To ask Remainers ...

[ScreamingLadySutch]

Your views?

Brexiteers were asked their reasons the other day. So I would like to ask Remainers

• what do you think will happen, and what are you so afraid of?

SonEtLumiere
Brilliant, you've cracked it.
If it can correctly analyse a truck load of beef travelling at 45 MPH then send your application in and be a multimillionaire.

What I'm most afraid of happened a week ago. The company both me and DH work for announced they are leaving their current location as a direct result of Brexit, and we are faced with either relocation half way across Europe or redundancy. Have a 3yo DD and a mortgage. Thanks Brexit.

SonEtLumiere
People trafficking?

I have a wild suggestion to solve the Irish border problem - let's try bribing the DUP/NI with an extra £2bn a year from the UK government and lock them into some sort of Norway +/Canada + 'whatever' deal with the EU until a better solution can be found.

Has anyone asked the DUP/NI if they would be open to bribery?

trebleclef101
I am very sorry to hear this.
Unfortunately there are some around that think this is all a game and no one will get hurt.
I wish you luck in whatever you decide.

trebleclef101
Apologies for the smiley face - I posted before reading your post.

this is all a game and no one will get hurt.
Although arguably, this also describes the company that trebleclef101 probably works for.

To be honest, I'd love to be relocated halfway across Europe, the way things are going.

Before voting my reasons for voting for remain were -

1. In the EU, we had gained the enviable position of being the 5th or 9th biggest economy in the world (depending on which measure you use). Little old us.

1. Brexit means unravelling 40 years worth of legislation and rewriting it, which will take years and cost millions.

1. People were blaming the wrong thing for their poverty. Austerity is due to the near 2 trillion of debt due to the greed of bankers and our own lax financial rules, not the EU

1. We were giving up a very privileged place in the EU (with power of veto) to enter into a different trade agreement where it would be 1 against 27.

Now, my reasons would be that our only choices are -

1 No deal. We move to WTO. Brexiteers say WTO is ok so we can negotiate trade deals with the whole world. Why do we need trade deals if WTO is ok? Is WTO ok or not? Clearly NOT. How long will we be on WTO with our biggest trading partner the EU? Brexiteers cannot answer this.

OR

1. An agreement where we trade with the EU and are bound by certain rules of the trade agreement. But no power of veto like we have now. We need a WA to give time to negotiate the lasting trade agreement which no one wants

OR

3 Remain, pay off the debt, start getting public spending back to normal levels.

Obvious to me!

People were blaming the wrong thing for their poverty. Austerity is due to the near 2 trillion of debt due to the greed of bankers and our own lax financial rules, not the EU

And guess what? Bankers will be able to cause even more mayhem in the deregulated hellhole brexiteers are preparing for us. Austerity x1000 will be the result. I cannot believe the sheer stupidity of ordinary people supporting no deal.

Clavinova
{Although arguably, this also describes the company that trebleclef101 probably works for.}

You can only argue this way if you have a disgusting attitude to others and great meanness of spirit.
I obviously have great concern for all who will be disadvantaged and have their lives uprooted by Brexit, something that leavers couldn't give a toss about as they shout on about 'democracy' while simultaneously shutting down democracy by opposing a new vote now the many downsides of Brexit are becoming apparent.

1tisILeClerc
You can only argue this way if you have a disgusting attitude to others and great meanness of spirit.

You're a charmer aren't you 1tisILeClerc.

You have forced me to elaborate on my somewhat cryptic comment up thread...

I suspect that the poster concerned works for a multi-million pound online gambling company (not a bank). Arguably, online gambling companies take advantage of some of our poorest communities, who are disproportionately affected when money is lost - some of these very same communities voted to leave the EU. Others might argue that gamblers only have themselves to blame.

Nevertheless, I thought your comment, 'there are some around that think this is all a game and no one will get hurt' was unintentionally apt and relevant to the poster's (suspected) employer - an online gambling company.

Clavinova

You are nothing short of weird on this.
Anybody losing their job or having to chose to relocate is worthy of sympathy, almost regardless of their occupation.
Your 'projection' that they are employed in an industry that you seem not to approve of is getting bizarre.
Maybe you should consider the 'morality' of those employed in the UK making armaments that are being used to literally blow families apart in Syria and many other places in the world.
On the basis that even gambling companies and banks pay tax they are legitimate businesses. Maybe you should consider that the primary reason for the ERG wanting the UK to leave is the avoidance of tax, sidestepping new EU regulations. I presume you can work out that this would deprive the treasury of funds, making support for 'ordinary' citizens less likely.

Snowy111
We were giving up a very privileged place in the EU (with power of veto)
But no power of veto like we have now.

Our power of veto may soon be diminished if we stay in the EU - there are plans afoot to transition to qualified majority voting (which prevents single member states using their power of veto) in a number of new areas - taxation, defence, foreign policy...

europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-225_en.htm
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5683_en.htm

European Greens:
"Future of Europe.The EU must be developed into a full supranational democracy in which public decisions are taken transparently by elected and politically accountable representatives.Opposition from a handful of Member States should not prevent the vast majority moving forward.This is why the unanimity requirement should in general be replaced by normal legislative procedure and simplified enhanced cooperation."

1tisILeClerc
Anybody losing their job or having to chose to relocate is worthy of sympathy, almost regardless of their occupation.

Indeed - which is why I apologised for the smiley face yesterday.

Those links refer to the introduction of QMV only on very specific and narrow areas of taxation policy and CFSP, such as taxation of the digital sphere and EU response to human rights atrocities around the globe. It also specifies that such a move to QMV in these areas will only be taken if it is agreed to unanimously by member states.

Although veto only has four letters, some people (@Clavinova ) have enormous difficulty understanding what it means

To be honest, I'd love to be relocated halfway across Europe, the way things are going

Me too.

I suspect that the poster concerned works for a multi-million pound online gambling company (not a bank).

This sort of speculation is especially distasteful as it is (a) designed to reduce sympathy for the poster concerned (b) highly unlikely to be correct.

(Bet365 is moving operations from Gilbraltar to Malta, not from the mainland U.K.).

Mistigri
highly unlikely to be correct

The locations you mention are precisely what prompted my guess - I am highly likely to be correct, not incorrect.The poster concerned doesn't say she lives on the mainland in this thread either.

designed to reduce sympathy for the poster concerned

As I have already explained, I was primarily making an observation on this comment;
'there are some around that think this is all a game and no one will get hurt'

• it seemed poignant to me as the likely employer runs a multi-million pound online gambling platform. My first post on the matter was a cryptic one.

Social policy is another area that the EU want to expand QMV;
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-2118_en.htm

DippyAvocado
It also specifies that such a move to QMV in these areas will only be taken if it is agreed to unanimously by member states.

Jason118
Although veto only has four letters, some people have enormous difficulty understanding what it means.

A veto is only useful if the prime minister of the day is willing to use it.

Politicians on both sides have criticised Gordon Brown for signing the Lisbon Treaty without holding a referendum for example. And who signed away our fishing rights? Most people wish that Theresa May had secured a better Withdrawal Agreement with the EU - but she didn't. Many people wish that David Cameron had not called an EU referendum - but he did.

Also, what is the point of staying in the EU if we want to frustrate the other member states and prevent them from having an 'ever closer union'?

Are we going to Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU, only to stand like a petulant child in two years' time, waving our veto around, when the other 27 member states want to sign up to something that we don't want?

on a petty note I will have to pay loads for mobile usage when I go abroad. At least £3 a day in non-eu countries currently.

That I can't live in Greece as we have always planned to do as easily when older.

{Most people wish that Theresa May had secured a better Withdrawal Agreement with the EU - but she didn't}

The WA is not a 'deal', it is the ground rules for the START of negotiations.
Fishing rights were 'lost' due largely to the incompetence of one Nigel Farage who was not doing his job. Fishing quotas in the UK go with the boats. Everyone else shares quotas by country. Reading the small print would have been good.