If we vote for Brexit what happens

Samsonite1

Conrad wrote: »

I understand some people are easily spooked, but I prefer thinking in a contrarian manner and less in a sort of standard manner informed by know nothing commentator journalists

Think like an investor; why on earth would you want to invest in the malfunctioning hugely risk laden EU? Why in fact invest in the USA with its $20 trillion Govt debt and 2 protectionist Presidential candidates?

Surely you would invest in the new confident nimble Britain turning her face globally, the place where business focus is now everyone is we carve a new place in the world?

The only reason we may have a lull is due to prays like Carney talking us down to prove thier predictive capacity was correct

Well of course - the point I am making is that the lull may last a while and many people (ok Remainers) will find that hard to accept until it changes. My first hope is that actually having a PM and the government starting to do something at all will help in some way!

Personally I think that the negatives will outweigh the positives for a while (like now to start with), but things will start to balance. I do not see prosperity being much better (if at all) but somewhere in the same region. That is fine although it will make the lull seem unnecessary.

Having said that, the EU as an organisation has acted pretty poorly since 24th June. Having a meeting without the UK contravened their own laws and that was just off the back of a non-binding, public referendum. Also the opinions of many of the EU parliament make you wonder how much power some fairly opinionated people have over many people.

As a Remainer, I still think that the benefits of the EU are worth having, but in the light of not being a member in the future, if we can retain the main benefits and improve on the bad parts of the EU then it could be a good direction to go in after the limbo period.

I still feel that the positives need to be pursued aggressively to counter-balance the negatives. The sooner the ship is righted, the sooner the general public can feel happier.

It does not help that jobs are being lost and funding being pulled as a discrimination against the UK for the public vote. It is difficult to counter these moves as we are unlikely to get anywhere until we have exited and negotiated? We simply have to secure negotiations before we exit otherwise it will be a low and long lull.

mwpt

Conrad wrote: »

Free movement is the very thing that is hurting so many working class people. They want thier dignity and high wages back, an impossibility in the prescience of unlimited labour

Empathy is required to understand this. UKIP are wholesale wiping Labour out as lefties no longer have any answers to today modern world

I have sympathy for this notion but the problem is I don't buy it completely. For a few reasons.

1) If we could mandate people richer, we could just increase minimum wage. If I remember rightly, you didn't support this. I think you saw the same flaws I did. So if we can't just make everyone richer by upping minimum wage, why do you think we can do this by reducing labour force competition?

2) Our unemployment is extremely low, so people are in work. Why is unemployment so low? Do you believe the figures or is there something else going on here?

3) Our wages and standard of living are higher than most of the world already. Otherwise they wouldn't move here.

4) The thing that ties it all together is globalisation. We can choose to not participate in the global labour market, but we undermine our competitiveness. Our low skill high wage workforce will drive up costs to business, and those businesses are competing against low wage businesses abroad. You might say we have to become a more productive economy, but that is exactly what we are focussing on. We don't compete well at the low end manufacturing because our wages are already too high. We compete at the top end, services, high skill engineering, etc. So we are already where you seem to want to go.

So since that is where you want to go, in order for our businesses to remain competitive, I favour free market and free movement, but outside of much EU legislation. That was the question being asked in the last few posts, where do we remain voters want to see the country going.

mrginge

Conrad wrote: »

Just hearing a bitter Bremain journalist on BBC News still saying we've been put to the back of the US trade queue, !!!!!!, this level of ignorance is staggering.

Please remember that only highly intelligent people are remainers. Stupid,
ill-educated comments only come from the leave side.

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

Which directives?

How would I know, I don't particularly care about them. I would have thought you'd be the one to tell me, it was you lot who said they were imposing on your sovereignty with vacuum cleaner laws. My point is that we have a mandate to leave the EU, so that is my favoured option.

Samsonite1

mrginge wrote: »

Please remember that only highly intelligent people are remainers. Stupid,
i'll-educated comments only come from the leave side.

Choice place to put an apostrophe. Eats, shoots and leaves. We are all human

baza52

mwpt wrote: »

How would I know, I don't particularly care about them. I would have thought you'd be the one to tell me, it was you lot who said they were imposing on your sovereignty with vacuum cleaner laws. My point is that we have a mandate to leave the EU, so that is my favoured option.

It wasn't us lot, it was me that mentioned the vacuum cleaner laws.
I do not speak for everyone.

mwpt

baza52 wrote: »

It wasn't us lot, it was me that mentioned the vacuum cleaner laws.
I do not speak for everyone.

I can explain what I did there. I used a specific example to make my general point more pertinent and applicable, so that it would be more easily understandable. It is a common practice and particularly when you are debating. So when I mentioning "you lot" and "vacuum cleaners" this is what I was doing and not meaning it to be an exhaustive list of all the directives "you lot" may have complained about. I also chose to use "you lot" as a collective because it is very difficult to succinctly address a huge variety of people's positions in a single post. I did this because when people are inclined to debate important points they will accept these sort of linguistic idioms as useful and stick to the points rather than nit picking about irrelevances.

But I thank you for your contribution

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

How would I know, I don't particularly care about them. I would have thought you'd be the one to tell me, it was you lot who said they were imposing on your sovereignty with vacuum cleaner laws. My point is that we have a mandate to leave the EU, so that is my favoured option.

What do you mean 'my lot'?

Are you suggesting that all leave voters did so for the same reasons?
I do hope not as that would mean you were calling 52% of the electorate racists.

It is a bit strange that you want to reduce the EU directives (that don't impact on your life) but you don't know which ones.

baza52

mrginge wrote: »

What do you mean 'my lot'?

Are you suggesting that all leave voters did so for the same reasons?
I do hope not as that would mean you were calling 52% of the electorate racists.

It is a bit strange that you want to reduce the EU directives (that don't impact on your life) but you don't know which ones.

only the people that voted leave are racist lol.
Even though a lot of those voters were not white british but a multitude of races, religions and colours.

Its the only word they have in their arsenal.

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

What do you mean 'my lot'?

Are you suggesting that all leave voters did so for the same reasons?
I do hope not as that would mean you were calling 52% of the electorate racists.

It is a bit strange that you want to reduce the EU directives (that don't impact on your life) but you don't know which ones.

Once again, I would really like it if you read my posts properly and actually made points about real things instead of stuff that you imagine and invent. It gets very tiresome replying over and over to correct your mistakes (or if I wasn't feeling generous, lies).

I will explain it to you though a little more carefully and if you have any further problems with comprehension, please do not hesitate to just ask, I'm always here to repeatedly correct your errors.

So, I was asked which path I would recommend the UK to take now, since I'm told I was moaning to much about the past. I answered that, in the context that we voted to leave the EU, that we should pursue free trade and free movement, but outside of the EU, and so not subject to certain directives. This would hopefully satisfy the conditions of the referendum and people would mostly be happy because we have got our sovereignty back. What those directives might be - and here you'll have to pay close attention - I don't know or care much because they have never been something I noticed or thought about much in my life. I only mention it because it would be a condition of adhering to the referendum outcome.

I hope this is clear. As mentioned, if you have any other failures to understand, please don't think of using your own powers of deduction, just continue to make misguided posts and I will hopefully correct you. Leave me to do the thinking.

EDIT: Wow, I must be getting softer as I age. I changed my tune in that post from start to finish, at first I wasn't impressed with your misreading of my post, but then I offered to continue to do your thinking for you.

And as an addendum, 'your lot' refers to the leave voters as a whole. There were only two choices on the ballot paper, as 'you lot' like to remind me. Hope that's clear.