Cheers, couldn't remember who made it but it did strike home as something that would have an effect.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:11 pm

Gnulty wrote:Peace between nations, after two big and plenty of smaller wars, was the main purpose behind the creation of the EU(ECC,Common Market...). Maybe worth a thought fellow members of the universe, earth, europe and UpTheClarets.com..?

Certainly worth a thought. But jamming nations together that don't want to be together doesn't help. Remember Yugoslavia?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:21 pm

The EU isn't Yugoslavia, and it shows you don't know anything about it if you think it is.

I've got to go and hit the sack now, but tomorrow, I think a little Balkan history is in order for the mis-informed.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:31 pm

"If you think the "disadvantaged" will be worse off in general, with the finances their main consideration, could I ask why a greater proportion of this group voted for out? "

I don't know but my guess is that if your situation isn't great then you vote for change particularly when you are being promised an end to immigration that is depressing your wages and increasing the competition for housing and services as well as changing the character of the area where you live.

However, when over half of legel immigration is from outside the EU, will the desired outcome be realised and why hasn't the non EU immigration been eliminated. Time will tell, and also on whether our exports to the rest of the world will increase sufficiently to replace the decrease in our exports to the EU. Its a gamble where as ever the rich will have the gain and the rest will have the pain.

Gnulty · Post by **Gnulty** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:35 pm

dsr. Those new nations coming out of old Tito's mild but effective form of "tyranny", was created by the regions and religions when the strong man died, and old **** came to the surface. Badly handled by the rest of the world maybe, but mostly by those who live there...

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:42 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote: I've got to go and hit the sack now, but tomorrow, I think a little Balkan history is in order for the mis-informed.

All you need to know is that a fella called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry, which started World War 1.

The Balkans and Europe have never been the same ever since.

Roosterbooster · Post by **Roosterbooster** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:09 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Rooster,

Sorry, I'm struggling... Did I misunderstand the original question?

What have my comments got to do with the EU and the benefits of leaving?

1) David Cameron and George Osborne have both resigned: Didn't DC resign because he lost the referendum? Ditto GO is out because he lead the "project fear" campaign? Both of them had "out-lived" their usefulness to UK Government.
2) Theresa May is our new Prime Minister: Isn't TM PM because DC resigned? Isn't TM's leadership offering much more to "the country's taste" than any alternative? I much prefer a "grammar school" PM than an Eton public school boy.
3) Some EU leaders are threatening "punishment" for UK voting leave: doesn't their response to the vote show that the UK was right to vote leave? does their response indicate that they didn't want us to leave? Does their response show what they thought of the UK while we were (and still are) EU members? Should the UK stay where we aren't wanted? And, what does it say about the EU if their response to the UK leaving is to threaten the UK - and by implication any other member(s) that has the temerity to consider leaving? (Kind of the opposite of Marx's comment, "I wouldn't want to be the member of any club that would want me as a member.")
4) Some of the "experts" have reversed their "doom and gloom" forecast, one or two might even have apologised: So, some of the "project fear" campaign is admitted to be no more than exaggerated, worst case, "doom and gloom" pronouncements from many "experts" with no truth to their "project fear" claims. Does that not speak to the right or wrong way to cast your vote in the referendum?

But (or should that be "and"),
5) the "remoaners" are still moaning.

You suggest my list is "just a list of things that have happened that have nothing to do with the EU, are neither beneficial or disadvantageous, are irrelevant, or are just mere speculation based on nothing but hearsay..."

I contend that all 5 have "everything to do with the EU" and the referendum."
1 and 2 are "beneficial and advantageous."
3 speaks to the nature of the EU.
4 reverses some of the "facts" that "project fear" threatened.
And 5 explains why we continue to have these debates - rather than, as others have posted, have graciously accepted the result of the referendum, recognised the rights of our fellow citizens to hold these opinions and expressed these views and moved on together to make a success of the new opportunities that arise from Brexit.

I think you did misunderstand.

People are saying that given what has happened so far, they are happy that they voted to leave the EU.

Your first 2 points are that we have got rid of DC and now have TM as PM. Whilst this is directly as a result of the vote, it is not a reason to have voted to leave the EU. DC had already said he would resign before the next GE. As for whether or not TM is an improvement, is merely a personal opinion. This vote was about being in or out of the EU, not who should lead the Tory party.

Point 3: The EU clearly want us to stay, so we should leave. Why? The point the EU are making is that to stay within the single market you have to be in the EU. The EU is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Just because they wanted us to stay doesn't mean we are suddenly better off without them. They aren't being spiteful, they are just pointing out that the EU comes as a package deal - if they gave us all the benefits and nothing else, other counties would want to leave and the entire EU would collapse. It seems strange to suddenly think that voting leave was the correct decision because the EU have now shown themselves to be spiteful. It's not spite, it's strong will.

Point 4: The number of people who have changed their mind since the vote is tiny. The pound / markets etc are going pretty much exactly as expected. Such a short time after the vote is too soon to know exactly which way this is going to go, but there has been much more evidence to suggest that we will lose out rather than gain from leaving the EU. This is not my opinion, this is directly from the people I know who work in the finance sector. I didn't base my vote on the project fear remain campaigns numbers, or the leave campaigns claims. I based it on independent analysis, and so far, as expected, we are losing out.

Point 5: we are still moaning because of the effect this is having. Some people may say, deal with it, accept it, move on. I disagree. I still believe it was the wrong decision, generally made for the wrong reasons. There will be further votes in the future, on different issues, and I do not want further mistakes to be made. This isn't about being a sore loser, this is about trying to highlight the mistakes and hope we don't repeat them.

None of the above are sensible reasons to have voted leave. The raisins you have given seem to boil down to the following:

I want a new prime minister
I want to teach the EU a lesson
I think the experts will be wrong
I want to annoy some people

cockneyclaret · Post by **cockneyclaret** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:20 am

Yes.. out all the way!
Just waiting for the rest of Europe to follow suit

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:23 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:The EU isn't Yugoslavia, and it shows you don't know anything about it if you think it is.

I've got to go and hit the sack now, but tomorrow, I think a little Balkan history is in order for the mis-informed.

If you seriously thought that I believed the Balkans and the EU were the same place, I think you need to sober up as well as sleep it off. Goodnight.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:26 am

Gnulty wrote:dsr. Those new nations coming out of old Tito's mild but effective form of "tyranny", was created by the regions and religions when the strong man died, and old **** came to the surface. Badly handled by the rest of the world maybe, but mostly by those who live there...

How true. Lucky there's no old ****, whatever that might be, between Germany and any other nation in the EU ...

USC · Post by **USC** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:39 am

Funny thing about all this is that the "Remainers" were all aware of exactly what they were voting for. Even now, no-one, including those that voted "Leave", has any clue what "Leave" actually means and it's implications. However, it is pretty clear that there was a very strong xenophobic element to the voting, hence the Tories dramatic shift to the right aiming to take advantage of it in the next GE.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:46 am

Roosterbooster wrote:I think you did misunderstand.

People are saying that given what has happened so far, they are happy that they voted to leave the EU.

Your first 2 points are that we have got rid of DC and now have TM as PM. Whilst this is directly as a result of the vote, it is not a reason to have voted to leave the EU. DC had already said he would resign before the next GE. As for whether or not TM is an improvement, is merely a personal opinion. This vote was about being in or out of the EU, not who should lead the Tory party.

Point 3: The EU clearly want us to stay, so we should leave. Why? The point the EU are making is that to stay within the single market you have to be in the EU. The EU is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Just because they wanted us to stay doesn't mean we are suddenly better off without them. They aren't being spiteful, they are just pointing out that the EU comes as a package deal - if they gave us all the benefits and nothing else, other counties would want to leave and the entire EU would collapse. It seems strange to suddenly think that voting leave was the correct decision because the EU have now shown themselves to be spiteful. It's not spite, it's strong will.

Point 4: The number of people who have changed their mind since the vote is tiny. The pound / markets etc are going pretty much exactly as expected. Such a short time after the vote is too soon to know exactly which way this is going to go, but there has been much more evidence to suggest that we will lose out rather than gain from leaving the EU. This is not my opinion, this is directly from the people I know who work in the finance sector. I didn't base my vote on the project fear remain campaigns numbers, or the leave campaigns claims. I based it on independent analysis, and so far, as expected, we are losing out.

Point 5: we are still moaning because of the effect this is having. Some people may say, deal with it, accept it, move on. I disagree. I still believe it was the wrong decision, generally made for the wrong reasons. There will be further votes in the future, on different issues, and I do not want further mistakes to be made. This isn't about being a sore loser, this is about trying to highlight the mistakes and hope we don't repeat them.

None of the above are sensible reasons to have voted leave. The raisins you have given seem to boil down to the following:

I want a new prime minister
I want to teach the EU a lesson
I think the experts will be wrong
I want to annoy some people

OK, I was just off to bed after watching QT.

I thought the question was "would I change my vote...." Truth is I voted remain - for personal/emotional/family reasons - though, intellectually, I believe "leave" was the better decision.

I was addressing what has happened since the vote:

I want a new prime minister - rather given the way DC conducted the referendum and the way TM is looking to "find what unites us" I'm pleased with this change. No I didn't expect it before the referendum - pretty cowardly of DC to resign (in a sulk - but that's Eton for you).
I want to teach the EU a lesson - rather the EU leaders/elites are showing their true colours. They aren't concerned about the UK leaving - only that the electorate hasn't voted "the way they think was right" - and on this occasion they can't force us to vote again "until we get it right." A bad club for us to be a member of, and a bad club for the populations of most of its other 27 member nations. Yes, I'd like the EU to reform - perhaps we can assist them more from outside than from remaining in.
I think the experts will be wrong - I'm referring to the IMF, OECD and other groups that are withdrawn their "doom and gloom" predictions before the referendum. Yes, the economy will still experience a rocky time - but who knows, it could have been a more rocky time staying in - especially with the harm the euro is doing within and beyond the Eurozone countries.
I want to annoy some people - I like the response to Emily Thornbury's question on QT, to ET's question did any of the audience vote for their neighbour to lose their job, a woman in the audience responded "She was very clear why she voted leave and she only voted for ET to lose her job."

In passing, it was interesting to hear the views from a couple of younger audience members - both big supporters of "leave." I don't know if this puts the lie to the claim that only the old voted leave and all the young voted remain. However, more likely it's just the way the BBC "seeds" QT audiences.

Good night.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:00 am

Paul Waine wrote:
In passing, it was interesting to hear the views from a couple of younger audience members - both big supporters of "leave." I don't know if this puts the lie to the claim that only the old voted leave and all the young voted remain.
Good night.

And your post was going so well until you mentioned that very unpleasant young man in the audience who seemed to have a serious attitude and anger issue, and went on to praise Trump in gushing terms. He's not a very good advert for Brexit, and unfortunately from your point of view he seemed to fall into the category of "stupid".

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:25 am

The young vote to remain was heavily weighted darn sarth.
The young lads up north are made of sterner stuff.

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:13 am

Will we still have to help bail out countries such as greece ?

Too many countries have spoilt the broth.