apart from the main issues like immigration or the economy the bigger message from brexit is a rejection of politics and the establishment. That's why it was right people decided instead of MP's imo. Parliament doesn't represent the make up of the country and the majority of them are completely out of touch. The same thing is happening in america and a lot of people haven't grasped this phenomenon yet. trump/brexit voters are seen as racist right wingers and clinton/remainers are the nice tolerant liberals, which is nonsense because it's establishment politics that has created the ills we see today, the wars, the rising inequality and domination of big business on society and our lives. I think the political landscape in the west is at the start of a revolution, left and right wing doesn't mean much anymore because a lot of working class people no longer vote labour and more and more well off people have liberal views.
===============
Agree with this, my post above was along the same line but maybe not as well put as yours!

Dartspur

Agree 100%. The issue (IMO) was exacerbated by years of demonising the EU by the UK press, (Murdoch, Dacre, Desmond) all longstanding eurosceptics.

But that's kind of the point isn't it? Plenty of people weren't really voting to leave the EU because that was what they felt was in the long term interests of the country, they did it as a protest vote against the establishment/perceived liberal elite etc. That is not the basis we should be using to make such an important decision!

I think we need a reform in our electoral system, and having thought about this at length, the best compromise I can see is to have a more powerful, but proportionally elected house of Lords.

Switzerland and Norway are tiny states capable of living off dodgy banking and oil respectively. Norway is known to be heading for trouble.

Britain was doing well pre-EU due the remnants of the Empire's wealth and the fact that it still made stuff up until Thatcher.

It is no longer 1972.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm afraid your argument is somewhat tainted by your use of the word "dodgy" - one could equally apply that to any country if one wished
I do agree though that it isn't still 1972. I've checked my calendar, the newspapers and scoured the internet to find that it is actually 2016 as I had previously thought.

Switzerland and Norway’s situation are pretty much an irrelevance in regard to Brexit. Norway still have to implement EU legislation, and contribute nearly half a billion to the EU each year:

http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/

From what I can gather the UK government are looking at other options.

The Swiss/EU deal is currently being renegotiated, with many EEA benefits no longer on the table. Brexit has pretty much torpedoed Swiss chances of an agreement on comparable terms as they currently enjoy.

In regard to the UK joining the EEA, (and having comparable EU benefits/access) Norway put the stops on this some time ago. Essentially as per the size of the UK economy compared to EEA members. I recall the Norwegian government using ‘a shark in a goldfish bowl’ analogy.

Despite being a remain voter I can't help but feel somewhat relived at the fact we can now reject European policy and rules forced upon us (though not all bad) and that we have, in theory, control over immigration. It doesn't have to be racially motivated to realise that the country is over-populated and that immigration is a major factor in that.

But, the UK won't fall apart just because we've left Europe, people will still work hard and buy rubbish made in China (India). I suspect far more damage is done by voters in both groups buying foreign products over British-made ones and shopping at the likes of Amazon (ugh) and Lidl.

What would Stuart Pearce do?

You could be right there and it certainly contributed. At the same time we also had the national broadcaster, and many others, championing the Remain cause so both viewpoints probably counteracted each other to a certain degree.

My own feeling is that most people are so sick and tired of the established and perceived elites that they will be voted against regardless and is certainly one of the main factors of Trump's continued success.

If he does succeed then it will certainly paint a bleak outlook for the possible outcome of both the French and German elections.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Dartspur

I think everyone can agree (from both sides) the overall reporting (prior/during/after referendum) has been atrocious.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 31 minutes ago
Switzerland and Norway are tiny states capable of living off dodgy banking and oil respectively. Norway is known to be heading for trouble.

Britain was doing well pre-EU due the remnants of the Empire's wealth and the fact that it still made stuff up until Thatcher.

It is no longer 1972.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm afraid your argument is somewhat tainted by your use of the word "dodgy" - one could equally apply that to any country if one wished
I do agree though that it isn't still 1972. I've checked my calendar, the newspapers and scoured the internet to find that it is actually 2016 as I had previously thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right actually. You can apply it to Britain too. Much of our GDP also comes from dodgy banking. Which will flee London shortly. I hear Frankfurt is a beautiful place to live and work.

comment by Arsene Wengooner (U6031)
posted 2 minutes ago
Despite being a remain voter I can't help but feel somewhat relived at the fact we can now reject European policy and rules forced upon us (though not all bad) and that we have, in theory, control over immigration. It doesn't have to be racially motivated to realise that the country is over-populated and that immigration is a major factor in that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Arsene Wengooner (U6031)
posted 2 minutes ago
Despite being a remain voter I can't help but feel somewhat relived at the fact we can now reject European policy and rules forced upon us (though not all bad) and that we have, in theory, control over immigration. It doesn't have to be racially motivated to realise that the country is over-populated and that immigration is a major factor in that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ageing population, fertility rates below replacement rate, more than half of all welfare spending already going on pensions...the outlook suggests either continued immigration or a significant postponement of the age of retirement.

Will be interesting to see what people reply when they're asked to choose between bringing in even more immigrants than before or waiting until their 70s before they can retire.

comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 25 minutes ago
Switzerland and Norway are tiny states capable of living off dodgy banking and oil respectively. Norway is known to be heading for trouble.

Britain was doing well pre-EU due the remnants of the Empire's wealth and the fact that it still made stuff up until Thatcher.

It is no longer 1972.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm afraid your argument is somewhat tainted by your use of the word "dodgy" - one could equally apply that to any country if one wished
I do agree though that it isn't still 1972. I've checked my calendar, the newspapers and scoured the internet to find that it is actually 2016 as I had previously thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you picked up on one word and totally disregarded the main point of the comment.

The UK wasn't doing too badly before we joined the common market because as was pointed out, back in 1972 we made things.

We were a major manufacturer and exporter of cars with production reaching 1.92 million cars produced that year.

But there was also the dark side.
Miners & Dockers going on strike necessitating a state of emergency to be declared twice in the first 6 months of the year.

The miner's strike lasted 7 weeks and caused homes to be without power for up to 9 hours per day.

I for one am not looking forward to a return of those days.

comment by Arsene Wengooner (U6031)
posted 23 minutes ago
Despite being a remain voter I can't help but feel somewhat relived at the fact we can now reject European policy and rules forced upon us (though not all bad) and that we have, in theory, control over immigration. It doesn't have to be racially motivated to realise that the country is over-populated and that immigration is a major factor in that.

But, the UK won't fall apart just because we've left Europe, people will still work hard and buy rubbish made in China (India). I suspect far more damage is done by voters in both groups buying foreign products over British-made ones and shopping at the likes of Amazon (ugh) and Lidl.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you feel the country is overpopulated?

Maybe certain areas of the country are too densely populated, but that has more to do with where public and private development funds have been directed (i.e. London) and less to do with the number of people on the islands.

I've never felt like even the larger cities in the north of England in which I've lived (Manchester, Leeds) are overpopulated.

The one thing I do find extremely concerning about all of this is the successful demonisation of human rights.

You have Theresa May saying that nobody should be able to prosecute British soldiers when they're posing for selfies with prisoners they're torturing for fun.

But it's EU innit so it's bad and stuff.

comment by Arsene Wengooner (U6031)
posted 27 minutes ago
Despite being a remain voter I can't help but feel somewhat relived at the fact we can now reject European policy and rules forced upon us (though not all bad) and that we have, in theory, control over immigration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, interesting that you still believe this.

What will happen is that we will repeal the '1972 European Communities Act' BUT all the thousands of EU laws we have encumbered ourselves with since 1973 would remain in place because they have been transposed into Acts of Parliament.

The Great Repeal Bill (which will be announced in the next queen's speech) will start the process by actually repealing '1972 European Communities Act' but there will be ongoing negotiations as to what EU laws (if any) will be removed from UK legislature.

I wouldn't hold my breath at the idea of many of the EU laws being removed from our statute books.

I also wouldn't hold my breath at the idea of immigration controls either. It is almost certain that any trade deals with EU will require immigration and free transit of EU nationals to remain at current levels.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Giröulski

Sadly, the government are repelling the HRA and replacing it with the British Bill of Rights. Essentially they are replacing an act founded on humanitarian values, with one based on political enhancement.

I suspect (along with other pieces of legislation) the government will try to correlate the BOR along with (behind closed door) Brexit negotiations, (the Great Repel Bill) in an effort to circumvent parliament.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The one thing I do find extremely concerning about all of this is the successful demonisation of human rights.

But it's EU innit so it's bad and stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NO the demonisation is of parts of the European Convention for Human Rights which thanks to the likes of Cheri Blair has helped criminals more than their victims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201918/One-three-cases-lost-Britain-European-Court-Human-Rights-brought-terrorists-prisoners-criminals.html

Don't get me wrong, some articles of the ECHR are used for worthy causes but it still needs to be re-jigged to stop hundreds of frivolous lawsuits.

WwSPd, you're right. What falls under the BoR will be a negotiated process.

From a constitutional perspective, a Bill of Rights would necessitate the end of Parliamentary Supremacy. Surely, it would mean that the Supreme Court has the ability to rule against the government and therefore we would see a division of power. Currently it is concentrated in the House of Commons.

If they don't then a Bill of Rights is utterly, utterly worthless.

comment by sᴉɥƃuǝlפ (U19365)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 13 minutes ago
The one thing I do find extremely concerning about all of this is the successful demonisation of human rights.

But it's EU innit so it's bad and stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NO the demonisation is of parts of the European Convention for Human Rights which thanks to the likes of Cheri Blair has helped criminals more than their victims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201918/One-three-cases-lost-Britain-European-Court-Human-Rights-brought-terrorists-prisoners-criminals.html

Don't get me wrong, some articles of the ECHR are used for worthy causes but it still needs to be re-jigged to stop hundreds of frivolous lawsuits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That Daily Mail article doesn't prove anything. It's the people that the State dislikes who are most likely to have their human rights abused and therefore the most in need of protection.

I read into the Abu Qatada stuff. Basically we weren't allowed to send him wrapped in a bow to be tortured. Once Theresa May stopped being an incompetent who played to the crowds, a simple agreement was reached and he was on his way. Which was absolutely right, unless you think he should be tortured before his trial.

What's being said about the judges in ECHR cases is also hilarious. They're all Law Lord (now Supreme Court) level in their own State.

You have to consider the fact that Human Rights is an attempt to make ourselves more civilised. They're not only made to protect the average guy whose most controversial moment in his life was to shout "nice tiits" at some woman in the street.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator