Brexit

It is an interesting question - if there's a second referendum in the next 2-5 years, and Remain wins, what happens?

I'm one of the remainers who didn't remain. Now that I'm here in NZ I'm hearing grumbles about all the Brits coming over here and taking their jobs! :)

I'm still pissed off about Brexit though - my paltry UK pension is worth significantly less here thanks to the crash in the value of the pound.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...eillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper

A bill giving the UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world has passed into law with barely a whimper, meeting only token resistance over the past 12 months from inside parliament and barely any from outside.

The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.caa95efcb5b1

Maybe a resident bexiteer could express their current hopes for Brexit and how that aligns with what they voted/campaigned for?

That article just looks at the issues from A Brexit perspective... whereas you really need to look at the issues from an earlier perspective of why a referendum on Brexit was even given, in the first place. The benefits that that the UK gets from a weaker pound, as well as the domestic and geopolitical benefits of playing the 'uncertainty' card.
 
I'm one of the remainers who didn't remain. Now that I'm here in NZ I'm hearing grumbles about all the Brits coming over here and taking their jobs! :)
I think the real point is, that uncontrolled migration almost always creates situations that can be exploited by those who want to pay low wages, or those who want to import skills - such as medical staff - rather than actually train local people. Uncontrolled immigration also makes it practically impossible to plan services such as schools and medical care.

Moving large numbers of people around the world (other than for holidays etc) is almost always bad.

David
 
Here's a controversial clip. Ignore some of the generalisations and silly illustrations, and the chap makes some interesting points:

 
CldocN-UkAAq47M.jpg
 
Aye, but you can rationalise that by saying we're not really leaving... EU law enshrined in UK law, customs union, and free trade - no matter how.

Economist seems to be looking at it this way:

Britain’s excruciating embrace of Donald Trump shows how little independence it has gained from Brexit

The curious thing is that Brexit was supposed to be about “taking back control”: immunising the country from foreign whim and interest, while asserting national dignity and independence. Increasingly that looks like a bad joke. The British elite feels it has no choice but to prostrate itself before an American president it clearly finds odious. To keep businesses from moving elsewhere, Britain may have to shadow EU regulations and pay into EU programmes without the chance to shape either. Its trade deals will be forged with a fraction of the negotiating force that has long promoted its interests. That means more concessions to the tariff and regulatory preferences of foreigners. Its application to become a full member of the World Trade Organisation is yet another opportunity for others to impose conditions and costs.

An elusive independence

And pause to contemplate Mrs May’s threat to turn Britain into a tax haven if it gets a poor deal in Brussels. The prime minister is politically almighty. She faces virtually no serious opposition or credible rivals within her Conservative Party, which is close to record highs in the polls. Her premiership’s raison d’être is to make the social safety net stronger for “just about managing” citizens. Yet if foreign leaders decide not to make concessions, she says she will be forced to rip up that plan and do the very opposite: slash public services and regulation. Some “control”, that.

A fact of the modern world, sadly overlooked in the referendum, is bringing itself to bear on Britain: control and autonomy are not the same thing. The country is party to some 700 treaties, member of myriad international organisations and spends tens of billions on a nuclear deterrent unusable without America (this week it transpired that, at Washington’s behest, Parliament had been kept in the dark when a missile went off course in a test). In each of these cases, Britain trades pure self-determination for real influence: the ability to shape its economic, security and environmental circumstances. Its membership of the EU is just one of many such deals. Leaving the club reinstates some control to Britain but requires it to trade away control in other ways. Will the result be a country any more able to chart its own course, as chosen by its own democratically elected leaders? Watch the prime minister’s excruciating embrace of Mr Trump and decide.
 

I would have thought the main issue for the UK was the risk of the USA warming relations with Russia, whilst cooling them with China. That's the exact opposite of what UK establishment wants.

If the USA lifted sanctions on Russia, and went soft on NATO, whilst talking about intervention against China... Jeez, the UK would be put into a really really difficult place...
 
One of the UK's finest minds shares his views:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39218108

;)

It's amazing how even in this sphere Dawkins' can be insufferable. What the heck was up with that video editing? :)

All that said, I don't know if it matters at this point whether the referendum was binding in a legal sense or just a suggestion. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing eventually dissolves and there is no Brexit. Or if it does happen it's reversed in my lifetime.
 
Back
Top