Referendum in final deal

[Niamer]

In most life- changing decisions, there is a get-out clause. If you buy a house with rising damp, you can pull out before completion, you can break off an engagement if your Mr. Right turns out to be Mr. Notquite. I assume most reasonable people would like the opportunity to have a look at the brexit deal we get from the EU and decide if that's really the best way forward. If you agree, please sign and share. petition.parliament.uk/petitions/193282

"I personally think there should have been a referendum on the issue, it should have been binding. "

If it had been a binding referendum there would have been conditions in terms of the size of the majority and the turnout.

Brexit wouldn't be occurring if either of those things had applied.

Nigel Farage Said A 52-48 Win For Remain Would Be ‘Unfinished Business
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-52-48_uk_5820dc7ce4b020461a1d5fd9

There are controls in place to repatriate unemployed EU citizens that the government have chosen not to use.

This hasn't been emphasised enough. Our government chooses not to use them as we need the labour. Other countries (from personal experience of living there, I know the Netherlands are very good at this), do deport EU citizens who haven't found a job and are not retired or studying after a period of time.

Those who have not benefited from being in the EU have never used the NHS where a good deal of staff (i don't know the percentage) are EU citizens? Your children have never been to university and been taught by staff who are leading experts in their fields, but who are EU citizens (or have not benefited indirectly from the education of someone taught by these people)? You've never benefitted from research funded by EU grants? You've never been on holiday to an EU country without requiring a visa (a possibility when we leave)? When you've visited those countries you've always taken out additional health insurance rather than relying on your EHIC card? There are not enough young people in the country to sorry the ageing population. One way to address that is having children (but people can't afford large families these days), the other is via immigration. You've not benefitted from net contributors to this country who happen not to hold a British passport?

To not have benefited either directly or indirectly from EU membership, you must have been living in a bubble. These are just a few of many possible examples.

As for the gilded cage analogy, i see that being more apt to describing the UK post Brexit, not pre Brexit!

*support not sorry

Notice we don't get the quick answers. Who here did stop using the NHS in 1973, or at least 1992?

It would have been a good idea if May had done a proper poll on why people voted Leave. NHS, ''sovereignty', unhappiness with Government, immigration. Then she might know which was the priority. It would be unfortunate if the NHS was the priority, because she seems not to believe in that. As it stands she appears to have collected together her extreme right wing and asked how she could appease them further. They will never be satisfied, and when they succeed in wrecking the country they will clear off elsewhere.

gilded cage

Don't think it's gilt that will line the cage, ifyswim.

I mean who will clean the toilets? Tesco already admits suppliers can't get farm workers. Food and supply prices going up already, and there aren't enough workers.

Low employment is reported as good news story.

What there is are loads of shit jobs on wages one can't live on. There's a campaign going to encourage school kids to work in hotels and hospitality to replace migrant workers.

Job fairs seen to be popping up in the south east, in unlikely spots, for the first time I can remember. At the moment they're running out of migrant labour.

Funny that, after years of racist government policy, people are voting with their feet.

I never want to see another referendum in this country again. I think Farron is wrong about this. I think it was a policy formed in the heat of the moment on which he can't now go back, which is unfortunate - the one thing libdems must be, to retain their credibility, is consistent.

I think the best we can hope for is the least economically disruptive, face-saving brexit.

I too think Farron is wrong on the Referendum issue. I think they should be banned, with the possible exception of genuinely black and white issues. Like the ones they had in Wales in the early sixties - should pubs be open on Sundays? Yes/no.

I would like to see a GE on the issue, but the trouble is now, that Manifesto commitments are worthless. What was that in the Tory party manifesto about a commitment to the Single Market?

Woman, yes, we'll be caged, but we won't even be able to declare how pretty the cage is etc. People declare that things might be tough for a couple of years. I think that's exceedingly optimistic.

Niamer

1 is basically a list of groups against Brexit no real reason given just "impact"
2 is the same just with "broad economic grounds"
3 is thoughts
4 has little to do with Brexit and ends with supposition
5 makes a good point but as we don't fully know what will happen to the pound etc.
6 just repeats the £350 million is false
7 is a statement which has a basis in some fact but reflects feelings of some people
and 8 depends on what the final outcome of Brexit is.

Have as many complete waste of time petitions as you like, but what you're failing to understand is the EU can't wait to see the back of us. You're acting like someone who's desperately clinging onto an ex, even though he's skipped off happily into the sunset.

Jeez - you'll be writing them love letters soon. & checking their FB page every 5 minutes to see what they're up to.

Pathetic.

Niamer

I assume by 'you' you mean the 73% of the country who didn't vote for Brexit.

by that logic 77% (ish) didn't vote to remain.

Surfer

Break-up poetry & mix tapes too!!

Those who have not benefited from being in the EU have never used the NHS where a good deal of staff (i don't know the percentage) are EU citizens? Your children have never been to university and been taught by staff who are leading experts in their fields, but who are EU citizens (or have not benefited indirectly from the education of someone taught by these people)? You've never benefitted from research funded by EU grants? You've never been on holiday to an EU country without requiring a visa (a possibility when we leave)? When you've visited those countries you've always taken out additional health insurance rather than relying on your EHIC card? There are not enough young people in the country to support the ageing population.

1. There are non-EU foreign staff within the NHS. As an aside, I don't see why it is a good thing that the country relies on foreigners to run the NHS, we should be self-sufficient. (see also below)
2. Ditto teachers / lecturers.
3. EU research grants. Where do they get the money from? - oh yes, it's our money in the first place that they then give back to us and expect us to be grateful for.
4. I've visited non-EU counties and not needed a visa. It seems a bit silly to base the country's economy on a decision as trivial as whether I need a visa or not.
5. Why is supporting the ageing a young person's game. We are all working until 67 or older these days so there are more man hours available.

Remainers never seem to be able to see beyond the bubble that is the EU. It has really diminished some people's world view and turned them into a bunch of scaredy cats. The EU wants you to think that you cannot cope without them.

We used to be ashamed of our colonial past where we took raw materials from other countries but we are quite happy to steal labour from them now. Are we supposed to be proud of impoverishing other nations?

1. I have to agree with - we have always relied on foreign labour to prop up the NHS. We ought to make more attempt to be self-sufficient and there are or were no shortage of candidates for medical, nursing and midwifery schools. So what has the current Govt done? Stopped the nursing bursaries, and is increasingly driving NHS staff overseas. I am following this with interest because I have a niece who has recently qualified as a doctor and I think it's a question of when she leaves, not if.

1) There are non-EU foreign staff within the NHS.
Of course there are non-EU foreign staff in the NHS, but you have to jump through many more hoops to hire people from outside the EU (I've done it myself).

As an aside, I don't see why it is a good thing that the country relies on foreigners to run the NHS, we should be self-sufficient.
So, who's going to be the one to explain to staff that they should stay in the UK instead of moving elsewhere, if they have the opportunities to do so?

2) Ditto teachers / lecturers.
You are aware that the job of a lecturer is very different from that of a teacher? As a lecturer, particularly at research intensive universities, much of the emphasis is on your ability to conduct world-leading research. Whilst academic staff can also come from outside the EU, the ease with which staff can move within the EU certainly makes hiring of exceptional staff from other countries much easier. The future of HE is very uncertain post-Brexit.

EU research grants. Where do they get the money from? - oh yes, it's our money in the first place
What ALL of it? No. Didn't think so.

As a personal anecdote, when I was still a young post-doc, I was hired on an EU grant to another country which gave me very good tax break as I was bringing skills into that country that they didn't have. The type of grant was there to encourage mobility within the EU for up-and-coming researchers. There are many opportunities like this for young academics, but UK universities are now being grey-listed out of EU grants for fear of weakening applications.

I've visited non-EU counties and not needed a visa. It seems a bit silly to base the country's economy on a decision as trivial as whether I need a visa or not.
You can't assume you won't need visas to travel. You also can't assume that just because you would appear to travel only for leisure that this is true of the rest of the country too. It seems a bit silly to base the country's economy on potentially restricted movement.

5) Why is supporting the ageing a young person's game. We are all working until 67 or older these days so there are more man hours available.
Many of the baby boomer generation (born in the post WWII era) have had the luxury of retiring much earlier than 67. Do you think it is a good thing to force people to work until later and later into their old age?

These were just a few examples of how EU membership has benefited individuals even if they don't realise it.

It has really diminished some people's world view
That is funny.

"EU research grants. Where do they get the money from? - oh yes, it's our money in the first place that they then give back to us and expect us to be grateful for."

No as the Royal Society research ( cited in the TES puts it)

"The contributions are not itemised to fund specific areas such as research, but according to the Royal Society’s analysis, which broke down the various budgets involved, in the period 2007-13 the UK received €8.8 billion from the EU for research, development and innovation activities, while paying out only €5.4 billion to fund these same areas.

In other words, although the UK is a net contributor to the EU’s coffers overall, in terms of research it is a beneficiary, because research is a much bigger part of the money it receives back than the funds it sends to Brussels."

Which means that if you work out our contribution to each of the separate budgets in the EU, we take out a higher level of funding for research than we contribute into that particular budget.

I'm also very interested in future regarding the "our money " thing.

Boris started the demands for London to control more of the tax revenue generated there, and with the cuts effecting London schools more than any where else, as well other things, there have been growing demands in the capital that it gets to keep a larger share of its net tax contribution.

This will only be to the detriment of other areas, that mostly voted leave.

In other words, although the UK is a net contributor to the EU’s coffers overall, in terms of research it is a beneficiary, because research is a much bigger part of the money it receives back than the funds it sends to Brussels."

How fortuitous then that we will have complete control over where to prioritise/direct spending post Brexit.

All those billions of UK contributions can be used where we choose to use them, within the UK.

How fortuitous then that we will have complete control over where to prioritise/direct spending post Brexit.

I think you have shown that you have little understanding of scientific and medical research. They are international collaborations, which we will be shut out of.

Ah yes the UK government which is well known for its funding of research.

0.48 % of GDP spent on Science funding ( doesn't include EU funding), the lowest in the G8, even if we contribute all of our net contribution to the science budget it doe G8 or even the Eurozone countries.

That net contribution really is getting spent many times over isn't it.

That net contribution really is getting spent many times over isn't it.

Not the net contribution Danny, the entire contribution will be ours to prioritise as we deem fit.

Ah so those that currently get EU funding are going to have it withdrawn for other projects?

The farm subsidies have been guaranteed beyond 2020 by PH for one, that's 3.2 billion of the contributions.

So leaves us about 10 bn, with which to fund all the promises that have been made.

Our net contribution is £7. something billion. Its going to have to make up a lot of ground to meet all of the promises that have been made.

Could you disclose the source of info? From what I read onoine, my understanding was EU wants to prevent Article 50 revoking, so UK won't be able to revoke and then trigger again.