Jump to content
coldel

Brexit 23rd June..?

  

168 members have voted

  1. 1. How are you likely to vote in the upcoming EU referendum

    • Stay
      62
    • Leave
      82
    • Unsure
      18
    • Not going to vote
      6


Recommended Posts

An expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing, as an IMMIGRANT , in a country other than that of their citizenship :yawn:

 

Are you really lecturing me on that? :lol:

 

In UK Africans are immigrants. Arabs are immigrants. Asians are immigrants. Eastern European are immigrants.

 

However, Brits living abroad are expats because they can’t be at the same level as other ethnicities or nations. They are superior. Immigrants is a term set aside for "inferior races" or "inferior nations".

 

According to Miriam-Webster:

 

- the word “Expatriate†is actually a verb or an adjective and means someone “living in a foreign landâ€.

 

- the word “Immigrant†is a noun and means “a person who comes to a country to take permanent residenceâ€.

 

If we go only by these definitions above, I see one major distinction that sets them apart. Immigrants have an intention to stay – whereas for the expatriates this intention isn’t mentioned and isn’t clear.

 

So retiring in Spain as a Brit makes you Expat or Immigrant? Rhetorical, of course.

 

Immigration means people coming into ones country, so British people wouldn't describe Brits moving abroad as immigrants.

 

That said, the word immigrant has become associated with the anti-immigration movement, which in turn has become associated with racism, so I take your point that the word has negative implications.

 

EDIT: I also acknowledge that 'immigrant' has become more of a blanket term than the strict definition I gave above.

Edited by BobbyZ
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of extricating ourselves from EU law within the two years, it seems like we'll simply adopt every single EU regulation into our own law first of all. This then gives us the chance to pick and choose which ones we want to get rid off after we leave, rather than trying to rush stuff through in the allotted time frame.

 

Very sensible idea, although you have to wonder how many things we'd then bother repealing afterwards. I mean, that would cost money and time, so I suspect we'll just leave most of it there until it actually creates an issue. Again, probably the most sensible thing, and creates the least amount of upheaval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigrants / excrements?

 

Are you calling me a @*!#? :stir:

 

:lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote's been taken, the decision by the majority was to leave the EU. Let's just get on with it, get article 50 moving now. I see no reason to mess around, let's get cracking and do it asap. The longer we wait, the more uncertainty there will be.

 

In the meantime. I will continue to look at opportunities to get the maximum benefit from the circumstances. Whether that be dual nationality, investment avenues and employment opportunities in the UK and elsewhere.

Edited by Bockaaarck
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote's been taken, the decision by the majority was to leave the EU. Let's just get on with it, get article 50 moving now. I see no reason to mess around, let's get cracking and do it asap. The longer we wait, the more uncertainty there will be.

 

In the meantime. I will continue to look at opportunities to get the maximum benefit from the circumstances. Whether that be dual nationality, investment avenues and employment opportunities in the UK and elsewhere.

 

Yes lets get on with it, although I do genuinely believe they do not know what to do next. Interesting you refer to it as a majority? Imagine lining up 30 people in a row, put a gap halfway then get one person to step across that gap. The swing was tiny in % terms, it was a marginal win really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like politicians are getting involved with the petition that has now reached 2 million signatures!

 

c62e7b351a2159e1c47ad26378b06a64.jpg

 

Oh good, so now the referendum's over the politicians are going to carry on arguing about it anyway :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can f*ck right off, useless tosspiece. You (we) lost fair and square, that's life, move on!

 

Cowardly cretin.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote's been taken, the decision by the majority was to leave the EU. Let's just get on with it, get article 50 moving now. I see no reason to mess around, let's get cracking and do it asap. The longer we wait, the more uncertainty there will be.

 

In the meantime. I will continue to look at opportunities to get the maximum benefit from the circumstances. Whether that be dual nationality, investment avenues and employment opportunities in the UK and elsewhere.

 

Yes lets get on with it, although I do genuinely believe they do not know what to do next. Interesting you refer to it as a majority? Imagine lining up 30 people in a row, put a gap halfway then get one person to step across that gap. The swing was tiny in % terms, it was a marginal win really.

 

Col, I voted remain, I desperately wanted to stay in the EU. Voting out, IMPO, is a disaster, a 5h1t decision IMPO, with no serious thought put in to it by those who supposedly are going to lead us in to this glorious Brexit world. I'm bloody glad I took some decisions to protect myself from the financial and economic shocks that will come.

 

However, I see it as my personal goal in life, to do what I can to apply the maximum and most relentless ongoing and critical pressure. To those political powers that promised so much to deliver what they promised.

 

Either they will do that, and I demand that they deliver it. Or I will do what I can to see their political careers ground in to dust! I am f'in lividand im likely to stay livid for the rest of my life as a British citizen.

Edited by Bockaaarck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree wholeheartedly mate. If they believed as politicians all these benefits were going to come with exiting then even though I didnt vote for it I fully expect to see them.

 

£350m a week was a lie, it needs to be called out so people in future are not so gullible

They promised an increase in spending on the NHS this year by 4%

They promised to remove 5% VAT on fuel bills this year

Begin the process of renegotiating trade rules to the Norway model as they promised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree wholeheartedly mate. If they believed as politicians all these benefits were going to come with exiting then even though I didnt vote for it I fully expect to see them.

 

£350m a week was a lie, it needs to be called out so people in future are not so gullible

They promised an increase in spending on the NHS this year by 4%

They promised to remove 5% VAT on fuel bills this year

Begin the process of renegotiating trade rules to the Norway model as they promised

 

If they believed is so much Col, if they were so convinced. Where is their plan? What's the timelines, what at a high level can we expect the process to be?

 

They can't even tell us, they don't know because they did no research. Because they didn't expect to win the vote.

 

They can't even do us the courtesy of saying - "Once article 50 is invoked the process follows this timeline, with the following checks and balances. Of all the significant legislation which may be more immediately impacted, the following 'X' are the priority. Our plan is to......"

 

They should have been able to give us that, as a high level timeline, yesterday lunch time. Because surely, they have a plan behind which to guide us through Brexit?

 

With all that thinking they've done, all the checking of laws, trade engagement and all that background work they've done.....you know, for when the thing they wanted us to vote for happens? And they can tell us how it's going to work...

Edited by Bockaaarck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£350M written in big letters on the side of a bus. That's all the detail we needed, apparently.

 

;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can f*ck right off, useless tosspiece. You (we) lost fair and square, that's life, move on!

 

Cowardly cretin.

 

Couldn't agree more, let's crack on right now, bring it on Bozza!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£350M written in big letters on the side of a bus. That's all the detail we needed, apparently.

 

;)

 

I agree Dan.

 

Whatever people voted for, in or out. I respect it as part of the democratic process, even if I don't agree with it. I'm quite willing just to get rolling.

 

That being said, I am very nervous about what the future may bring. I hope, that my worries may be groundless, but I fear they will be. I couldn't be happier if my doubts are proved wrong, but I'm not convinced that will happen, if it does, fantastic, I'll be grateful and happy.

 

However; I will work my arse off to try and make sure whatever comes. That it doesn't change the nature of the street, city or country that I live in for the worse

Edited by Bockaaarck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points raised over the last 24 hrs.

 

firstly; my understanding of expat/immigrant stance

 

immigration is what you refer to as your incoming; expat is what you refer to as your outgoing.

 

so (sorry Adrian as I use you as the example) in reference to talking about Adrian in the UK from a UK perspective he would technically be classed as a migrant/immigrant. if people in Romania were talking about the success of their kin abroad they would refer to him as a Romanian Expat.

 

personally I don't refer to individuals as immigrants etc as I see them as people; Adrian is Adrian regardless of the country of origin; he's still a pain in the arse even if he was born here or not :lol: ;-)

 

 

 

I find the petition for a 2nd referendum in the uk somewhat insulting, as it means 48% of people only believe in democracy as long as you vote the same way as them. a votes a vote regardless of if you like the outcome. the turnout is higher than its been in a long time, if the turnout is so critical voting should be made compulsory like it is in Australia. secondly we've been voting in leading political parties with national voting margins as low as 18% and no one has once tried to re take the election because they don't like the outcome.

 

one of the major things the vote has thrown up is the public rejection of the current political climate; i'm no fan of the green party but caroline lucas makes an interesting point (I know she is trying to raise her own party profile)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/brexiters-voters-eu-referendum-result-proportional-voting

 

this could the only chance we have to modernise and change the political landscape. by voting in PR. this could encourage more to vote if they know that they will be represented. and the higher chance of coalitions could leave to more balanced politics as they have to work together more.

 

with regards to dealing with Europe, the UK only has to hold out till the French elections next spring and then we will be the least of their problems, a long with several other country elections. also not that I agree if the UK holds out and the impact starts to effect the Eurozone the EU could be more likely to be more generous in order to end the issue.

 

with regards to Scotland leaving last time they wanted to leave the UK but keep the £ they didn't want the Euro, how likely would we be to give them that? if they leave under these circumstances would they not be forced into the Euro? if they go down this route and the Eurozone is starting to unravel; how likely are the scots going to want to leave?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The West Wales and the Valleys region was identified as the poorest region in the whole of north-western Europe. To address this, from 2014 to 2020, Wales would have benefited from around £1.8bn EU European Structural Funds investment."

 

"What’s the EU ever done for us?†Zak Kelly, 21, asks me this standing next to a brand new complex of buildings and facilities that wouldn’t look out of place in Canary Wharf. It’s not Canary Wharf, though, it’s Ebbw Vale, a former steel town of 18,000 people in the heart of the Welsh valleys, where 62% of the population – the highest proportion in Wales – voted Leave."

 

We’re standing on the site of the old steelworks, a toxic industrial wasteland left rotting when the plant, once the biggest in Europe, finally closed in 2002. It’s now “The Works†– a flagship £350m regeneration project funded by the EU redevelopment fund and home to the £33.5m Coleg Gwent, where some of the 29,000 Welsh apprenticeships the European Social Fund pays for help young people learn a trade. Add in a new £30m railway line and £80m improvement to the Heads of the Valley road from other pots of EU money, and the town centre has just received £12.2m for various upgrades and improvements.

 

Ebbw Vale, left devastated when the steelworks closed, has had more European money poured into it than perhaps any other small town in Britain. But according to the figures Kelly heard, “we get out £7m a year from the EU and we put in £19mâ€. Anyway, he says, “it was time for a changeâ€.

 

“There was only one word people had on their mind: immigration. They didn’t look at the facts at all.â€

...

 

Are there any immigrants in Ebbw Vale? “No! Hardly any. And the ones there are are all working, all contributing. It’s just … illogical. I just don’t think people looked at the facts at all.â€

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like those who resent asking the Scots for permission to do what they want are set to be disappointed.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf

 

https://t.co/7aqGpTDlBn

 

 

Page 19 paragraph 70

 

It appears that because all the devolved assemblies were created to comply with EU law, extrication from the EU requires the consent of all the affected devolved assemblies to ammend the core legislation upon which they were created in order for non-EU compliant laws to be passed. (Such as revoking maternity pay limits, working time directive)

 

To clarify, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland would need to agree via an act of parliament to amend the legislation before any new legislation could be passed. Refusal to amend the legislation will result in political deadlock.

 

They could of course attempt to dissolve all 3 devolved assemblies at once. I wouldn't wager that would be very wise.

Edited by -G-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mostly stayed out of this debate because of the abuse and provocation I received from the Scottish referendum debate, and, while most of the comments against my arguments were diatribe, it just isn't worth the hassle from the usual suspects (you know who you are), on this debate.

 

I wore my heart on my sleeve and wasn't afraid to stand up for what I believe in.

 

But I must say, and it PAINS ME GREATLY, Adrian and latterly -G-, have presented the most eloquent and thought provoking arguments and FACTS so far.

 

Dust will settle, but the average Brexit leave voter, IMO, had no idea what they were voting for. The Brexit Brigade had no idea what they stood for, immigration, not immigration, better laws for workers, more jobs for Brits blah blah blah!! As Bockaaark posted, where's the 'right, we won, here's how it's going to work'

 

£350 million a week, pales into insignificance compared to the BoE's £250 billion straight away!! to allay the markets, what a crock of sh1te, the mostly uninformed leave voters backed, IMHO.

 

Well done Adrian and -G-,

Edited by The G Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From The Guardian's comments section:

 

"If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

 

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

 

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

 

How?

 

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

 

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

 

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

 

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

 

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

 

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

 

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

 

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

 

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

 

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just face up to FACTS shall we, the majority of the UK voted to leave, it is absolutey immaterial what the remain campaign type cast as the std out voter, it is also immaterial what % of Scotland voted for, you are through your own referendum (oh the irony) part of the UK.

 

France, Italy and the Netherlands amongst others are calling for a referendum, are they all wrong too, seems its not just us Brits ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who care about the experts... or economy, I know it's all about migration, but in any case here is what Nobel prize winners say:

 

'Economic issues are central to the UK referendum debate. We believe that the UK would be better off economically inside the EU. British firms and workers need full access to the single market. In addition, Brexit would create major uncertainty about Britain’s alternative future trading arrangements, both with the rest of Europe and with important markets like the USA, Canada and China. And these effects, though one-off, would persist for many years. Thus the economic arguments are clearly in favour of remaining in the EU.

 

George Akerlof

Kenneth Arrow

Angus Deaton

Peter Diamond

James Heckman

Eric Maskin

James Mirrlees

Christopher Pissarides

Robert Solow

Jean Tirole

 

Winners of the Nobel prize in economics'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which is irrelevant now. We've voted out, we need to stop being negative and start looking to the best we can for the country.

 

Sturgeon on Marr now, actually not being as irritating as usual. Looking at her situation now, and a referendum on independence again, I fear that it's no longer as simple as it was for her. Before it was a case of UK or not UK. Now it's a case of UK and Out, or not UK and In, which creates a massive difference in how the overall arguments pan out. It actually might be more difficult to call this time, given that before it was risk vs safety: Now you have the risk of an EU-less UK vs the risk of a Euro-equipped Scotland. Putting aside the issue of nationalism, even I wouldn't want to pass judgement on what would be better for Scotland financially.

 

Tough times ahead for our friends the other side of Hadrian's Wall, for sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally understand Scotland's concerns in the current situation, it doesn't make any difference, but I agree with their take on it.

 

More on Boris:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

350z-uk.com

370z-uk.com

×
×
  • Create New...