Why are leavers so angry

Fella

mayonnaise wrote: »

What a load of tosh.
Can you point to anyone still saying Art.50 shouldn't be triggered

Are you serious? If so then yes, lots & lots of people.

ViolaLass

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So applying for the relevant visa, getting the relevant visa, applying for the job, telling the employer you have you relevant visa.

Assuming I'll be allowed to apply for the visa before I have the job offer. The area I'm looking at does sometimes state that they want applicants who already have the right to work in that country so having to apply after would put me at a disadvantage.

kabayiri, I voted as I have already stated, because I did not see evidence that we as a country would be better out. I saw 'hope', which is not a strategy, financial promises that didn't stack up and 'take our country back' which didn't say anything to me as I didn't feel it had been lost.

I gave the example about working in Italy as a reply to the poster who said that no rights would be lost from Brexit. It is an untrue statement but it was far from being the largest influence on my vote.

kabayiri

ViolaLass wrote: »

...
kabayiri, I voted as I have already stated, because I did not see evidence that we as a country would be better out. I saw 'hope', which is not a strategy, financial promises that didn't stack up and 'take our country back' which didn't say anything to me as I didn't feel it had been lost.
...

Look at the economic picture in a global sense.

Since the GFC the USA economy has recovered and grown by 17%. UK hasn't done that well, but we have still seen growth.

The Eurozone has barely seen any growth.

In the time between our last 2 vote on membership of the EEC/EU, a country like China has gone from an economic backwater to one of the most important economies in the world.

We outsource work which supports hundreds of thousands of Indian IT and call centre workers on a regular basis.

I take the view that we need to work more with the parts of the world which are growing and developing.

Of course it's a challenge. Turning the Euro around to support all the Euro states is an even bigger challenge IMO.

ruggedtoast

ViolaLass wrote: »

Assuming I'll be allowed to apply for the visa before I have the job offer. The area I'm looking at does sometimes state that they want applicants who already have the right to work in that country so having to apply after would put me at a disadvantage.

kabayiri, I voted as I have already stated, because I did not see evidence that we as a country would be better out. I saw 'hope', which is not a strategy, financial promises that didn't stack up and 'take our country back' which didn't say anything to me as I didn't feel it had been lost.

I gave the example about working in Italy as a reply to the poster who said that no rights would be lost from Brexit. It is an untrue statement but it was far from being the largest influence on my vote.

Actually what he means is that none of the rights that he holds that he cares about , will be lost. Therefore no one else should complain.

Doshwaster

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So applying for the relevant visa, getting the relevant visa, applying for the job, telling the employer you have you relevant visa. You'll still be able to do what you want to do it'll just be more difficult than before. You've not lost the right to do so.

This can lead to a Catch 22 situation where you can't get a visa without a job offer but you can't get a job without a visa. All this does is add cost, delay and uncertainty to the recruitment process and who benefits from it?

Meanwhile businesses in Germany and elsewhere will be able to easily hire who they want from across Europe (except the UK, of course)

I don't see why Leavers see work visa as a good thing. I thought we were leaving the EU to reduce government bureaucracy not increase it.

CLAPTON

Doshwaster wrote: »

This can lead to a Catch 22 situation where you can't get a visa without a job offer but you can't get a job without a visa. All this does is add cost, delay and uncertainty to the recruitment process and who benefits from it?

Meanwhile businesses in Germany and elsewhere will be able to easily hire who they want from across Europe (except the UK, of course)

I don't see why Leavers see work visa as a good thing. I thought we were leaving the EU to reduce government bureaucracy not increase it.

no thought of training UK based people then? much better to import cheap labour

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

Well you have pretty much made that up.

But in the same way that you don't believe that those who think we should remain should lie down and take their medicine, surely you also believe that those who want a hard brexit should have the right to promote and try to achieve their favoured option?

Made that up? Mmm. Phrases like "take their medicine" are indicative of the attitude you accuse me of making up.

The point you miss, however, is that all of us who live in the UK will take the medicine (remainers and leavers alike). Your gung ho thinking will be justified if the medicine works and the side effects are tolerable. My concern is that the Leave community have sold us snake oil, and the medicine may not actually work.

And, yes I do believe that those who want a hard Brexit have every right to advocate one. Even when they pretend that a Yes vote and a Hard Brexit are synonamous.

Well two issues here.
Firstly you should direct your frustrations towards the EU themselves if you believe this to be true.
And secondly, if this is a realistic possibility then it makes perfect sense for the government to plan for it.

ETA I am not frustrated, by the time this all comes to pass I will be living in an EU country watching this play out. While I still think that the EU may take a hard line (hopefully not), that die has been cast by the vote. The UK has limited influence on what the EU27 do and must rely on them acting in their own self interest. I hope those who think we argue form a position of strength are right!

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

a single market has nothing to do with subsidies and handouts;
its about economics of tariff free trade in goods and services

.

No wish to open the original debate. I agree, if you see the single market as purely based on trade in goods and services then that is true. But from an EU perspective the concept is wider than this and extends to labour and capital and harmonisation that might help the single market work better.

Clearly if we are seeking transitional arrangements or single market membership we must be clear about what we want.

Doshwaster

CLAPTON wrote: »

no thought of training UK based people then? much better to import cheap labour

Well, it's much quicker to import someone who is already qualified but not necessarily cheaper. A foreign doctor, nurse, teacher or cancer researcher is paid exactly the same as their British equivalent. Discriminating pay based on nationality is illegal.

Of course training is important and good employers will always invest in their own staff but when you need to expand quickly you have to bring the headcount in from somewhere.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

No wish to open the original debate. I agree, if you see the single market as purely based on trade in goods and services then that is true. But from an EU perspective the concept is wider than this and extends to labour and capital and harmonisation that might help the single market work better.

Clearly if we are seeking transitional arrangements or single market membership we must be clear about what we want.

My understanding of the term single market does include free movement of goods, services, people, capital and creating common standards where necesary.
However it doesn't mean subsidising specific countries or subsidising vanity projects or HR or social policy