That referendum ...

[Celestine]

Re: That referendum ...

much of Greece's problems were also internal....like INSANE public sector pensions.
The world economy also played a huge role and one could argue that bail outs from the EU have kept these member countries afloat....just as the EU community was INTENDED.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

Countries like Greece and Ireland, Spain nearly went bankrupt through being in the EU. If the UK had signed up to the Euro currency our country would have been massively affected to its detriment. The pro Euro groups/ the economists were saying at the time if you don't adopt the Euro it'll causes major economic problems but the truth is, it didn't.

Decent employment laws? A law is only as good as the lawyer who argues the case. Many employees who fight their employer for say discrimination or unfair discrimination are silenced in the Employ Tribunals because they were not told to submit a written statement. The Employer's lawyer asks all the questions relevant to their client's benefit, the Employer. The employee in practice is paralysed. The Tories have recently made Employment Tribunals expensive, costs orders are threatened by the employer's lawyers from a point pre or post ACAS early resolution, up to and during the Tribunal Interim and throughout. We know that some tribunals direct the employers to file the employees particulars in the bundle but of course the employer manages to forget something important, meaning it's not admissible and cannot be appealed on a point of law to EAT as it held as a point of fact dealt with already. Naively, the employees think this is normal as they're not aware of procedure. There is the fee remission scheme but only applies to strictly to a certain criterion therefore many are not eligible. We know that 1 in 4 employees win at a tribunal and many have costs orders against them. I heard one was to the tune of £30, 000 even though it's supposed to be £10,000 max unless the employee has a lawyer.

Unless an employee has lots of money to pay for expensive lawyers (best companies pay the best lawyers): several thousand for a day/ few days' work, has membership of a good union; and or has social capital, ie middle class and well educated enough to know their rights and more to the point will articulately argue them, the employee has little benefit from employment law. Employment law like every law benefits the legal professionals. Jobs for the boys.

Take an employee on minimum wage say who works for the local council; or the council pays say £8 per hour owing to unsocial hours and weekends changes their contract to an employment agency. The council say the Tory cuts have affected us badly so we now have to end the contract but we have contracted with a third party who'll be paying the national minimum wage. What could an employee do against the council's expensive lawyers without a union or were the union already signed a collective bargaining agreement with the council employer?

[Celestine]

Re: That referendum ...

The fact that 'bad lawyers' don't use 'good laws' is hardly an argument for leaving the EU, more for shaking up the legal profession; which we (LB) are working on!

[PAWS]

Re: That referendum ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36634786
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36636853



Appalling but I am afraid not surprising.
The news is actually getting worse not better. Economic free-fall and racist abuse.
Can anybody honestly tell me we were worse off this time last week?

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

much of Greece's problems were also internal....like INSANE public sector pensions.
The world economy also played a huge role and one could argue that bail outs from the EU have kept these member countries afloat....just as the EU community was INTENDED.

Who benefits from country's bailouts - international banks and domestic banks ie Barclays et al. The EU is just an elite supra national old boys' club like Eton is highly correlated to making Prime Ministers, Cabinet members in government, some celebrities, other elites in society.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

The fact that 'bad lawyers' don't use 'good laws' is hardly an argument for leaving the EU, more for shaking up the legal profession; which we (LB) are working on!

When the kids have had their candy for too long, they'll throw tantrums if you take it away from them. How are the Legal Beagles going to reform the legal industry exactly? The world is engineered to be a rat race - the legal industry is just one small facet of that. The EU is a dangerous entity in the longer term is all am saying. The problem is modern generations have only ever known democracy and just blindingly either way trust or naively gives powers into the hands of sophisticated smiling strangers adorned with the finest of suits who speak in a different language. The UK could have given a referendum to negotiate the Treaty of Lisbon but did not.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

I have mentioned the Northern Ireland problem before and if they have to restrict freedom of movement across that boarder there will be an almighty uproar. Big trouble there. Already grumbling.
By the way, Wales voted to leave and received as much money as anyone from the EU. You couldn’t go down a road without seeing ‘EU development Fund’ signs a few years ago.

There is already a trade agreement in place with the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The EU is linked to the United Nations and things are already in place to keep transport moving between EU countries.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

Sorry Wales01 but no one has yet come up with an example of how we were bullied by Europe that convinces me we were better off leaving. No union is perfect but every ‘oppression’ that has been blamed on the EU turns out to be a domestic issue or a fabrication by the press. All others such as freedom of movement and human rights are of great benefit.
I think we should also take a step back from justifying the decision by saying ‘Countries like France also want to leave’ because associating ourselves with comments from Le Pen is outrageous. That family make the Himmlers look like the Waltons.

The EU is unprecedented in the world in that there is no entity like it, so much power yet only a 28 country subscription. There are around 200 countries in the world. If there were 4 Full Economic Unions ie at least 3 more than the EU, being controlled centrally by the United Nations, how would that look to an hypothetical planet earth and its hypothetical citizens? What would they think of it. Elites love to be in control they're just very clever the way they go about it. It's my view elitists don't look at nefarious projects in the short term - they likely view these horrendous plans from father to son, mother to daughter - generation to generation. It's the only way that an abominable plans could succeed. The EU is far more dangerous than any war. With a war you can see your enemy coming. If you put a lobster in a pan of cold water but slowly increase the heat it won't realise it's being cooked as it will be too late to do anything about it. However, if you boil that water first then throw the lobster in the pan it'll know and will try to do something about it.

[PAWS]

Re: That referendum ...

There is already a trade agreement in place with the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The EU is linked to the United Nations and things are already in place to keep transport moving between EU countries.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that will solve the issues that are going to arise? If Britain is not in the EU and people are swatting anything that comes down the channel tunnel, are they going to leave their back door wide open? The Republic of Ireland will be no different to any other EU member state and if you think NATO can stop the rock throwing and volatility this time then you must have been on a different planet since 1969. Good luck shouting that as a calming statement when the bricks start flying.

[PAWS]

Re: That referendum ...

The EU is unprecedented in the world in that there is no entity like it, so much power yet only a 28 country subscription. There are around 200 countries in the world. If there were 4 Full Economic Unions ie at least 3 more than the EU, being controlled centrally by the United Nations, how would that look to an hypothetical planet earth and its hypothetical citizens? What would they think of it. Elites love to be in control they're just very clever the way they go about it. It's my view elitists don't look at nefarious projects in the short term - they likely view these horrendous plans from father to son, mother to daughter - generation to generation. It's the only way that an abominable plans could succeed. The EU is far more dangerous than any war. With a war you can see your enemy coming. If you put a lobster in a pan of cold water but slowly increase the heat it won't realise it's being cooked as it will be too late to do anything about it. However, if you boil that water first then throw the lobster in the pan it'll know and will try to do something about it.

Do you see this as a protest against the elite then? A sort of French revolution but with knee pads and helmets? Just what is it you are trying to say because to be honest, the metaphor with the lobster just isn't doing it for me. If you are trying to say the EU was slowly destroying us then I simply do not agree with you. No need to go all Chekhov. There it is.

[Guest]

Re: That referendum ...

How about a first hand account of a 'Post Ref' britain??

As many of you will know ... my little girl was born at home 2 1/2yrs ago now. I'm born and bred Yorkshire, dad's a Brummie/Austrian. I was walking up to the shop this evening and got surrounded by a group of LOCAL teenage lads:

"why'd you give your girl a foreign name? Are you a Pa*i?

WE voted you lot out!"

I was stuck there for 5mins before my ex-neighbours eldest walked past and told the kids I was English

.....

If this is what our country has stooped to I don't think I want ti be here to see the end of the fall out!

That's a clear example of what the public perception was amongst many "leavers". It goes to show how misunderstood the whole issue was and how people voted for whatever they thought "out" meant. The government never made it clear what the alternative to being in the EU was, obviously because they had no idea themselves as has been shown. People drew their own, often very flawed, conclusions.

That means people didn't vote with full knowledge of what they were voting for, no-one had that knowledge, not even the guys who put forward the referendum as has been shown, so how could anyone have known what they were voting for (or against)? It was a bit like agreeing to hire your little girl for a certain job when she grows up just because she looks lovely as she is now, not knowing whether she would become a doctor or a model, or maybe a singer or a lawyer...

If you agree to enter into a contract and it turns out the core facts were misrepresented, the contract can be rescinded (terminated). Only in this case there was no contract, it was simply a vote, like having a poll on here asking : "do you guys think we should get politicians on board?" Just because more people said "yes" than "no", it doesn't mean the site is going to be full of politicians, they may not even want to be on here to start with, it's a way to ask for people's opinions based on the facts put in front of them. If the facts were different, the outcome could also be different.

If those who voted to leave had known that the government had no plans whatsoever, no exit strategy and that the guy whose idea it was to have a referendum would just say "ooops, I dunno what to do now" and bail out, they may have voted differently. We were all expecting them to have a way forward already mapped out, if not, that means they were not really serious about leaving the EU, they were just asking whether we'd like to or not. In that case the vote is, as has been mentioned, just advisory and not binding.

[Guest]

Re: That referendum ...

The EU is unprecedented in the world in that there is no entity like it, so much power yet only a 28 country subscription. There are around 200 countries in the world. If there were 4 Full Economic Unions ie at least 3 more than the EU, being controlled centrally by the United Nations, how would that look to an hypothetical planet earth and its hypothetical citizens? What would they think of it. Elites love to be in control they're just very clever the way they go about it. It's my view elitists don't look at nefarious projects in the short term - they likely view these horrendous plans from father to son, mother to daughter - generation to generation. It's the only way that an abominable plans could succeed. The EU is far more dangerous than any war. With a war you can see your enemy coming. If you put a lobster in a pan of cold water but slowly increase the heat it won't realise it's being cooked as it will be too late to do anything about it. However, if you boil that water first then throw the lobster in the pan it'll know and will try to do something about it.

The EU was fine as it was when it was known as the EEC or EC, with much less power. It did grow out of control into a bit of a monster. However, countries still retain sovereignty and the best example of that is that, despite being full members, we never had the Euro. A lot of what was seen as negative consequences of being in the EU was actually the UK government's fault. For example, the alleged hoards of E Europeans coming here to work since 2004. Back in the 80s, when Spain and Greece became members, citizens of both countries had to wait seven years before they could come here to work, I knew a Spaniard who was caught hoovering the lobby in a London hotel in the late '80s, who got deported even though Spain had already joined the EU. The idea was to allow some time for the new countries to get up to speed. The same thing could have been done in 2004 and 2007 or whenever those new countries joined the EU.

If Britain was able to reject the Euro, it could have negotiated its way out of a number of things that are considered "oppressive". The main problem here has not been the EU but the UK government and that's still the case today. Things would be different if they had known what they were doing and had a plan in place. Let's not blame the EU for everything, the problems are right here, not out there. It's fair enough to say that the people elected the governments, but there is often little choice and little difference between the parties. Also it's not uncommon for politicians to make promises which they don't keep, as with the infamous £350m for the NHS. It turns out those who voted "out" for that reason, were actually mistaken. Oooops!

Perhaps better than a black and white referendum would have been to have a few shades of gray (probably not as many as 50). For example, how many people know the difference between the EU and the EEA?

[Crazy council]

Re: That referendum ...

Well, i like anarchy, i just thought it would be the robot army bringing it on, not the brexit vote. That will do thought, its nearly divided us 50/50 so while were all squabbling, the lovely bankers will be making a fortune from your investment fund managers by gaming them on the currency fluctuations. I genuinely wish i had some money to invest at the moment, i have a feeling i will need a larger nest egg to sit this one out with

Wait til the public start blaming, first it will be the UKIPs as targets, then the racists like EDL/BNP then general mps.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

The EU was fine as it was when it was known as the EEC or EC, with much less power. It did grow out of control into a bit of a monster. However, countries still retain sovereignty and the best example of that is that, despite being full members, we never had the Euro. A lot of what was seen as negative consequences of being in the EU was actually the UK government's fault. For example, the alleged hoards of E Europeans coming here to work since 2004. Back in the 80s, when Spain and Greece became members, citizens of both countries had to wait seven years before they could come here to work, I knew a Spaniard who was caught hoovering the lobby in a London hotel in the late '80s, who got deported even though Spain had already joined the EU. The idea was to allow some time for the new countries to get up to speed. The same thing could have been done in 2004 and 2007 or whenever those new countries joined the EU.

If Britain was able to reject the Euro, it could have negotiated its way out of a number of things that are considered "oppressive". The main problem here has not been the EU but the UK government and that's still the case today. Things would be different if they had known what they were doing and had a plan in place. Let's not blame the EU for everything, the problems are right here, not out there. It's fair enough to say that the people elected the governments, but there is often little choice and little difference between the parties. Also it's not uncommon for politicians to make promises which they don't keep, as with the infamous £350m for the NHS. It turns out those who voted "out" for that reason, were actually mistaken. Oooops!

Perhaps better than a black and white referendum would have been to have a few shades of gray (probably not as many as 50). For example, how many people know the difference between the EU and the EEA?

Sovereignty is defined as 'supreme authority. The UK surrendered its supreme authority in 1972 where currently any Treaty; Treaty Article, EU Regulation; ECJ (court) decision is binding on the UK and all other 27 Member States. When the ECJ makes a decision unlike the UK's common law system it could be made into EU Treaty law: case Van Gend En Loos. See Factortame for EU being authorative. I would say that substantially affects sovereignty when EU law is automatically effective in the UK and 27 member state legal systems.

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

Who are ''the Elite'' then?