Dont want this thread to turn in to a slanging match, but i just had a few questions for people who voted brexit, that I would like to understand their opinion on.

We keep on hearing from a lot of people that voted Brexit, that they are fed up with remainers calling for a second referendum, that the people decided on Brexit, and Brexit is Brexit, and that all people who voted Brexit knew the short term damage it could cause, but were happy to see this, for the greater good.

A) If this is the case, then why dont you support the idea of a second referendum. If people truely knew the potential short term outcomes, then surely they would still vote for brexit, and brexit supporters would be able to say once and for all to the remainders, see people voted again after they had seen a short term outcome, and still voted

There is a lot of talk about remain that the EU has shackled our manufacturing, and outside of the EU we could increase our exports to the wider world, the EU is holding us back.

B) considering Germany is iirc the third largest exporter in the world, and exports far more to countries like China and Brazil than we do, how do the laws stop our manufacturing from exporting worldwide, but not Germanys?

There is a lof of talk about the EU controlling our way of life, and how we do things.

C) What ares do you belive the EU has adversely changed our way of life, and how we do things?

D) of people mention about EU laws that just go to far (eg the so called straight banana) what EU laws / directoves have you seen that you see as stupid.

There is a lot of talk that the government and the peoples red line is immigration, not financial passporting. Approx 52% voted brexit, if only a small percentage voted brexit who dont have a problem with free movement, then a majority does not see free movement as there highest priority.

E) if you voted Brexit is financal passporting (which we are told our economy depends on) more important or reducing the freedom movement. If freedom of movement is your red line, do you wnst it completely abolished, or would you be happy with the emergency break suggestion.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, im just generally interested in peoples own views on these, as these are generally the can never understand pro Brexit people on.

Thanks

One thing cited on here recently was a study done that compared the cost of various EU rules with their financial benefit. One specifically cited in that study as not being net financially beneficial was the Agency Workers rules, giving temps many of the same rights as permanent workers.

Make of that what you will.

The reason some think agency and temp workers having the same rights as permanent staff disadvantages the UK is because in the UK permanent staff have more rights and benefits than in other EU nations. The UK having to give all workers the same rights could to reduce the burden on employers start reducing all workers rights. The EU minimum worker rights and benefits are less than the UK's for example on paid holiday, maternity leave, parental leave, redundancy, unfair dismissal, minimum pay, etc. The UK has already reduced some worker rights for example on unfair dismissal. And other EU nations have also reduced worker rights.

Yeah... About the first point you made. Couldn't you use that for pretty much anything?!

I'm not saying they're wrong in financial terms, but all these supposed regulatory savings come at a cost somewhere. I'm sure there's plenty of health and safety rules where we're well ahead of many of our EU rivals, but I don't want them going either.

The OP was asking for details of laws and regs that had been cited to get rid of.

Equally it could mean employers more persuaded to hire permanent staff.

Uncertainty over Brexit has led to a fall in people securing perm jobs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36975320

A survey "suggests" - that's not to say they are in any way wrong, but these things always have caveats...

It is apparently a fall 'sharpest since May 2009' and according to someone else [e2a: for meanings of 'else', from same press release] this is a 'dramatic freefall' though this is data from employment and recruitment firms so there is a bit of presumption that there aren't other factors, e.g. people not using them any more after applicants being spammed with fake jobs, companies having to deal with fallout from fake vacancies etc...
Maybe there's a handy graph to look at!

Immigration and free movement are not the reasons I voted Brexit. Nevertheless I see both as bringing a mixture of benefits and disadvantages. The benefits are many and obvious and on the whole I would prefer to leave population movement to market forces wherever possible. Nevertheless, I think that where necessary we need to be able to deal with the problems caused by excessive population growth, half of which is the result of inward migration. It seems to me irresponsible to deny national governments' sovereign power to manage and restrict population growth even in extremis. It's not even that authority rests at the EU level to manage and control excessive population movement. It's like no one is in charge. ...... And in the long term this means our immigration policy is only as good as the EU nations with the most lenient restrictions on inward migration from the rest of the world.

I rather agree with Digby Jones on what our immigration policies should be. We should hire the best globally and restrict the rest. As he points out, we have an absurd situation that because of concerns about inward migration, governments have restricted migration from non-EU countries. But we must accept everyone and anyone from the EU irrespective of quality. The only way to better manage this situation is to retrieve our elected governments' authority over inward migration.

Sigh. There wont be a second referendum. Live with the democratic result.

That would be a peculiar coincidence that recruitment firms fall out of favour after years of poor practice right as we vote to leave the EU.

Not really - their popularity 'has varied somewhat' and this time of year always has its features due to seasonal variations, holidays, and new graduates suddenly realising that beertime is over.

In any case, did you miss the bit about "that's not to say they are in any way wrong"? It's the first line of what you quoted, and is clearly not a suggestion that this is some magical irrelevant coincidence or non-existent thing, just a caveat about wording.

There never was the offer of a second referendum and to even suggest one breaks the "contract" between government and the people, both Brexiters and Remnants; you will note that it's only a minority of sore losing Remnants who are calling for second referendum, the majority accept the result and want to get on with the task in hand.

Next question - what would have been the result of our remaining in the EU? I ask because although you might like to give the impression you live on a piece of neutral ground, I suspect you are one of those disaffected Remnants.

On point B, Germany has used the EURO to artificially lower the price of its goods.

In effect, it is taking all the profits for international trade and dumping all the debts on the southern countries.

There is a lot of information out there on this subject.

On point A, if they want to hold another referendum, I would not be against that.

You will not get coherent answers to your questions, as those who voted Brexit are incapable of providing them.

That has been patently obvious from the firing of the starting gun. This is the main reason the entire forum is a slanging match. In the absence of proper debate, people get frustrated. It's way too early to court peoples' attitude to a second referendum (something I wholeheartedly support). We're seeing the very early signs of the warnings coming true but in several month's time things will crystalise. There WILL be job losses announced, which will be a pivotal moment. People who declared that they were prepared to "accept an economic hit" will do a very comprehensive re-evaluation when they realise it means their livelihood evaporating. When it becomes clear the deal the 3 Brexiteers dream of simply is not on offer, Nissan and their like will declare their investment in the UK is at an end.

This is all to come.

In a year's time, thousands of Leave voters will be crying out for the opportunity to change their minds. This has been blindly obvious right from the start, but we are dealing with a portion of the electorate that will not accept advice and have utter confidence in their own flawed judgement.

Most of the Brexiters on here are the hardcore who will happily sacrifice others' jobs to satisfy their own obsession. They are absolutely not representative. A large proportion of the Leave vote were not massively motivated, not militant. They may not like freedom of movement, but will come to realise it's a price worth paying for a growing economy. I've met quite a few. One of my customers, who I (tactfully) disagreed with prior to the vote, was in despair this week. His order book had dried up, and he was very repentant. He said he'll have no option but to lay people off if it doesn't improve very soon. He supplies the car retail sector.

Ask the same question in a year. By that time, however, the button will have been pressed and there will be nothing that can be done.

More hyperbole nonsense from you.

On that one I suspect apart from a relatively small percentage of people, most probably wouldn't have a problem with that as long as it wasn't right away and there was at least some pretence on the situation having significantly changed in the meantime.

As for anything else, if I spam out enough doom and gloom predictions I can look back at a select few, change the names, adjust the numbers and crow about how I was right all along.

Sorry, I simply oppose undemocratic social engineering by a modern day version of the Roman Empire. Since a second referendum is only based on returning to tighter shackles I have no interest in it.

Deleted.

BIB, it will and if you don't why start ano Groundhog Day thread.

Well done sir!.

BIB - Question: who said this before the vote -

"it would be good for the country if a referendum were held, the arguments put, and the issue put to rest ....."

- why, it was none other than trevgo.

How come you are supporting a second referendum if pre-vote you wanted a vote and "it putting to rest"?

Poor loser maybe.

I'll bite....

A) Another referendum, to confirm that people actually understood the first, is just a costly waste of time and money. We've had a vote and just need to get on with implementing it. A second referendum just plays into the slightly snobby belief that people voting to leave hadn't fully grasped the question.

B) As mentioned, Germany is thriving because it is running on an artificially low exchange rate, at the expense of many others. We can succeed as an exporter within the EU, but we can succeed more outside it

C) Nothing specific, but then again, I couldn't point to anything that has positively enhanced it either. It is, for me, largely neutral in benefit terms, so there is no point paying out for membership, whatever the figure may be. Having said that, I'm not in one of the low-paid jobs that have been kept low-paid by itinerant EU workers, so they may see it differently.

D) Nothing specific, but it is important that we have the final say on our laws, not Europe. Bear in mind that Europe is on a path to become more over-arching, not less, so even if there is nothing too ridiculous now, that doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future.

E) Emergency brake would be fine, but again it is important that we have the final say and cannot be over-ruled.


I don't subscribe to the idea that life one way would be a disaster, and the other will be fantastic. More a case that life outside the EU may be 10% better than life within, and what's not to like about that

I rest my case.