If we vote for Brexit what happens

cogito

Ballard wrote: »

It amazes me that people still seem to have this view that privately educated multimillionaire Nigel Farage is in it for the downtrodden working classes. Boris Johnson hardly voted with his heart and neither did Michael Gove.

One of the reasons that I voted to remain was because I have concerns that once we are outside of the EU the Tories (for they are very likely to be in power for a long time) will have the power to erode workers rights. Maybe they will or maybe they won't actually do it but I would have rather that they didn't have the choice.

One of the reasons I voted leave was because the EU have the power to erode the rights of nation states and they are actually using it.

Look at how they have reduced Greece to a satrapy. Look how they are trying to force non-Euro states into the euro by withholding money for agreed projects e.g. the Danube locks at Constanta in Romania. The Dublin deal under which first footfall states are obliged to act as migrant pens. Etc., etc., etc.

It's always the smaller countries and newest entrants that get kicked around. Never the original six.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Ballard wrote: »

This is the first that I've heard of brexiteer being deemed insulting but being as you (and possibly others, who knows?) apparently find it offensive I have, as you may note, stopped using the term.

It is well documented by many people that remoaner is deeply offensive but it continues to be used regularly by leavers. I can only deduce that those using the term intend to offend but perhaps you have an alternative view that you might like to share.

Any terminology which has been in any way altered and/or adapted has been done so for a reason.
In regards to the EU referendum I think you must agree that the terminology used on both sides has been mostly adapted to cause someone offence.
To me that includes the use of Brixiteer just as much as the use of Remoaner.

Although I may be a leave voter I in absolutely no way resemble a buccaneer or musketeer, nor do I subscribe to the attributes of these.
Examples including sentiment such as piracy or gung-ho "all-for-one" troops.
Hence I consider myself a Brexiter but certainly not a Brexiteer.
In much the same way I suppose that one may be a Remainer who does nor moan, so is insulted by being called a Remoaner.

IMHO it really is time that this infantile name-calling ceased.
The battle is all but over; truce should be declared.
So I'm all for the use of such terminology being discouraged.
But it should be recognised and accepted as being derogatory by everyone which - you must admit - is unlikely in these forums at least.

Ballard

I broadly agree with you but I have to say that until you brought it up I had no idea that brexiteer was deemed by anyone to be in the least bit insulting. I may well have missed others complaining about it but your post was the first that came to my attention. It's clearly not nearly as obvious an insult as remoaner but that's by the by.

As I said, I won't use the term again and can only hope that neither term is used by anyone gong forward. I do, sadly, have my doubts.

Ballard

cogito wrote: »

One of the reasons I voted leave was because the EU have the power to erode the rights of nation states and they are actually using it.

Look at how they have reduced Greece to a satrapy. Look how they are trying to force non-Euro states into the euro by withholding money for agreed projects e.g. the Danube locks at Constanta in Romania. The Dublin deal under which first footfall states are obliged to act as migrant pens. Etc., etc., etc.

It's always the smaller countries and newest entrants that get kicked around. Never the original six.

You make a well reasoned point which I respect. I agree that the EU is far from perfect. I just happen to think that being part of it and having some say in how it is run was the way to go.

BobQ

Matt_L wrote: »

You are right we should have moved on however i was responding to a person that wants to drag it up again, when they fail to see their side lied far more but are blind to that then i see it as remoaning.

Sadly you seem to be the one incapable of moving on as your subsequent post demonstrates.

As for what kind of Brexit, i again believe a person that calls it a "Hard Brexit" is a remoaner, They call it Hard to intimidate people or at least cause fear... From what i can see those that remoan want a, so called Soft Brexit which is in fact no change to our current standing so leave the EU by name only....

We now have you calling Hard Brexit = Leaving the customs union and so on...

What are you now calling us leaving and falling back on WTO terms?? A Hard Hard Brexit? An end of the World Brexit??

If you are incapable of seeing that you can leave the EU in different ways then clearly there is little point in debating the issue with you.

A Hard Brexit is not an insult. It is a valid point of view that we should have no trade deal with the EU, be outside of its customs union, have no agreements with them on aspects of the EU that we agree with (eg sharing intelligence to combat crime) and so on

A Soft Brexit is also not an insult and is a valid point of view that we should have a trading relationship with them that is mutually beneficial and cooperate with them on things we mutually agree with.

Now I understand that you think Brexit and Hard Brexit are the same thing and Soft Brexit is "remoaning". But unless we can agree on the meaning of language communication is impossible.

BobQ

setmefree2 wrote: »

The average trade weighted tariff on the WTO EU schedule is 2.3% (non agriculture).

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-leaving-eu-trade/

So some goods are not 10%? Is that what you are saying?

Your link states:

This is an average figure and tariffs on some individual products are much higher, especially on agricultural goods. The EU tariff on cars, for example, is 10%.

Ballard

BobQ wrote: »

Sadly you seem to be the one incapable of moving on as your subsequent post demonstrates.



If you are incapable of seeing that you can leave the EU in different ways then clearly there is little point in debating the issue with you.

A Hard Brexit is not an insult. It is a valid point of view that we should have no trade deal with the EU, be outside of its customs union, have no agreements with them on aspects of the EU that we agree with (eg sharing intelligence to combat crime) and so on

A Soft Brexit is also not an insult and is a valid point of view that we should have a trading relationship with them that is mutually beneficial and cooperate with them on things we mutually agree with.

Now I understand that you think Brexit and Hard Brexit are the same thing and Soft Brexit is "remoaning". But unless we can agree on the meaning of language communication is impossible.

It's almost inconceivable that someone simply doesn't understand the terms soft/hard Brexit but then being as they persist in using remoaner it shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

A Hard Brexit is not an insult. It is a valid point of view that we should have no trade deal with the EU, be outside of its customs union, have no agreements with them on aspects of the EU that we agree with (eg sharing intelligence to combat crime) and so on

A Soft Brexit is also not an insult and is a valid point of view that we should have a trading relationship with them that is mutually beneficial and cooperate with them on things we mutually agree with.

Why do you think that a 'hard' Brexit means we should have no trade deal with the EU?
Or have no common agreements with them?

What you seem to be describing as 'soft' would actually appear to be the strategy we are looking to pursue.

[Deleted User]

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Blimey so many people banned on this board now - is that any left to contribute?

Sad times.

Sad times indeed...

Maybe this site should change its name to "snowflakesavingexpert.com"..:rotfl:

WR

padington

God this thread is boring.