Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gary

Brexit - we are all doomed!!!

Recommended Posts

observer    585

Well, it seems the will of "the people" may not be carried out after all. The High Court has decided that triggering article 50, requires the approval of Parliament; and with 80% pro-EU MPs, that would seem unlikely. SO, it would seem the PM needs to call a General Election to decide matters, which in effect, would mean a re-run of the referendum, and hopefully the clearing out of Remoaners from the House of Commons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    233

But i doubt the "remoaners" will be removed. Once the ballot is termed a General Election  the status quo will prevail & dyed in the wool Labour voters will vote Labour . The usual 26% turnout will produce a Parliament that will effectively polish off the bid to be free of the EU due to its majority of still EU friendly MPs.

After this point demands by the  "remoaners" for a fresh referendum will be silenced , the financial establishment will have its way & a new HS4 gravy train can be built between London & Brussels.

 

The best hope we sane leavers have is a good performance by the Leave legal team in the Supreme Court next month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The political elite seem to have staged a coup in the courts at the prospect of having to remove their snouts from the Eurotrough.

It's not over.

Well, it might be for some of them, come the next elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul Kennedy    33

A rather sad day for democracy when a wealthy individual can go to Court and convince Judges ( who most likely voted remain) to frustrate/nullify the result of the Referendum. I post as someone who voted to Remain....but never wanted a Referendum in the first place. If I was Mrs May....and if it is possible, I would put a Motion to Parliament along the lines, "that this House accepts the Referendum result to leave the EU and in so doing instructs HM Government to enact Article 50 and commence negotiating the UK's exit from the EU".....and let us see who of those who say they accept the result actually do.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul Kennedy    33

I'll reserve judgement on the Nissan "deal", until we know if HMG have had to bribe them to stay, with tax-payer's money. Keep hearing about this so-called "single market", but it doesn't stop S/Korean cars, Chilean wines, or Madagascan prawns reaching our shops (NB we're still in the EU single market). The fact is, that the EU has set itself up as a continental protection racket; but forgets that trade is a two way street. If they want to apply WTO tariffs (10% for cars), so can we; we can have a global trade war, and the EU will find they are in the minority. 500million customers are a lot less than the 6 and a half billion elsewhere.

Interestingly Observer, I understand that at least one Korean manufacturer, Kia makes its cars in the EU...Slovakia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    585

Whatever is done Paul: the EUrophiles  will try to sabotage progress at every turn; so the only way is to vote them out; this could mean a deal between the Tories and UKIP to put up sole Brexit candidates, and hope the other side don't agree to do the same.     As for Korea, I think Vauxhall Vivas are made in Korea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    233

If a general election is staged the waters will be muddied by issues other than in/out of Europe. All other matters of running UK plc will have to be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    585

Priorities Dave, priorities. The first priority for the 52%, is to take back control of our Country by leaving the EU, making and administering our own laws, especially in relation to immigration. Once done, we can start to talk about other issues, as a truly self governing entity..  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    270

Isn't it strange how the people who are saying that the sovereignty of parliament is sacrosanct are the same ones who have been happily giving it away to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels for the last 40 years.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    585

Having listened to many of the MPs discussing this, it would seem that most Labour MPs are terrified (quite rightly), of challenging or even appearing to challenge the referendum decision. Which leaves the 8 LibDums and the SNP to oppose any motion to trigger article 50. Which leaves the PM  with the option to place a motion (similar to the one suggested by Paul) for a vote, under threat of it being taken as a confidence motion. The idea that MPs can scrutinise or amend the Governments negotiating position, thereby making it public prior to negotiation is frankly absurd, and is merely an attempt to water down and frustrate the Brexit process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it strange how the people who are saying that the sovereignty of parliament is sacrosanct are the same ones who have been happily giving it away to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels for the last 40 years.

At the same time, I believe that if the referendum had gone the other way and the majority had voted Remain, those same people would have already had us irrevocably committed to full EU control for the next ten generations, 'It's what the people voted for...'

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    270

Absolutely correct John. There certainly wouldn't be court cases brought by the leave side trying to overturn the referendum result by devious means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    233

Don't forget the MPs & Lords & Ladies have already had a vote on this matter in the referendum & have no doubt already argued the  whys & wherefores of European membership among themselves  before the vote took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    585

Their Lordships will no doubt show the public why this unelected institution needs to be terminated, by inflicting maximum delay on Brexit progress, thus educating the public as to why it needs to be reformed or abolished completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

Priorities Dave, priorities. The first priority for the 52%, is to take back control of our Country by leaving the EU, making and administering our own laws, especially in relation to immigration. Once done, we can start to talk about other issues, as a truly self governing entity..  

 

How do you know Ob's what exactly was the 'first priority' for the 52% who voted to leave the EU? 

You seem to think it was 'especially in relation to immigration' but I think a lot of votes for Brexit would have come from people who believed that leaving the EU would mean £millions would be ploughed into the NHS and other public services - issues which would especially appeal to the older generation voters who swung the decision. 

 It's now been shown that these promises were in fact just lies and Brexit will not mean vast sums of money for the NHS (and  also, it will have little effect on immigration).

Brexit didn't win by a large majority - only circa 4% - I would guess that there would be more than that percentage of people who, now knowing that the NHS etc will not benefit from Brexit would, if they could change their votes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    270

How do you know Sha how many people who voted to remain (thinking that, as the media and the politicians were telling them the result would be remain, thought they would vote with the herd) now wish they'd voted to leave? It was a once in a lifetime vote, and you can guarantee that, if it gets ignored, we will never ever in a million years be asked for our opinion again. The actual majority for leave in England and Wales was a lot more than 4%, the remain vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland reduced it to 4%. Anyway let the politicians play with the semantics and, if the wishes of the majority aren't respected, then the rules of the game will have changed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

Asp, I don't know how many people who voted remain now wish they'd voted to leave. I never said I did.  But however many there may be their grievances are similar to any Brexit voters who regret their choice in that when they made their decisions they were unaware that they were being manipulated, being sold false promises and being fed outright lies.

You call the referendum a 'once in a lifetime vote', I see it as just another sad example of the corrupt system of governance we have and the depths to which the low life politicians we have will sink.  It is all the sadder, because it should have been a 'once in a lifetime vote'. A chance for every person's vote to count and a true reflection of the majority. But how can it be a true reflection of anything when it was all based on lies? (as you have pointed out on all sides).

I don't even believe that any decision other than the decision desired by the power holders would ever have been accepted. The idea that 'the people' would decide was always just an illusion. In the organisation of the referendum a loophole was left for legal challenge - should the need arise.

Was the recent legal challenge really a legal challenge by an individual or was it really a long planned political manoeuvre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    585

Of course it was immigration that motivated the vote, with 70% of the population believing it to be THE priority in opinion polls. Assuming we get the delaying tactics of the Remoaners out of the way, if necessary by having a General Election; the first challenge for Gov will be to secure our borders to illegal entry and remove legal obstacles to start deporting illegals from the UK.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

As Asp has already pointed out, the 'opinion polls' are not a reliable indicator of public opinion. The polls predicted Remain would win the referendum and current polls are suggesting a swing from Brexit to Remain. These so called 'public polls' are just vehicles of propaganda.

Your opinion is that the electorate's priority was immigration, whilst in my opinion funding for the NHS probably played a major role for some Brexiters. The actual facts of the matter will never be known and I believe would be far more complex than just hinging on two major points.

 

At present there are calls by Tory MP's for Theresa May to call an early election - it's been calculated that if the vote was similar to Brexit May would win by a landslide but if, as time passes, the electorate realise that Brexit isn't actually going to have any effect on immigration or benefit the NHS the odds on a Tory Victory would be reduced.

The recent court case and now resignation by a Tory MP give an excuse for a 'forced' election without Theresa having to lose face.

The loophole for the court case was already in place and the Tory MP's resignation served a double purpose of aiding a 'forced' election whilst protecting his own interests. Should he have stayed as an MP and voted against a High Court decision his alternative career as Barrister and High Court Judge would have seriously been affected. No real split with Theresa May just mutual protection of their interests.

    

Ob's, you say, "the first challenge for Gov will be to secure our borders to illegal entry and remove legal obstacles to start deporting illegals from the UK". If this was a priority for the Tories why didn't they do this years ago?             

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    233

I think you know my stance on the EU , that my main beef with immigration is thus.....My opinion is that we have enough of our own working age people being subsidised by benefits who should at first be employed before immigrants are offered work ,unfortunately governments of both persuasions have encouraged benefit dependency in the past as a means of controlling damning unemployment figures. The country needs to reduce its benefit bill before it can start spending the money it needs to on the NHS. We have a minimum wage in this country ,soon to be a living wage, but many so called reputable companies are allowed to encourage labour from abroad that is being short changed in the wages department & are undercutting our own population's financial attractiveness to be offered  these jobs....once again this has been encouraged by Labour & Tory governments & therein is a major problem with immigration,in my opinion.Our own workforce is being ousted in favour of cheap labour in certain areas of the workplace.

 

Don't forget too,a lot of "leavers" in the UK still have long memories & know that Britain should never have joined the Common Market in the first place. It was a con then & has been ever since especially when all of a sudden the UK becomes part of a political entity & is no longer just a trading partner. Ever since, the sovereignty of Britain has been eroded daily.

 

As for the referendum,it is my belief that Cameron fell down so badly on the negotiation in January ,but expected the electorate to blindly vote "remain " that he had no choice but to go.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    585

That's why I termed it the first challenge Sha: Only half of net immigration can be stopped by leaving the "free movement" dictat; that leaves the other 50% to be sorted out; and that requires withdrawal from the ECHR and new legislation to allow a strict visa entry system, with powers to immediately deport illegals, WITHOUT HR lawyers having the legal tools to confound it. It is currently impossible to reduce illegal entry, when the EU, so-called hard borders in Greece and Italy aren't operating, allowing millions to enter and walk all the way to Calais, where the French are incapable of pursuing EU policies by insisting on asylum applications in France OR deportation. Then you have the bleeding hearts lobbying for the children to be allowed into the UK, aside from many not being "children"; imo none should be allowed in, and that requires new legislation upheld by UK judges. Now if the Tories don't do it, folk will have to vote for those that will.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

I think you know my stance on the EU , that my main beef with immigration is thus.....My opinion is that we have enough of our own working age people being subsidised by benefits who should at first be employed before immigrants are offered work ,unfortunately governments of both persuasions have encouraged benefit dependency in the past as a means of controlling damning unemployment figures. The country needs to reduce its benefit bill before it can start spending the money it needs to on the NHS. We have a minimum wage in this country ,soon to be a living wage, but many so called reputable companies are allowed to encourage labour from abroad that is being short changed in the wages department & are undercutting our own population's financial attractiveness to be offered  these jobs....once again this has been encouraged by Labour & Tory governments & therein is a major problem with immigration,in my opinion.Our own workforce is being ousted in favour of cheap labour in certain areas of the workplace.

 

Don't forget too,a lot of "leavers" in the UK still have long memories & know that Britain should never have joined the Common Market in the first place. It was a con then & has been ever since especially when all of a sudden the UK becomes part of a political entity & is no longer just a trading partner. Ever since, the sovereignty of Britain has been eroded daily.

 

As for the referendum,it is my belief that Cameron fell down so badly on the negotiation in January ,but expected the electorate to blindly vote "remain " that he had no choice but to go.

 

Davy, the reality is - we have enough of our own working age people WHO ARE ACTUALLY WORKING but still in need of being subsidised by benefits.

Doing the maths, - The 'living wage' set at present the same as the minimum wage at £7.20 per hour will pay, for a typical 9-5 job, £252 per week less tax/Nat Ins = circa £232.

Just done a quick check on Rightmove and there are N0 2 bed homes under £400 per month, only circa 30  which are £450 or under and only just over 80 at £500 or under .per month. So £500 per month  (£115 per week) is probably the minimum needed for someone to be sure of a roof over their heads. (social housing will be cheaper - but these days by not much and is extremely difficult to get).

£232 less rent of £115 =                 £117.  

To get to work - bus pass per week  £25.50

                                                      = £ 91.50 left to pay, Community Charge, water rates, utility bills, food, clothing, etc etc.

Pretty obvious, for a man with wife and even just one child the so called 'living wage' doesn't even cover the basics and certainly isn't enough to survive on without help from the benefits system.

So as you see, Governments haven't 'encouraged' benefits dependency - they have created no alternative. 

 

The minimum wage is a legal requirement for all those employed in the UK. Any employers paying less are committing a criminal offence

The fact that employers employ immigrants rather than our own workers is nothing to do with undercutting wages, it's because our own workers can't afford to live on the minimum wage whilst immigrants find it attractive - and they find it attractive because; 1) many of them are single. living in shared housing (reduced housing / utility bill costs etc.) so more money left for general living costs and even recreation!

2) Many European immigrants are here temporarily - to learn the language so that they can get well paid jobs when they go home. This can mean that after 5 or so years of working they can then (back home) afford  to buy their own house and live well. Contrast this to our own workers future prospects, - a lifetime of poverty without even the prospect of owning their own home or bettering their circumstances - nowhere near as attractive is it?

 

Successive Governments have not just encouraged benefit dependency, over the years they have purposefully engineered it as a means of social control and to keep wages low. In the 70's when there were high rates of employment people were confident enough to insist on being paid fairly for the work they did. High unemployment makes people reluctant to rebel against poor wages, thus, over the years Govt has allowed British jobs to disappear abroad, such as customer services for British companies being done from around the globe.  It's actually cheaper to keep a section of the population on benefits than to pay the whole population decent wages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

I think you know my stance on the EU , that my main beef with immigration is thus.....My opinion is that we have enough of our own working age people being subsidised by benefits who should at first be employed before immigrants are offered work ,unfortunately governments of both persuasions have encouraged benefit dependency in the past as a means of controlling damning unemployment figures. The country needs to reduce its benefit bill before it can start spending the money it needs to on the NHS. We have a minimum wage in this country ,soon to be a living wage, but many so called reputable companies are allowed to encourage labour from abroad that is being short changed in the wages department & are undercutting our own population's financial attractiveness to be offered  these jobs....once again this has been encouraged by Labour & Tory governments & therein is a major problem with immigration,in my opinion.Our own workforce is being ousted in favour of cheap labour in certain areas of the workplace.

 

Don't forget too,a lot of "leavers" in the UK still have long memories & know that Britain should never have joined the Common Market in the first place. It was a con then & has been ever since especially when all of a sudden the UK becomes part of a political entity & is no longer just a trading partner. Ever since, the sovereignty of Britain has been eroded daily.

 

As for the referendum,it is my belief that Cameron fell down so badly on the negotiation in January ,but expected the electorate to blindly vote "remain " that he had no choice but to go.

 

Dave, you say "The country needs to reduce it's benefit bill before it can start spending the money it needs to on the NHS."

 

I really disagree with you here!  We are said to have the 5th best economy in the world! - we have well enough money to have a fantastic NHS, really good public services, good national pensions scheme and a hell of a lot more things to benefit the general public as well as maintaining the benefits system and still have money to spare. The reason we don't have these things is not because there is no money, it's because the money there is, is spent on subsidising private enterprises, and ensuring ever increasing mass profits for a minority of greedy individuals.

 

Instead of blaming the benefits system or immigration for all the countries woes, wouldn't it be more realistic to focus on the corporate, off shore tax evaders, etc. etc. etc. That's where the real problems are. 

 

 

Lastly, you said  "As for the referendum, it is my belief that Cameron fell down so badly on the negotiation in January ,but expected the electorate to blindly vote "remain " that he had no choice but to go."

 

I really disagree with you on that too.  I don't think Cameron was ever really for Remain - he had long been negotiating with the Asian markets. Also, I think he had fully intended to resign after the referendum, both as PM and as an MP. whatever the result was to be.  Should he have stayed he would have been obligated to declare his personal income, which due to his business deals and the forthcoming publishing of a book, are predicted to be exorbitant!

 

I actually think it's disgraceful that PM's and even MP's aren't forced to give details of their business deals for at least 6 years after they leave office, to ensure that the deals weren't linked in any way to their former roles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    585

It's quite amusing to see "the left" excusing the capitalist exploitation of cheap labour being imported into the UK. A Rumanian Doctor can earn eight times his salary in the UK, so from his point of view, it's a no brainer to come here, for "a better life". However an abundance of labour depresses wages (supply and demand etc); whilst the poaching of skilled labour from poorer countries ensures that they can't overcome their economic difficulties and remain poor countries. The Bliarites condoned this for 13 years in office, the Corbynites are still prepared to condone it. So much for "the left". The idea that "many" EU migrants will return home with their savings, discards the fact that many now have children over here, being brought up as British, so are unlikely to return to a homeland they've never known. So to a large extent, this influx is now permanent. Yes Sha; your right to challenge the disparity in wealth in the UK, the lack of affordable housing etc; but increasing our population merely increases demand for public services and thus compounds the problem. There is no doubt, that a radical redistribution of wealth is required, not just domestically but globally; but I'm afraid this isn't being offered by the Islington Soviet. The problems we face domestically have all been faced and tackled in 1945; and it's interesting to note that some ideas are being resurrected, such as the building of cheap, pre-fabricated homes. But alas. the Tory obsession with home ownership, precludes any fundamental re-distribution of wealth or the provision of cheap "council" housing for rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    233

As i stated Sha ,that was my opinion. I do believe though that a major problem in our economy is that even the poorest of people have to pay so much for the necessities in life ,housing,fuel, light ,transport, child care etc etc before luxury goods can even be thought of. One of the biggest problems is, in my opinion, the cost of rented housing which is prohibitive of couples saving for even a mortgage deposit & I know it's a great opportunity for investment income to rent property out but if a realistic ceiling was placed on rents would it help to stimulate the chances of couples to buy to own & in turn boost the house building market ? I suppose unless the core expenditure in households is reduced benefits will always be necessary as you point out.

As for the minimum wage,it does get side stepped apparently. All these big companies will have the best lawyers & accountants on hand to maximise profits.I know of companies that have made redundancies in great numbers only to recruit  east European agency labour to take over the jobs that should no longer be there. These companies have found it to be financially advantageous to sack their own workforce to create zero hours jobs for the temporary ,ever changing workforce & the companies have been happy for their loyal former workers to be supported in the  UK benefit system.Maybe, as Obs suggests, "council Housing" should be brought back as a cheaper housing alternative.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×