REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Papper]

They voted to remain massively.

Because they put their wallets before their own independence. The EU don't necessarily want to subsidise them which is what would happen (if they were independant of the UK).

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

But the point is, while Brexit is on the table, the only way for them to get what they voted for is to go for independence. There is no way that the SNP won’t want to go for it.

 

[Papper]

I'm not sure you can tell someone to fuck off in political terms and then have a good trading arrangement with them

It's quite easy when the UK spends more on their goods than the EU spends on ours. Ask BMW and VW what they feel ????

 

[Papper]

But the point is, while Brexit is on the table, the only way for them to get what they voted for is to go for independence. There is no way that the SNP won’t want to go for it.

Yes but the EU don't want them. They would be parasitical ...

 

[Tredman]

You know an awful lot about what the UK and the EU wants Papper, it’s uncanny. You should run for office.

 

[Papper]

You know an awful lot about what the UK and the EU wants Papper, it’s uncanny. You should run for office.

Okay the EU would welcome a (take more than put in) independent Scotland with open arms and the EU which takes more from us than what it gives us would be deeply upset at trading with us. Please excuse my remainology.

 

[Tredman]

The EU isn’t just about admitting economically advantageous countries (if it were it would never have expanded). What you, and most of the leavers, fail to see is that the EU is way more than just a trading block.

 

[SLA]

The EU isn’t just about admitting economically advantageous countries (if it were it would never have expanded). What you, and most of the leavers, fail to see is that the EU is way more than just a trading block.

To be fair, I think that's what a lot of leavers are worried about - that it's all about making everyone culturally "European" over their national identities.

 

[Papper]

The EU isn’t just about admitting economically advantageous countries (if it were it would never have expanded). What you, and most of the leavers, fail to see is that the EU is way more than just a trading block.

Yes, it means free movement of labour into a heavily populated country, it prevents these economic migranst working zero-hour contracts (NOT) and it is a protectionist racket that favours the corporates, restricts underdeveloped countries and keeps prices artificially high. It also allows people like Kinnock and Mandelsohn to hold prominent positions ..

 

[Papper]

To be fair, I think that's what a lot of leavers are worried about - that it's all about making everyone culturally "European" over their national identities.

What does culturally European mean ?

 

[SLA]

What does culturally European mean ?

Absolutely nothing, which is why their fears are unfounded. But I think this is what lies behind the talk of sovereignty and control.

 

[Papper]

Absolutely nothing, which is why their fears are unfounded. But I think this is what lies behind the talk of sovereignty and control.

I might agree if they had developed a European wide minimum wage etc etc etc etc As a tool for social cohesion, justice and economic vibrancy across Europe it has been a fucking disaster - see Greece, Spain and a whole host of other countries for details.

 

[SLA]

I might agree if they had developed a European wide minimum wage etc etc etc etc As a tool for social cohesion, justice and economic vibrancy across Europe it has been a fucking disaster - see Greece, Spain and a whole host of other countries for details.

I'm not saying leavers' fears/reasons/justifications are based on anything resembling reality.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

My fear is that so many people leavers and remainers are so pissed off with the whole Brexit/parliament bollocks every week that a lot will just think "fuck it, vote for Boris at least he will put a stop to it"

 

[nimrod]

Yes, it means free movement of labour into a heavily populated country, it prevents these economic migranst working zero-hour contracts (NOT) and it is a protectionist racket that favours the corporates, restricts underdeveloped countries and keeps prices artificially high. It also allows people like Kinnock and Mandelsohn to hold prominent positions ..

best way of controlling corporates is to standardise the rules by which they operate. in the absence of that it becomes a bidding war for their attention and they'll go where it's easiest and most lucrative. you can keep treating them as an enemy but in the absence of a deliverable alternative you're simply playing into their hands, as previously stated.

the reference to protectionist racket is ridiculous especially when you don't apply it across the board to all governments and instead imagine some rose tinted UK where it suddenly stops. For example, chris grayling's award of the Brexit ferry contract to a newco with no finance, no ships, no port contracts, no employees, one telephone line and T&C's copied from a pizza delivery company is not a great advertisement for post Brexit trading deals or their transparency. nevermind he knew one of the directors and the gvt ultimately got sued for not following procurement rules costing the taxpayer £33m.

and it was the EU that challenged the UK's contract award to EDF for the Hinkley point deal under the state aid rules. in particular it deemed the guarantee fee payable by the project (for UK taxpayer guaranteeing project debt obligations) far too low for the project risk and it had to be increased accordingly effectively reducing the subsidy paid by UK taxpayers to EDF. The EU also required the profit share arrangements to cover the project life of 60 years rather than just the 35 years of the subsidy. So basically an improved deal for the taxpayer over what the UK gvt had originally agreed. so who was running the "protection racket" for the corporate in this scenario? if you want a clue, it wasn't the EU. you really should stop with the generalistic and one-sided THM type wummery.

 

[Papper]

I'm not saying leavers' fears/reasons/justifications are based on anything resembling reality.

Do you think they are xenophobic and racist?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

My fear is that so many people leavers and remainers are so pissed off with the whole Brexit/parliament bollocks every week that a lot will just think "fuck it, vote for Boris at least he will put a stop to it"

1) People shouldn't vote because they're "bored", grow up and be a fucking adult, either educate yourself or don't engage at all

2) There is no stop to it, whatever happens (actually Revoke is the easiest way to put a lid on it, but hardly ideal)

You are right that people are that facile, they shouldn't be though.

 

[Papper]

best way of controlling corporates is to standardise the rules by which they operate. in the absence of that it becomes a bidding war for their attention and they'll go where it's easiest and most lucrative. you can keep treating them as an enemy but in the absence of a deliverable alternative you're simply playing into their hands, as previously stated.

the reference to protectionist racket is ridiculous especially when you don't apply it across the board to all governments and instead imagine some rose tinted UK where it suddenly stops. For example, chris grayling's award of the Brexit ferry contract to a newco with no finance, no ships, no port contracts, no employees, one telephone line and T&C's copied from a pizza delivery company is not a great advertisement for post Brexit trading deals or their transparency. nevermind he knew one of the directors and the gvt ultimately got sued for not following procurement rules costing the taxpayer £33m.

and it was the EU that challenged the UK's contract award to EDF for the Hinkley point deal under the state aid rules. in particular it deemed the guarantee fee payable by the project (for UK taxpayer guaranteeing project debt obligations) far too low for the project risk and it had to be increased accordingly effectively reducing the subsidy paid by UK taxpayers to EDF. The EU also required the profit share arrangements to cover the project life of 60 years rather than just the 35 years of the subsidy. So basically an improved deal for the taxpayer over what the UK gvt had originally agreed. so who was running the "protection racket" for the corporate in this scenario? if you want a clue, it wasn't the EU. you really should stop with the generalistic and one-sided THM type wummery.

I am in no way suggesting that my anti-corporate stance is not an EU bias because it isn't. Leaving the EU won't solve my distaste but when the buck stops at Westminster it will be easier to bring the house of cards down once and for all.

 

[Papper]

1) People shouldn't vote because they're "bored", grow up and be a fucking adult, either educate yourself or don't engage at all

2) There is no stop to it, whatever happens (actually Revoke is the easiest way to put a lid on it, but hardly ideal)

You are right that people are that facile, they shouldn't be though.

The ability to revoke any democratic decision would leave us in a pointless democracy and be the proving ground for totalitarianism.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Better not reverse the 1975 referendum then...