Brexit or Britin

[Hoboh]

So.. anybody with say, learning difficulties, or people who haven't had the privilage of same education as others (often through no fault of their own), aren't allowed to vote on policy that directly impacts upon them, their families and the country they live in?

Thats not what I'm saying. The point I am trying to make is that for a person - any person, regardless of background, status, state of mind etc etc etc - to be able to cast a counting vote in a matter of national interest, of which the result will have potentially significant impacts on the country as a while or a large proportion of it, should as a minimum have to actually understand what the vote is about. Otherwise they might as well just be asked to put their names into a pot and randomly draw them out on one side or the other.

With the recent referendum, surely a vote from someone - whether it be remain or leave - who doesn't even know what the letters EU stand for, shouldn't count for as much in a vote to say whether we remain or leave the EU, as someone else's vote which was made on the back of consideration of all the facts and arguments for/against?

Clearly what I am suggesting would be impossible to implement and police, but this just goes to prove what a mockery the whole thing is......

I thought the question on the ballot paper was quite simple actually.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not blaming them, except for the whinging, whining, view of losing a referendum they had the chance to influence, more so when a 22 year old dickhead moans about his future being sold off then admitting he didn't even fcuking vote, he looked put out when I laughed at him.
I worry about you sometimes, you love using the words bigots, racists etc. I get the impression you are one of those responsible for generation snowflakes.

You're branding them a "generation of snowflakes". So why wouldn't they brand your generation "intolerant has-beens" or whatever?

You're contributing to the divisive cycle. No doubt there are lots of morons everywhere but that doesn't mean an entire generation, at any point, should be written off.

It is silly and divisive to do so. If they want to complain, let them, that is what living in a free speaking democracy entails. They have as much right to be heard as you do.

I think people who didn't vote are stupid, especially when they complain, but then they have the right to voice their views still.

[dave the minion]

I thought the question on the ballot paper was quite simple actually.

Of course it was. I'm sure virtually everyone who voted understood the concept of vote or leave. I'm also sure a significant amount though didn't understand what it was they were being asked to vote to remain in or exit from though.....

[Worthy4England]

It's been a very disturbing trend if this whole campaign that "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot/you didn't understand the implications/you're racist/you're selfish". Add that to "you're old, so shouldn't have been allowed to vote".

There will have been sheep-voters on both sides.

The saddest thing is that there was no clear gap between the sides. It was a referendum intended to put the issue firmly to bed once & for all. It's not done that.

For every uncertain "Leave" there were "Remain" votes by people who don't like the EU but we're fearful of what the outcome would be. Sort of In-lite. We were constantly told that the inertia vote would swing the majority to remain (Pru ??).

A major gripe I have with any referendum is that it's a bit one-way. I have the same view with the Scotchish. Vote to stay and you'll get asked again ... & again ... & again. Vote to leave and no more chances.

However, the sight (& sound) of the arrogant feckers protesting about this makes me bilious. Them telling me I didn't understand and, worse still, I'm racist for disagreeing with them. .. well they can fck right off. People voted. A result happened. Now get on with it.


Oh, & seeing the Islington mentality given a kicking is worth all the pain.

The remainers have been and were called lots of names too. Over a long period of time. Snowflakes seems to be quite popular with young Hoboh at the minute. We were also told, there was lots we didn't understand too.

I understand the argument that the thing we were in now called the EU was different in shape to the thing we voted on in the 1970's. It morphed along with the moaning about it for many years. The leave we voted for on Thursday changed too. On Friday

Which PM candidate is promising £350m a week to the NHS?
Which one is promising free trade without any free movement?
Which one is promising immigration will reduce to less than 100k?

There's plenty of other things people voted in favour of, that seem to have disappeared...

You could say, it seems to have changed out of all recognition to the thing that was voted upon. Just didn't take 30 years to do it.

Look, I'll tell you what I just cannot fathom about the youth, to them it seems almost as if the EU is like a giant social network.
The youth mainly despise austerity, think rightly or wrongly they are hard done by,(in some respects they are but it is not just them), they think the road to Brussels is paved with gold.
Tell that to the youth in Greece, Spain, Portugal and others, those living in countries where the EU has imposed stringent financial conditions upon their government and some very important players high up want to move the goal posts even further, to control more aspects of their economy's. Once in this position they can moan and groan all they like, nothing would ever change, they wouldn't be able to vote against it.
How many of our skilled trained youth are flocking to Romania, Bulgaria, etc.? not so many, have they not realised there are only so many posts in certain countries to be filled? The job market with free movement means more competition to them, people from places with a lower standard of living and wages won't expect the salaries they dream of, which gives them a vital edge.
There are many good things about European co-operation but too much crap as well, the Junckers and the like are the real enemy to democracy and the sooner the youth wake up to this, the better, all that nonsense about being inside to drive reform was proved by Cameron's so called negotiations to be pie in the sky, real reform started 23rd June 2016 when the wake up call arrived in Berlin.

What a wonderful post.

I'm delighted you've been appointed spokesperson for the youth in Greece, Spain and Portugal - Is that a European position?

You also seem to be suggesting that some of our youth aren't really bright enough to spot that the road to Brussels isn't paved with gold. Wasn't that the very sort of "Oh look, they don't agree with me" attitude that was disappointing you?

Bravo!

They are not very experienced and as the 'Facebook, Twitter campaigns' they so readily join up in, maybe not so bright.
I am not a spokesman for the youth in Greece, Portugal nor Spain merely pointing out these people are hardly having a life of roses in the EU, nor are towns in some former Eastern block countries minus many of their youth and futures, whose going to pay for their decline?
Never feel like you are flogging a 'dead horse' when many of the movers and power brokers in the EU are starting to question things?

Just in case you missed it, I've always said (as an example) we needed controlled immigration. That wasn't as high on my priority list as trade agreements. We could still have enacted Art 50 at any time we wished.
Had the EU not bailed out some of those countries, the IMF would have (in fact it was party to the bail-outs).
Had Brexit been able to describe a credible plan for us leaving - with respect to trade and free movement - rather than saying we'll get a Free Trade agreement and no Free movement, I might have been persuaded. They didn't, haven't and I wasn't.
We of course don't care what happens in Greece, Portugal, Spain or any of the Eastern bloc countries - that's someone else's problem now. Well when we sign Art 50.

We will end up with a Trade Agreement of some sort - which as I said at the beginning was the main thing that concerned me - I just want to know what shape it's likely to be in reality rather than in rhetoric.

[Hoboh]

Just in case you missed it, I've always said (as an example) we needed controlled immigration. That wasn't as high on my priority list as trade agreements. We could still have enacted Art 50 at any time we wished.
Had the EU not bailed out some of those countries, the IMF would have (in fact it was party to the bail-outs).
Had Brexit been able to describe a credible plan for us leaving - with respect to trade and free movement - rather than saying we'll get a Free Trade agreement and no Free movement, I might have been persuaded. They didn't, haven't and I wasn't.
We of course don't care what happens in Greece, Portugal, Spain or any of the Eastern bloc countries - that's someone else's problem now. Well when we sign Art 50.

We will end up with a Trade Agreement of some sort - which as I said at the beginning was the main thing that concerned me - I just want to know what shape it's likely to be in reality rather than in rhetoric.

I know your position on trade and how high up the list it is for you, I agree and have agreed in the past that trade is important although it never was number one on my list, I shuddered when I read the five Presidents report and what implementation of the content would mean for sovereignty and a nations independence.
What the EU has done with past referendums, with the government of Greece and Italy, what it is trying to do in Poland and other places was just not on in my opinion, uncontrolled free movement without any thought to the consequences the formation of a European army, which will be a complete joke having to get 27/28 other member states to agree it deploying anywhere, thus I voted to leave

[Worthy4England]

^^ Lemmie get this straight - you read a report and shuddered? Are you some sorta snowflake?

[Hoboh]

^^ Lemmie get this straight - you read a report and shuddered? Are you some sorta snowflake?

Well it wasn't the fear of no longer being able to go on the lash in Ibiza during a 'gap' year.

[Lord Kangana]

What is the EU trying to do in Poland?

[boltonboris]

Not sure, but they're trying to make the remainder states without the € join the single currency.

Worries in Czech Rep that wages won't increase as a result, but the cost of everything could triple. Noises made about 'easing them' into it gradually so it doesn't make the whole populace bankrupt within a week.

Summat to do with repatriating the currency costing the EU money through central bank or summat.

Or summat

[Rjs37]

Not sure, but they're trying to make the remainder states without the € join the single currency.

All the countries in the EU other than Denmark (and ourselves) are obligated to switch to the Euro. Just certain conditions must be met before they can make the switch, and at least one of those conditions are voluntary.

Sweden have intentionally been in that position for over two decades now. Surely they can't force anyone to switch without further treaty change? (via removing that voluntary option)

[Lord Kangana]

Why is Denmark a special case? Or is it just that you don't actually have to be in the euro you don't want?

[bobo the clown]

It was in Junker's statement last week that."now Britain is going" they plan to put the squeeze on the non-Euro nations to get in the club in the next 5 years.

Just saying



To be honest you'd think, given the state of the € they'd want to concentrate on sorting it out before adding members.

[boltonboris]

Not sure, but they're trying to make the remainder states without the € join the single currency.

All the countries in the EU other than Denmark (and ourselves) are obligated to switch to the Euro. Just certain conditions must be met before they can make the switch, and at least one of those conditions are voluntary.

Sweden have intentionally been in that position for over two decades now. Surely they can't force anyone to switch without further treaty change? (via removing that voluntary option)

A quick search suggests implications for not joining could be financial penalties. Poland for instance, are concerned (quite rightly) that an impending banking crises somewhere else could cripple their banks and they're not ready for anything like that.

2020 is the cut-off.. If you're not in, expect to be treated differently

[Rjs37]

Why is Denmark a special case? Or is it just that you don't actually have to be in the euro you don't want?

Denmark and the UK both negotiated the right to opt-out in one of the previous treaties. They can still make the switch if they want to but they aren't 'obligated' to like the other member states.

To implement the euro you have to meet 5 conditions, one of which is two years membership of the ERM. Denmark actually meet that condition, they just don't want to be in the euro.

What Swedish have done is intentionally not met the ERM requirement. Their stance is that this step is voluntary and won't fulfil this final requirement unless public opinion changes (i.e. through a referendum on the euro).

Out of the 7 states who aren't yet in the euro but are obligated to join the euro, none of them are currently members of the ERM, meaning 2 years minimum before they are even allowed to adopt the euro.

Bulgaria and Croatia it seems are looking to be in the Euro by 2018-2020. However, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania currently have no real target date in mind with Poland saying not until at least 2020. Romania sound a little more positive but earliest feasible date is 2020.

[Rjs37]

Not sure, but they're trying to make the remainder states without the € join the single currency.

All the countries in the EU other than Denmark (and ourselves) are obligated to switch to the Euro. Just certain conditions must be met before they can make the switch, and at least one of those conditions are voluntary.

Sweden have intentionally been in that position for over two decades now. Surely they can't force anyone to switch without further treaty change? (via removing that voluntary option)

A quick search suggests implications for not joining could be financial penalties. Poland for instance, are concerned (quite rightly) that an impending banking crises somewhere else could cripple their banks and they're not ready for anything like that.

2020 is the cut-off.. If you're not in, expect to be treated differently

Yes but if one of the conditions of being in the euro (ERM membership) is voluntary, how can they impose any financial penalties? It's most certainly a loophole, but I'd imagine they'd need a treaty change to close that loophole. Either way they'll be pissing off a lot of Swedes and probably creating a whole new batch of euro-scepticism. Can't exactly treat the Swedes differently from the Polish can you? They don't have an opt-out.

[boltonboris]

Imagine being Germany and having to share a currency with Romania?

It'd be like the Americans adopting the Peso

[boltonboris]

Not sure, but they're trying to make the remainder states without the € join the single currency.

All the countries in the EU other than Denmark (and ourselves) are obligated to switch to the Euro. Just certain conditions must be met before they can make the switch, and at least one of those conditions are voluntary.

Sweden have intentionally been in that position for over two decades now. Surely they can't force anyone to switch without further treaty change? (via removing that voluntary option)

A quick search suggests implications for not joining could be financial penalties. Poland for instance, are concerned (quite rightly) that an impending banking crises somewhere else could cripple their banks and they're not ready for anything like that.

2020 is the cut-off.. If you're not in, expect to be treated differently

Yes but if one of the conditions of being in the euro (ERM membership) is voluntary, how can they impose any financial penalties? It's most certainly a loophole, but I'd imagine they'd need a treaty change to close that loophole. Otherwise they'll be pissing off a lot of Swedes and probably creating a whole new batch of euro-scepticism.

Well that's the thing... It's no longer going to be voluntary by the sounds of it

[Rjs37]

Well that's the thing... It's no longer going to be voluntary by the sounds of it

But doing something of that magnitude will require agreement from the other member states.

Seven of which (those that this affects) most certainly wouldn't agree. And neither would Denmark, they won't be in a rush to be left as the only non euro country in the EU. Plus us, if we're still allowed a vote .

[clapton is god]

The Laughing Man on Brexit!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfqSFQlDae8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lord Kangana]

To be honest you'd think, given the state of the € they'd want to concentrate on sorting it out before adding members.

I find this a fascinating statement. Given that the exchange rate when the pound was at its weakest during quantitative easing was almost parity, would you not think that the swing would be something similar, in similar circumstances, the other way round?

And yet its only 1.19/£. Doesn't that strike you as odd, given how poor you say its performing? After all, I remember the good old days not long ago of €1.67/£.