I have a growing feeling that Britain will NOT leave the EU

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

Excellent point Kabayiri, can you imagine any club where one member gets a better deal than all the other members. When they have a meeting it spends all its time complaining (majority of MEP's) and say they want to disband the club.
There comes a point when the other members are rather glad that the ONE threatens to hand in its resignation.
In fact they are now holding there breath as they now worry that the resignation letter will NEVER be handed in.

in what way does the UK get a better deal than the other members ?

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

All we do know is what question was written on the ballot paper, and how the referendum topic was presented by the original proponent : David Cameron.

The question was about leaving the EU. David Cameron claimed when explaining the Tory manifesto before the GE that it would be a simple IN/OUT question. He never once mentioned a multiple consultation process.

As a voter I was perfectly entitled to accept his manifesto pledge, and read the question at face value.

I agree the question has to be taken at face value and the result was conclusive. It would have been far better for the country if the result had a larger majority but we are where we are, with a very divided nation. But leaving the EU is what we must do.

The question was clearly defined, but I suspect was based on the assumption that Remain would win. Little thought was given to what would happen afterwards.

Remain had varying degrees of enthusiasm for the EU project, but were fairly united behind the notion that things would continue as before with UK continuing to advocate change to the EU but accepting that the pros outweighed the cons. But a Remain vote would have had no time imperatives

Leave was different in that it immediately came with a need for action and a need for a timetable. The Leave campaign was united behind the Leave option on the ballot paper but they did not agree on what happened next. Some said it meant having virtually no relationship with the EU, others said it meant something akin to a Norway or Swiss Model. Some did not care about economics and just wanted to control immigration. Either way the answer to the question does not shed any light on what the public wanted.

The problem now is that those who favoured no relationship with the EU accuse those who want to discuss a closer relationship outside of the EU as heretics or worse still Remoaners.

But the fact remains, the question asked has not helped guide the Government where it is going, the Government does not seem to have a plan for where it is going and does not want to listen to Parliament's views on the matter.

Matt_L

BobQ wrote: »

I agree the question has to be taken at face value and the result was conclusive. It would have been far better for the country if the result had a larger majority but we are where we are, with a very divided nation. But leaving the EU is what we must do.

The question was clearly defined, but I suspect was based on the assumption that Remain would win. Little thought was given to what would happen afterwards.

Remain had varying degrees of enthusiasm for the EU project, but were fairly united behind the notion that things would continue as before with UK continuing to advocate change to the EU but accepting that the pros outweighed the cons. But a Remain vote would have had no time imperatives

Leave was different in that it immediately came with a need for action and a need for a timetable. The Leave campaign was united behind the Leave option on the ballot paper but they did not agree on what happened next. Some said it meant having virtually no relationship with the EU, others said it meant something akin to a Norway or Swiss Model. Some did not care about economics and just wanted to control immigration. Either way the answer to the question does not shed any light on what the public wanted.

The problem now is that those who favoured no relationship with the EU accuse those who want to discuss a closer relationship outside of the EU as heretics or worse still Remoaners.

But the fact remains, the question asked has not helped guide the Government where it is going, the Government does not seem to have a plan for where it is going and does not want to listen to Parliament's views on the matter.

Im confused at how you think the government doesn't seem to have a plan??

Ive heard TM state countless times that we will take back control of immigration, take control of our law making and trade with whom we wish, whilst having the best possible access to the single market..

For me thats all i need to know:)

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

If you are an EU Citizen there are NO BARRIERS at the moment.
Or had you forgotten?

Unsure what your point is. NO BARRIERS is certainly not the be all and end all. People are recruited on their given expertise not their nationality.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unsure what your point is. NO BARRIERS is certainly not the be all and end all. People are recruited on their given expertise not their nationality.

But gfplus and many many people on this board believe, that one's nationality is the all important defining characteristic: and so they are willing to discriminate against the peoples of about 160 countries.
Nevertheles they call other people who don't agree, xenophobes.

AFF8879

gfplux wrote: »

If you are an EU Citizen there are NO BARRIERS at the moment.
Or had you forgotten?

Working for one of the worlds largest investment banks in London, I can tell you first hand that visas for non-EU citizens are a non-issue. I have never the known the cost, or process, of sponsoring an applicant for a visa to even be discussed in the hiring process, let alone be a factor considered in picking the right person.

Shakethedisease

We Fade to Grey...

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We Fade to Grey...

Hasn't that been the case since the vote.

Firetastic

This might be posted on here but I heard a very good point which I agree with. Canada and Australia have very strict rules who can get into their country yet when Britain wants to get stricter we're seen as racist?

lisyloo

Firetastic wrote: »

This might be posted on here but I heard a very good point which I agree with. Canada and Australia have very strict rules who can get into their country yet when Britain wants to get stricter we're seen as racist?

Good point.
I also think that whilst we prioritise our own needs we also need to consider our moral obligations to other countries. For example taking all the fit young men from Romanin villages and removing all the nurses from poor parts of Thailand is not good.