Brexit Vote

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Haak

After he tells you you've never had a proper job and that you're in denial about your failed policies? Because that would make you look like a pushover.

Have any of those people ever worked a real job?

I have. I'm working 60+ hours a week and have been for several years. I cut a check to state and federal every year come tax time, to cover additional taxes and fines(the ACA for example) for several thousand more. How many of the Politicians in America have worked a real job in their lives?

[DerGilga]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Have any of those people ever worked a real job?

Maybe, does heart surgeon count?

[Haak]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Have any of those people ever worked a real job?

Assuming you mean "a job outside politics", most of them probably have.

I have. I'm working 60+ hours a week and have been for several years. I cut a check to state and federal every year come tax time, to cover additional taxes and fines(the ACA for example) for several thousand more.

I didn't ask for your life story, but thanks for sharing.

So presumably you wouldn't actually be impressed with someone who assumes you've never had a proper job.

How many of the Politicians in America have worked a real job in their lives?

Well I'm not American so my answer is 438%.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Have any of those people ever worked a real job?

I have. I'm working 60+ hours a week and have been for several years. I cut a check to state and federal every year come tax time, to cover additional taxes and fines(the ACA for example) for several thousand more. How many of the Politicians in America have worked a real job in their lives?

What's that got to do with anything anyway? Does that mean your work experience would somehow make you desirous to cut a deal with someone who comes and insult your right to your face, in public?

[RichardFromMarple]

Nigel Farage isn't even an MP so it will take a few things to happen before he can become PM.

I can only see it if there's a Tory split & a whole load of their MPs join UKIP, then are able to win the most seat in a general election.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by RichardFromMarple

Nigel Farage isn't even an MP so it will take a few things to happen before he can become PM.

I can only see it if there's a Tory split & a whole load of their MPs join UKIP, then are able to win the most seat in a general election.

Isn't Farage already the leader of a political party? Usually the MP requirement is that it is what it takes to be elected leader, but since he is already a party leader there is no technical rule that said he can't be PM. It's just that UKIP needs to have a majority of seats in parliament and that is fanciful at best.

I am not saying this is even remotely possible. Just a thought experiment. And anyway, Farage is likely to be kicked out of the European Parliament now that Brexit happened. But as much as EU want him gone they need to wait until Article 50 is triggered first.

[frivolity]

Just read a good post on Quora. It's a real shame, but the media really should ask for opinions from moderates on both sides rather than giving prominence to sensationalistic views.

Why did older people in Britain vote in favour of Leave?

Karmanya Singh, Doing things I have never done before!
8.3k Views

I was wondering the same and on my flight from Salzburg to London, I was sitting next to a 69 year old retired British solicitor of the Supreme Court.

During the course of our flight, the issue of Brexit came up. He told me that he voted out. I asked him the reasons. He seemed to be pretty well informed about the politics and the economics relating to the issue. So I noted down whatever he told me.

He gave the following reasons for voting out:-

• He was fed up with the corruption in the EU. This does seem to be pretty well founded. See
  • Corruption across EU 'breathtaking' - EU Commission - BBC News
  • http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6944436.html
• He wanted representatives elected by the citizens of his country to make the laws instead of European administrators to be doing that.
• There are countries wanting to join the EU which will need subsidising by richer countries like the UK, will which affect UK’s economy.
• If the UK wants to change or make laws, it has to convince other countries in the EU, which might not be in the best interests of the UK.
• Unregulated Immigration:
  • Note: He clearly told me:-
  • Immigration is a good thing.
  • He was against unregulated immigration. He acknowledged that immigration has been key to the well off economy of the UK, but in recent years, the influx of people from the EU has been greater than the outflux.
  • He made me note that 1 million people immigrated from Poland when Poland joined the EU, which the UK was not ready for and didn’t have the housing/jobs etc. to give them.

When I asked him about what he predicts about the UK economy, he gave me the following points:-

• The Economy will suffer for 2 years but then growth will recommence.
• There will be recession in the country and foreign investments will go down which will affect the economy.
• The stock market will continue to go down until the pound will equal the euro.

Upon being asked about the future of the EU, he said:-

• If Netherlands and France leave, EU might break down.
• But he also said the Germany is a very rich country and if it can carry on subsidising the EU, then the EU might survive.

I can’t say anything about his predictions, but he knew what he was talking about.

So, I don’t think all the old people which are being shown in the statistics were ignorant. They do have reasons for what they voted for. This was my experience with one of the voters.

Here is a selfie I clicked with him.
[photo in the source link below]

P.S.: I am not saying whether he is right or not. I just wanted this question to be answered from the perspective of a person who fits the category of “old people who voted leave.” I saw the opportunity and he was more than happy to help.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-older-...Karmanya-Singh

[demonix]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

So that only leaves Farage as possible candidate?

Farage isn't even a conservative MP, so he isn't in the running and wouldn't be until the next general election (even then UKIP would fail to get anywhere).

[Botan_TM]

He made me note that 1 million people immigrated from Poland when Poland joined the EU, which the UK was not ready for and didn’t have the housing/jobs etc. to give them.

And this is a UK failure if I'm correct, not a EU one. Some countries in EU implemented transition periods before giving a right to work for countries which joined in 2004. For example Germany had 7-years period, but UK had none.

Although previous enlargements of the European Union had not resulted in major outflows of workers from new Member States, this time was thought to be different. It was feared that unlimited labor migration from the A-8 would cause serious problems for the labor markets of the EU-15. Similar fears related to wage dumping and potential "welfare tourism" to the EU-15 were expressed again when Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union in 2007.

During the accession negotiations, a transitional period of seven years was established so that each old Member State could determine when it was ready to open its borders to workers from the new Member States. The transitional measures were based on a "2+3+2 model," where the restrictions on labor market entry of new citizens had to be reviewed after two years, and again three years later. A final two-year phase of restrictions was permitted only in cases of serious disturbances within the individual labor markets of the EU-15. (The restrictions did not apply to the citizens of Cyprus and Malta.)

Free movement between all Member States was thus to be guaranteed by May 2011 at the latest for the citizens of the countries that joined in 2004, and by January 2014 for citizens of Bulgaria and Romania.

Only three Member States — Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom — decided to open their borders immediately, the former two mainly because their growing and relatively open economies needed labor, and the latter because its regulated labor market was believed to be able to maintain wages at the collectively agreed upon levels.

Source

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Botan_TM

And this is a UK failure if I'm correct, not a EU one. Some countries in EU implemented transition periods before giving a right to work for countries which joined in 2004. For example Germany had 7-yers period, but UK had none.


Source

It's definitely possible that it's a fault of the UK government. Regardless of whose fault it was though, it is still a valid explanation for the Leave votes. Specifically, there was no other avenue for Brits who were against an open borders policy to get it reversed, other than to vote Leave.

[Anh_Minh]

He wanted representatives elected by the citizens of his country to make the laws instead of European administrators to be doing that.

EU laws are voted on by the European Parliament, which is elected by EU citizens. So unless he meant he wanted EU laws to be voted on only by UK representatives...

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

EU laws are voted on by the European Parliament, which is elected by EU citizens. So unless he meant he wanted EU laws to be voted on only by UK representatives...

His argument appears to be that, given the choice between:
1. Having a number of UK laws being made by the European administration, with the UK in turn having some influence on the laws of other countries in the EU; versus
2. Having laws that apply to the UK being made exclusively by the UK parliament, with UK having no explicit legal influence on the laws of other countries in the EU;

he would, in his capacity as a UK citizen, prefer to choose option 2 rather than option 1, which is fair enough.

I would have liked to get his opinion on the issue of Scotland gaining independence though. His response to this issue would have been very interesting since he's well-versed in the law, and this area is somewhat murky since UK does not have a codified constitution, unlike USA and Australia.

Here in Australia, a doubly entrenched section of the Constitution requires a double majority (>50% of total individual votes AND >50% in at least 4 of 6 states) in order to make changes to the Constitution. So if one state wishes to secede, this counts as a Constitutional amendment, meaning that everyone in Australia would get to vote on this issue instead of voting taking place in that state alone. The state that's proposing to secede would therefore need to convince at least 3 other states to vote in favour of its secession.

[Draco Spirit]

Originally Posted by frivolity

It's definitely possible that it's a fault of the UK government. Regardless of whose fault it was though, it is still a valid explanation for the Leave votes. Specifically, there was no other avenue for Brits who were against an open borders policy to get it reversed, other than to vote Leave.

Pretty much.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by frivolity

It's definitely possible that it's a fault of the UK government. Regardless of whose fault it was though, it is still a valid explanation for the Leave votes. Specifically, there was no other avenue for Brits who were against an open borders policy to get it reversed, other than to vote Leave.

Which isn't a real avenue either.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

EU laws are voted on by the European Parliament, which is elected by EU citizens. So unless he meant he wanted EU laws to be voted on only by UK representatives...

You are skipping something there. Yes, the EU laws are voted on by the EU parliament, but they do NOT make the laws. The European Commission do that. The Parlament can suggest new laws but they have no actual power to enforce anything. The only way new laws can be made is if the Commission made them, the Parliament just has the power to reject it.

Thus the Parliament has the power to reject new laws, but not make laws. One of the few Parliaments in the world that is in this position. Thus they are just a rubber stamp.
European Parliament Powers and functions

Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before anything can become law

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Haak

Which isn't a real avenue either.

We'll have to wait and see how the negotiations go, if Article 50 is even triggered in the first place.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by frivolity

We'll have to wait and see how the negotiations go, if Article 50 is even triggered in the first place.

David Cameron certainly had mad a mess on his way out didn't he? He was suppose to trigger Article 50 before he leave, but now he decided that his successor should do it. The only reason he does this is to screw over his replacement and nothing more.

What was the term used by John Boehner? "Clean the Barn". The idea that a leader on his way out should take care of messy outstanding matters before he hands over the keys. David Cameron decided on then last second to NOT clean the barn, to screw over who ever is taking his job. That is malicious and evil. And the people of UK let him get away with it.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

David Cameron certainly had mad a mess on his way out didn't he? He was suppose to trigger Article 50 before he leave, but now he decided that his successor should do it. The only reason he does this is to screw over his replacement and nothing more.

The whole mess is his fault. Cameron only held the referendum in return for support of the eurosceptic wing of his party, not out of any concern for his country. When he lost his high risk poker game, he just left it to others to pay the dues. Typical Bullingdon brat behavior.

[Xellos-_^]

otoh, if the johnson, gove and other leave leaders want to leave. Why shouldn't they be the ones to trigger article 50. If they don't have the guts to trigger Article 50 and the consequence it brings why should Cameron make it easier for them.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

otoh, if the johnson, gove and other leave leaders want to leave. Why shouldn't they be the ones to trigger article 50. If they don't have the guts to trigger Article 50 and the consequence it brings why should Cameron make it easier for them.

Why should Cameron do it? Because he SAID he would do it, back when he thinks the Stay vote would win. And the only reason he refused to do it now is out of vengeance. This is now screwing the country over because the process is now dragged out and causing more uncertainty. This is HARMING the nation. Why do you excuse his deliberate sabotage of UK on his way out?