If we vote for Brexit what happens

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There is a distinct difference between calling a group of people xenophobic, which is a bigoted statement if you don't know yourself if that group of people are genuinely xenophobic, and calling a particular individual a bigot because they indulged in the aforementioned.

Nice try but I'm on to you.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

Nice try but I'm on to you.

Really, do tell. Share your insight with the world.

Some people who voted Remain, particularly on here, on shows like QT, in the broadcast media and in the printed media have been extensively indulging in bigotry against those who have voted to leave whilst at the same time calling others bigots, they're so up their own rear they can't see it.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

Information is power and is often a more powerful weapon than a difficult to enforce law.
Sometimes the only way of knowing a law is being broken is by gathering data and publishing it.
But I respect your views, which seems to me to be that ONLY illegal activities should be publicly commented on and ONLY when the case is proven.
No more stats about gender inequality, no more stats about ethic employment, no exposes about unpleasant but not illegal working practices.

We operate on an "innocent until proven guilty" legal system, where everything is dealt with appropriately.

What you're trying to defend here is mob rule, where a companies reputation can be destroyed (and worse) by an accusation. Sure, the company is probably a traitorous foreigner-employer, but how can you be sure?

Will, say, French restaraunts be named and shamed because their chefs are French? How will you react when someone scrawls "f*ck off back where you came from" across their windows?

Swap out French with Italian, Polish, Chinese, Thai, Korean, Indian, Mexican, and so on.

How many foreigners can a company employ before they are made into a hate target by bigots? Does it only cover the ones in UK based positions?

If you feel that companies are breaking the law; report them, and pressure your politicians to have the laws enforced. Don't hope that publishing the companies name in a paper and hoping someone throwing a brick through the window will fix it. Because it never has before.

The "Ministry for State Security" had similar policies, and it didn't exactly help.

ruggedtoast

cogito wrote: »

No it isn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

And when the UK finally leaves it will be further behind the US, China and possibly India. In terms of GDP per capita, it's miles behind the US.

Luckily all those super motivated and successful Brexit voters, finally unshackled from the chains of the EU, will race towards their full potential and catapult us into economic superpowerdom.

Sigh, thats the thing thats so annoying about Brexit. Hardly anyone who is actually a stakeholder in the UK's economic future wants it.

Now its been forced on us by a bunch of doleites, pensionsers, and undereducated low wagers with an axe to grind.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

We operate on an "innocent until proven guilty" legal system, where everything is dealt with appropriately.

What you're trying to defend here is mob rule, where a companies reputation can be destroyed (and worse) by an accusation. Sure, the company is probably a traitorous foreigner-employer, but how can you be sure?

Will, say, French restaraunts be named and shamed because their chefs are French? How will you react when someone scrawls "f*ck off back where you came from" across their windows?

Swap out French with Italian, Polish, Chinese, Thai, Korean, Indian, Mexican, and so on.

How many foreigners can a company employ before they are made into a hate target by bigots? Does it only cover the ones in UK based positions?

If you feel that companies are breaking the law; report them, and pressure your politicians to have the laws enforced. Don't hope that publishing the companies name in a paper and hoping someone throwing a brick through the window will fix it. Because it never has before.

The "Ministry for State Security" had similar policies, and it didn't exactly help.

Information is power and you wish to suppress it.
The recent program about Sport Direct was an excellent example of providing information about working practices: if they pay less than minimum wage then that is for the courts, but the other unpleasant working practices don't seem to be illegal and you would propose suppressing this information.
In the 50/60s it was a commonplace that many large companies had an all unofficial all white : extremely difficult to prove but the investigation of numbers of non whites going through the factory gates, told a story that you would want suppressed.
Similarly information about glass ceiling and promotion of ethic groups can be reasonably deduced if one has the data, even if specific discrimination is hard to prove.

Moby

cogito wrote: »

No it isn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

And when the UK finally leaves it will be further behind the US, China and possibly India. In terms of GDP per capita, it's miles behind the US.

Your source is pants but ....doesn't change the general point in any event. We are choosing to leave one of the biggest trading blocs!

cogito

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Luckily all those super motivated and successful Brexit voters, finally unshackled from the chains of the EU, will race towards their full potential and catapult us into economic superpowerdom.

Sigh, thats the thing thats so annoying about Brexit. Hardly anyone who is actually a stakeholder in the UK's economic future wants it.

Now its been forced on us by a bunch of doleites, pensionsers, and undereducated low wagers with an axe to grind.

What enlightened people like you don't get is that for many leave voters it was less to do with the economy and more to do with leaving a corrupt, undemocratic organisation run by an unelected elite determined to impose its world view on its citizens.

I happen to believe that the UK will continue to outperform the sclerotic EU just as it has done for the past few years.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

Your source is pants but ....doesn't change the general point in any event. We are choosing to leave one of the biggest trading blocs!

You got a better source?

It's actually a customs union. How many such unions have ever succeeded in the past? I'll give you a clue. Less than one.

Tromking

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Now its been forced on us by a bunch of doleites, pensionsers, and undereducated low wagers with an axe to grind.

Throughout history many self proclaimed intellectual elites have had their world view checked by the great unwashed. No doubt there were many like you in 1945 who cried 'look what the thicko's have done' when the irks rejected the status quo of Churchill and instead voted in the finest government our nation has ever seen.
They'll be building statues to the Brexiteers in the future.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

In that link Azavedo says the terms will have to be re-negotiated...granted he says it shouldn't be a problem but how can he predict that?

When Azavedo says there won't be a problem I accept him at his word.

Moby wrote: »

We are in new territory and Fox is dealing with it by keeping the same terms as now to avoid the turbulence.....so why did we vote to leave!

As I said previously, WTO tariffs in schedules are the maximum tariff a country can apply - they can be reduced by a country to any amount - zero if they wish (which we can't do in the EU) - which we can do post Brexit.

FYI "With respect to tariff bindings, the UK would most likely inherit the EU’s bound tariffs which for most tariff lines are also the EU’s applied tariffs. This is not likely to be controversial in a WTO context. The UK could of course set its future applied MFN tariffs below this level but it could not exceed them."http://capreform.eu/wto-dimensions-of-a-uk-brexit-and-agricultural-trade/

Moby wrote: »

Also our new terms of membership are far more likely to be challenged if we are negotiating alone than as part of a bigger block. Why go there at all....I'm happy as we are...as where you as a fellow remainer!

Errrr - because "We" lost.