If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

So try this:

"We're leaving the EU specifically in order to achieve some of the things we already have whilst we are members of the EU" but without paying you billions of Euros for the questionable privilege of doing so.



That's the only bit she actually wants. Not having to listen to the ECJ will give the Tories so much more scope for deregulation (most of it which will shaft us, rather than cutting down on red tape).
In your opinion only; evidence please? . You pro-remain advocates really are struggling to find things to dispute now.


But did employment actually rise?

Clarified the above for you.
I see you are disinclined to even read, so here you go:

The employment rate was steady at a record 74.5%, while wage growth picked up pace.
Average weekly earnings excluding bonuses increased by 2.7% compared with a year earlier.

Oh look - wages are up again too.

gfplux

Filo25 wrote: »

Interesting poll from Yougov shown below, it does show the importance politically of getting some kind of trade deal from the EU for the government, it also shows (unsurprisingly) that a lot of the public have no idea as to what Labour stands for with regards to the EU..

It is awfull that Britain does not have an effective opposition to call the ruling party to account. I always understood that Democracy works most efficiently with a strong and robust opposition party.

However apparently only one thing (leaving the EU) occupying the Government and the civil service it might not matter as much"

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

So try this:


That's the only bit she actually wants. Not having to listen to the ECJ will give the Tories so much more scope for deregulation (most of it which will shaft us, rather than cutting down on red tape).

the people of the UK will be able to directly vote for a government to determine employment regulation : I know you don't like democracy but that's what we might be stuck with in the future.

But did employment actually rise?

the dishonesty is quite unashamed.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

The extrapolation is taking a Daily Mail article telling you there's a new rule you won't like and using that as proof I prefer to have my rules made by people you have proven are idiots.

There are lots of regulations I think we'd be better off without or should be changed. I didn't vote leave for a number of reasons but one was that I don't expect the government to stop sticking their nose into my affairs for one reason or another.

I agree with you about the situation probably not being different when it comes to UK governments sticking their nose in.

However, and here's the rub.

Every 5 years or less the electorate can kick them out if they disagree with what they're doing. With the EU there is no way to propose legislation to repeal through the EU parliament. So you're relying on the clique at the top (the commission) to represent you, and if they don't... tough.

That's unacceptable to me.

gfplux

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Clarified the above for you.
I see you are disinclined to even read, so here you go:
Oh look - wages are up again too.

That is the second time that wage rises of 2.7% has been quotes as if it is a good thing but no downsides.
Inflation is not the friend of anyone. I applaud rising wages but I remember the bad days of inflation and we should all be careful what we wish for.
Yes there is that we word again. At least we should all be united against inflation.

Just reflecting on wage inflation at 2.7%. Some people have been unhappy at the number of foreigners taking British jobs. I have no idea what will happen to wage inflation when some of these foreigners leave but again that might fuel inflation. It will be a delicate ballancing act for the British Government to get right.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

That is the second time that wage rises of 2.7% has been quotes as if it is a good thing but no downsides.
Inflation is not the friend of anyone. I applaud rising wages but I remember the bad days of inflation and we should all be careful what we wish for.

our friends in the BoE and 99.99% of economists disagree with you.
that of may well show you are right of course.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You obviously have a desire for procrastination where none is necessary.
It would appear that you are desirous of a full summation of Brexit details before Brexit actually happens which - as has repeatedly been stated - will not and indeed cannot happen.

"Not sure what your point is. "
Oh dear, it really is quite simple: your ECJ summary may be correct and may indeed be amongst the most straightforward of examples.
Yet you discount the fact that whatever happens when we leave (for example) the EU Customs Union that things will inevitably change; until discussions are complete we cannot know what these changes may be.
Those changes are certainly NOT "in our gift" as you choose to phrase it.
Nor are the consequences of leaving the single market.
Which is why discussions will take place; in order to reach agreement.

It strikes me as sad that - despite what you acknowledge to be an "exactly what was required" speech - you want to know far more in-depth detail than it is possible to have.

It's bleeding obvious that when she talks about negotiating deals a negotiation will be required but it doesn't change the fact that, from the list, some of the things she'd like we already have, some have nothing to do with Brexit, and others are within the gift of the UK government.

Yes, I would like to know more but it's a good start so don't worry about my sadness.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

However, and here's the rub.

Every 5 years or less the electorate can kick them out if they disagree with what they're doing. With the EU there is no way to propose legislation to repeal through the EU parliament. So you're relying on the clique at the top (the commission) to represent you, and if they don't... tough.

That's unacceptable to me.

I feel the same about having an unelected second chamber and unelected Head of State. When do I get my referendum?

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

the people of the UK will be able to directly vote for a government to determine employment regulation : I know you don't like democracy but that's what we might be stuck with in the future.

That supposes that there will be a meaningful opposition party in 4 years to vote for, which is made even less likely by the boundary changes, and that the damage isn't already done by then.

I mean, I agree with you in theory, but in practise the Tories have all the cards stacked in their favour right now.

the dishonesty is quite unashamed.

That's statistics for you :beer:

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Clarified the above for you.
I see you are disinclined to even read, so here you go

Ok, I guess that's about as close as we'll get to on an agreement there.

Oh look - wages are up again too.

Again with statistics. Wages are up on average 2.7%, but none across the health, emergency services, public sector (at the lower levels), in retail, education etc. I'm not aware of anyone getting wage rises that are keeping up with inflation So who's getting the payrises to average out to 2.7%?

MP's only gave themselves a 1.3% rise again, so where's this money coming from? Banking? A few bankers giving themselves huge raises would certainly skew the average wage.