EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[125Forever]

Not exactly a flood, is it?

Enough of a flood that we have to divert funds towards looking after them, which is unfair on the people in the UK who are then put to the back of the queue for things such as housing welfare. It is disgusting that councils can suddenly find room for migrants (which is a human right and I won't decry that) yet they won't find room for people already here of all races. I have a Jamaican friend who has been waiting two years to be rehoused with her young son, and all the council tells her is 'sorry but we have to put the migrants first - you'll just have to wait.'

Why don't they? What's stopping them from working hard? I do it, everyone in my family does it. We all provide for our families and feel that we belong to our communities.

Nothing is stopping them from working, but you are probably earning a good wage. Don't forget that some people mainly from the working class areas may not be wholly literate or numerate amongst other things (a lot of them lack confidence as well). If they could be helped then I am sure they'd work for a good wage (which is another thing - when migrant workers are being paid less to do a job, then it undercuts the job market). As was said in a previous post of yours 'let's put faith in our young people' - if we don't give them a chance, we betray not only them but subsequent generations.

There's a difference between saying 'you, the Government, are not doing enough to help people like me' and saying 'all the foreigners in this country means my life is rubbish' and the latter is what UKIP and Trump play on.
If we have no more immigration from tomorrow, not one person that is non-UK born enters the country, what will change?

Well, now we are Brexiting the Government of the day will have no excuses (the age old 'it's the EU fault' cannot be used anymore). As for what would change, well I would hope that the population-infrastructure-jobs ratios would start to work out better. We can't have more population, no change on infrastructure and less jobs.

 

[EM2]

Enough of a flood that we have to divert funds towards looking after them, which is unfair on the people in the UK who are then put to the back of the queue for things such as housing welfare. It is disgusting that councils can suddenly find room for migrants (which is a human right and I won't decry that) yet they won't find room for people already here of all races. I have a Jamaican friend who has been waiting two years to be rehoused with her young son, and all the council tells her is 'sorry but we have to put the migrants first - you'll just have to wait.'

Yet the Government is not giving councils those resources. Why not? You beloved Conservatives have been in power since 2010, they could find money for airstrikes in Libya, but not for housing.

Nothing is stopping them from working, but you are probably earning a good wage. Don't forget that some people mainly from the working class areas may not be wholly literate or numerate amongst other things (a lot of them lack confidence as well). If they could be helped then I am sure they'd work for a good wage (which is another thing - when migrant workers are being paid less to do a job, then it undercuts the job market). As was said in a previous post of yours 'let's put faith in our young people' - if we don't give them a chance, we betray not only them but subsequent generations.

I'm on a reasonable salary, yes. But I wasn't always, I worked hard and now I'm reasonably well off. If nothing is stopping them from working, why aren't they? It shouldn't matter if it's minimum-wage fruit picking, serving coffee or washing up, it's still work, which is what I did when I first left school.
Our young people are being pressured to go to university and build up massive debt, when it could be very much to their detriment. Where has this idea come from? Government policy again.

Well, now we are Brexiting the Government of the day will have no excuses (the age old 'it's the EU fault' cannot be used anymore). As for what would change, well I would hope that the population-infrastructure-jobs ratios would start to work out better. We can't have more population, no change on infrastructure and less jobs.

And again, why has the Government not created that infrastructure? Why have they not trained GPs and teachers, built surgeries, hospitals and schools, created jobs with big projects (e.g. the dualling of the A14 they promised)?

 

[125Forever]

No, it's because you seem to think it's acceptable that they get thrown under the bus.

Maybe you should take responsibility for your professed opinions, and not take the Breitbart-ian viewpoint that not taking them into account is "just an opinion". This isn't personal - I am not somehow persecuting you because I'm asking you to think through the consequences of your opinions.

Also, asking people to forgive and forget when hate against them is being legitimised by Brexit and Trump is just absurd. Totally divorced from reality. Shouldn't Brexiters being forgiving global corporations for globalism by that count?

1) I don't, and I think that is a silly comment (sorry Rich, using your slurs)

2) Maybe you should realise that, as with my opinion, yours is not the gospel truth and there are as many holes in your arguments and there are mine.

Taking the liberal viewpoint each time might win you friends and brownie points, but your side has been involved in spewing equally as much hatred and revulsion as the right has. Yes, you personally may not have done so, but the fact remains that as one aligned to the left your side of the debate had people saying the following (and I quote):

'If you voted Brexit, you are s****y and should die.'

'I hope that Cancer kills those who voted Leave.'

'Old white people should be subject to genocide.'

'If I find that you voted Brexit, I will rape your kids and make you watch.'

So should the left take responsibility for these - or is it only the right that should be called out when one of them speaks out of turn?

3) Not everybody sees it as hate, and just because they don't does not mean that they are wrong or evil. It is time to listen to why people voted differently and allow both points of view to be heard - yes, even if it is not what you want to hear it needs to be said otherwise people will just vote for more Trump/Farage people (Le Pen, Petry etc.) and in the end it is you who won't be heard.

 

[AlterEgo]

As for making sure others are alright, well I do my part by doing a yearly triathlon for cancer charities and this year I raised £12,000. So, yeah, that's how much of a s**tlord I am.

A-grade virtue signalling.

"I raised loads of money for cancer, I can't be [undesirable thing]."

 

[Railops]

A-grade virtue signalling.

"I raised loads of money for cancer, I can't be [undesirable thing]."

Terrible post, you should be ashamed of yourself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why has the Government not created that infrastructure? created jobs with big projects (e.g. the dualling of the A14 they promised)?

Probably because it already is from end to end.

 

[125Forever]

I voted Independent at the last three elections - when I said I am a conservative homosexual that meant nothing to do with my politics (that type of conservative = a person whom holds traditional values). Yes, I am more right-independent than left but saying that I voted Tory in GE2015 is just wrong because I didn't....so umm...yeah.

The idea of all children having the right to go to University very much 'Blair's Baby' and I agree that nobody should be pressured to go to if they don't want to. It is expensive and there are better alternatives than to come out of three-six years study with a pile of debt. Apprenticeship schemes are very good, as an example of a different way into work.

This Government has only been in office for just over a year and between 2010 and 2015 they not only had to share power with the Liberal Democrats but there was also austerity plus the payments to the EU, although I do believe more should have been done to improve our infrastructure. There will be no excuse not to invest in these projects you've mentioned post Brexit, and the pressure will be on to make sure that it does happen. If it doesn't then I will be one of the first to complain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Terrible post, you should be ashamed of yourself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Probably because it already is from end to end.

Cheers.

I always wondered why that road could not be made Motorway standard down to Ipswich.

 

[317 forever]

"Take back control" looks stupider by the day. Heh.

The Brexiteers have to some extent lost control of Sterling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The FTSE100 in June was 6500. It's now 7000. If you'd spent $100 on shares then you'd have got £68 worth. Sell them now and you'd have £74, which would buy you $88, so would have lost 10% of your investment.

True. So there is not even the consolation of a real increase in the value of shares either.

 

[EM2]

Probably because it already is from end to end.

My mistake, wrong road.
But there was dualling promised to roads which has not yet been done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, I am more right-independent than left but saying that I voted Tory in GE2015 is just wrong because I didn't....so umm...yeah.

I'm pretty sure I didn't mention how you voted.

The idea of all children having the right to go to University very much 'Blair's Baby' and I agree that nobody should be pressured to go to if they don't want to. It is expensive and there are better alternatives than to come out of three-six years study with a pile of debt. Apprenticeship schemes are very good, as an example of a different way into work.

We can agree on that, at least.

This Government has only been in office for just over a year and between 2010 and 2015 they not only had to share power with the Liberal Democrats but there was also austerity plus the payments to the EU, although I do believe more should have been done to improve our infrastructure. There will be no excuse not to invest in these projects you've mentioned post Brexit, and the pressure will be on to make sure that it does happen. If it doesn't then I will be one of the first to complain.

The Lib Dems did absolutely naff all to keep the Conservatives in check, there was no need for austerity (as evidenced by a number of leading economists) especially as they could have chased tax avoiders like Vodafone to pay what they should, and the payments to the EU were always going to be due no matter who was in power.
If the vote had been to remain, do you think those projects would still be on the back burner, or will they only go ahead if we do actually leave?

 

[317 forever]

I don't for one moment suggest "the (advisory) will of the people" will not be followed. We voted to leave. My view is that we were asked a very simply question: In or out. We chose out.

Enacting that out result is more nuanced and should be dealt with by our elected representatives in our sovereign Parliament under our system of democracy. The government needs to be held to account, be scrutinised and be challenged on their plan and the proposed deal.

We need to know what the consequences of our out decision are and what the government has done to mitigate any risk. We need to do that in public if only as a way to repair some of the damage this referendum has done.

Perhaps an early election might give Mrs May and opportunity to win a mandate to force through a certain type of Brexit. She would win easily, labour are a mess and the only home for disaffected remainers would be the Lib Dems in England or the nationalists in the colonies.


BTW what was it those leavers said when they won...............




Correct although the kippers seem to want to provide their own definition of sovereignty.



I agree - it seems entirely proper that the plan devised by the government should be subject to scrutiny and challenge. I cant envisage a way the referendum result would not be followed but what this decision does is ensure that the best possible outcome is delivered for all. This is clearly a demonstration of sovereignty and the independence of the judiciary. Surely this is what we voted for?

Is it only acceptable when it is on leavers terms? surely not.



I remain convinced that Dave thought he would get a narrow remain victory and a bargaining chip to get a better deal from the EU

The whole thing is a complete dogs breakfast. There was (and is) no plan on how we enact Brexit or how we manage the impacts. I assumed somewhere there was a government filing cabinet of dusty files with all of this stuff thought about by the department of thinking stuff up. There wasn't anything. The cabinet was empty but for some stale garibaldis, a dead spider and a couple of tea moldy bags.

At least these will be cheaper to export now. :roll:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Enough of a flood that we have to divert funds towards looking after them, which is unfair on the people in the UK who are then put to the back of the queue for things such as housing welfare. It is disgusting that councils can suddenly find room for migrants (which is a human right and I won't decry that) yet they won't find room for people already here of all races. I have a Jamaican friend who has been waiting two years to be rehoused with her young son, and all the council tells her is 'sorry but we have to put the migrants first - you'll just have to wait.'

In my view it is indeed disgusting that so many people are unable to get decent homes. That situation has arisen largely because of the Conservatives' ideological pursuit of right-to-buy while at the same time imposing all sorts of regulations to prevent councils from building replacement social housing - with the result that there is a chronic shortage of social housing. That situation would exist with or without migrants.

But I must take issue with 'sorry but we have to put the migrants first'. I feel very confident that, if your friend says that, then either he is misleading you, or he has misunderstood what the council are telling him. There is no obligation on councils to put migrants first. It's a common myth that is perpetuated by UKIP and on social media, but it's not true. In general, Councils work by who living in the area is in the greatest need of housing (although obviously, precisely how they work will differ between local authorities).

 

[317 forever]

They've got no chance in Sleaford, it's a safe tory seat and a brexit constituency on the order of 2:1. Tories will put up a pro-brexit mp and they'll walk in.

However Richmond Park has a good chance of producing a lib dem upset. The constituency is remain, where Goldsmith is massively leave. The Greens have pulled out, Labour is in a mess, it's a two-horse race between an anti-heathrow anti-brexit lib dem, and an anti-heathrow pro-brexit "independent-but-really-tory".

Much as I hope the LibDems win Richmond Park, it would take a slightly higher than 19% swing achieved in Witney the other week. There was an early poll putting Goldsmith at 56%, but then again this was just 1 early poll so you never know...

 

[125Forever]

Actually, you said 'My Beloved Conservatives' - they are not beloved by me (although I do think they are the best of a very bad bunch at present). If you weren't on about how I voted then fine, my mistake.

I also agree about austerity and yes you are right about the Government putting the people second and 'War Games' first. I wonder how much of a say the International Community had in it as well, and what would have happened to the UK had we said that we have no interest in bombing Gaddafi and co.

As for the plans mentioned had we voted remain, I think that TTIP may have come back into play with regards hospitals and that you would have still been waiting for the A14 to be duelled long past the time when you are pushing up the daisies.

Voting Leave gives these people no excuse not to do things - and they will be judged if they don't deliver (and I mean the brown stuff will hit the fan big time).

 

[317 forever]

I'm not convinced that's true. If she presents Labour as the party of "remain", they might do very well. After all, 48.1% of the electorate voted "remain", and that's more than any single party has achieved in a general election since the 1950's. It's MUCH more than the 36.9% who voted for the current government, which didn't have any of this hard brexit nonsense in their manifesto and yet are still trying to impose it on the UK, despite even a change of prime minister.

The brexit vote will be split between the conservatives and UKIP which will work out very badly for them given the UK's hugely undemocratic electoral system, and of course a fair number of the "leave" voters will have died or become too incapacitated to vote since the referendum which should move things further towards "remain". This may be the real reason Ms May doesn't call an election.

I wish we could have a Scotland-style outcome at the next General Election. Remainers uniting behind a party, Brexiteers split between parties, meaning a landslide for a Remain party!

 

[125Forever]

In my view it is indeed disgusting that so many people are unable to get decent homes. That situation has arisen largely because of the Conservatives' ideological pursuit of right-to-buy while at the same time imposing all sorts of regulations to prevent councils from building replacement social housing - with the result that there is a chronic shortage of social housing. That situation would exist with or without migrants.

But I must take issue with 'sorry but we have to put the migrants first'. I feel very confident that, if your friend says that, then either he is misleading you, or he has misunderstood what the council are telling him. There is no obligation on councils to put migrants first. It's a common myth that is perpetuated by UKIP and on social media, but it's not true. In general, Councils work by who living in the area is in the greatest need of housing (although obviously, precisely how they work will differ between local authorities).

A fair response, and the council in question is Tower Hamlets BTW if you wished to know.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wish we could have a Scotland-style outcome at the next General Election. Remainers uniting behind a party, Brexiteers split between parties, meaning a landslide for a Remain party!

Or we could build a wall at Birmingham

 

[317 forever]

I've worked in Woking for several years and although while on the face of it it seems like a very affluent commuter haven, there is a huge gulf between rich and poor and there is a substantial area just east of the town centre where 125Forever would not feel comfortable. There is even a Halal Subway store there.

Just a thought. Paul Weller wrote about Woking in his song A Town Called Malice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If 350m was being diverted to the NHS, then you just know they'd be crowing about it from the rooftops...

The NHS will need more money post-Brexit, as people in Britain will become less healthy, partly through being less able to afford the healthiest food. Furthermore, importing equipment will be more expensive for the NHS.

 

[AlterEgo]

Terrible post, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Yawn.

Raising money for good causes doesn't make one impervious to criticism. It was completely irrelevant to the debate. Virtue signalling is a scourge especially in a debating environment. It should be called out.

 

[317 forever]

Okay, so an open question to Remainers:

If you were offered the opportunity to live on the continent (France/Germany/Italy etc.) once Brexit takes place, would you sell up here and move?

I mean, if the UK is going to become a tiny and insignificant country now it's no longer in the EU, why bother staying? Surely as a protest (and maybe causing a bank run) you could sell up here, take your money out of the bank and go and live in the EU again.

That is, if we really want to give Brexit voters the power to drive us out of the country. I prefer us to take back control of such decisions!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A fair response, and the council in question is Tower Hamlets BTW if you wished to know.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Or we could build a wall at Birmingham

As Birmingham was the largest city to vote leave, we could send all Brexit voters there then build this wall.

 

[bramling]

I wish we could have a Scotland-style outcome at the next General Election. Remainers uniting behind a party, Brexiteers split between parties, meaning a landslide for a Remain party!

Yes but who would the Remain party be?

Couldn't be Labour as so many Labour voters opted for Leave.

UKIP and Conservatives can be ruled out.

.. so left with Liberal Democrats, who are in even more of a mess than Labour at the present time.

 

[317 forever]

Yes but who would the Remain party be?

Couldn't be Labour as so many Labour voters opted for Leave.

UKIP and Conservatives can be ruled out.

.. so left with Liberal Democrats, who are in even more of a mess than Labour at the present time.

The Greens are also in favour of remaining so could stand on this positive ticket. As well as the SNP in Scotland and maybe Plaid Cymru in Wales.

 

[furnessvale]

In my view it is indeed disgusting that so many people are unable to get decent homes. That situation has arisen largely because of the Conservatives' ideological pursuit of right-to-buy while at the same time imposing all sorts of regulations to prevent councils from building replacement social housing - with the result that there is a chronic shortage of social housing. That situation would exist with or without migrants.

But I must take issue with 'sorry but we have to put the migrants first'. I feel very confident that, if your friend says that, then either he is misleading you, or he has misunderstood what the council are telling him. There is no obligation on councils to put migrants first. It's a common myth that is perpetuated by UKIP and on social media, but it's not true. In general, Councils work by who living in the area is in the greatest need of housing (although obviously, precisely how they work will differ between local authorities).

Although it may be reasonable to think that recently arrived migrants with no possessions and without two pennies to rub together would indeed be in the greatest need of housing, and would therefore be housed before others slightly better off who had been on the housing list for years?

 

[bramling]

The Greens are also in favour of remaining so could stand on this positive ticket. As well as the SNP in Scotland and maybe Plaid Cymru in Wales.

The result would just be one almighty mess.

Part of the rationale for having a referendum on a given issue is where it crosses traditional party lines.

We've had the campaign, people weighed up the pros and cons, we had the referendum, and we had the result. It's time people accepted the result and moved on.

If some kind of Trump-like result happens in another major EU country, bearing in mind anti-establishment sentiment is rising in both France and Germany for various reasons, there may well not be an EU left for us to be leaving, so the whole issue becomes academic anyway.

Bandwagon politics wouldn't be good for the Lib Dems anyway. They tried it after the Iraq war and it delivered them a temporary bounce, but look where it got them long-term.

 

[125Forever]

Although it may be reasonable to think that recently arrived migrants with no possessions and without two pennies to rub together would indeed be in the greatest need of housing, and would therefore be housed before others slightly better off who had been on the housing list for years?

The more reasonable thing to do would not be to bomb countries in the first place, therefore no need for migrants to come here.

End the arms trade, jail (or shoot) Bliar, Daesh and BLM and the world will be a better place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The result would just be one almighty mess.

Part of the rationale for having a referendum on a given issue is where it crosses traditional party lines.

We've had the campaign, people weighed up the pros and cons, we had the referendum, and we had the result. It's time people accepted the result and moved on.

If some kind of Trump-like result happens in another major EU country, bearing in mind anti-establishment sentiment is rising in both France and Germany for various reasons, there may well not be an EU left for us to be leaving, so the whole issue becomes academic anyway.

Bandwagon politics wouldn't be good for the Lib Dems anyway. They tried it after the Iraq war and it delivered them a temporary bounce, but look where it got them long-term.

That is looking more and more likely - I think the EU will soon fall and as you say it will become academic.

 

[Groningen]

So LEGO has ended the deal with The Daily Mail, because of the remarks the newspaper made about immigrants.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So someone in this thread is seriously putting ISIS and BLM in the same list and is saying we should jail or shoot both, and we're supposed to respect this opinion?

The mind boggles.

 

[125Forever]

Yawn.

Raising money for good causes doesn't make one impervious to criticism. It was completely irrelevant to the debate. Virtue signalling is a scourge especially in a debating environment. It should be called out.

Nobody said it did, and to use the words of the Adam Smith institute:

'virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling!'

Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones.

Then again, I suppose you're above judgment just because...

 

[EM2]

.
End the arms trade, jail (or shoot) Bliar, Daesh and BLM and the world will be a better place.

Who (or what) is BLM?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Nobody said it did, and to use the words of the Adam Smith institute:

'virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling!'

Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones.

Then again, I suppose you're above judgment just because...

You might honestly, sincerely believe you've raised a lot for charity (and I believe you), but it doesn't change the fact you said it to make yourself look virtuous. It's not like accusing someone of virtue signalling because they're anti-racist.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who (or what) is BLM?

Black Lives Matter.

 

[125Forever]

So someone in this thread is seriously putting ISIS and BLM in the same list and is saying we should jail or shoot both, and we're supposed to respect this opinion?

The mind boggles.

When BLM are using 70s type Black Panther 'Kill Whites' methodology then yes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You might honestly, sincerely believe you've raised a lot for charity (and I believe you), but it doesn't change the fact you said it to make yourself look virtuous. It's not like accusing someone of virtue signalling because they're anti-racist.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Black Lives Matter.

Yet if I called you out for doing the same thing, I would be wrong because you're on the left and the left always have to win in your eyes.

Any excuse and any chance to change the goal-posts. Yawn.

 

[TheKnightWho]

When BLM are using 70s type Black Panther 'Kill Whites' methodology then yes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yet if I called you out for doing the same thing, I would be wrong because you're on the left and the left always have to win in your eyes.

Any excuse and any chance to change the goal-posts. Yawn.

Except that isn't how logic works. You don't get to make a poor argument and then reduce any objections to "well you're only saying that because you always think you're right".

Ironic that you post that argument for virtue signalling being unfalsifiable, yet consistently rely on another yourself.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nobody said it did, and to use the words of the Adam Smith institute:

'virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling!'

Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones.

Then again, I suppose you're above judgment just because...

I'm not above judgment. I get pelters in this area of the forum all the time.

One thing I don't do is believe a single blog post by a single member of the ASI - a free market, libertarian think tank, to be gospel (the comments at the bottom are illuminating though!). Another thing I don't do is post publicly about any good deeds I consider to have done, when they are not relevant, especially in a debating arena.

Your ideas will stand on their strength. There is no need to tell us you raised money for cancer in a thread about the European Union referendum and its outcomes. Irrelevant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When BLM are using 70s type Black Panther 'Kill Whites' methodology then yes.

I very much dislike BLM and their rhetoric, and think they're unhelpful to their own cause, but saying they should be shot is the worst kind of sloppy, lazy, unimaginative thinking. I feel they frustrate you a lot. I get that.

You're just as bad for saying they should be shot.