**Brexit Jokes & Comments Thread**

[voice]

Jul 4, 2016 21:54:32 GMT nobody said:

Jul 4, 2016 21:49:04 GMT voice said:

poorer for sure, though we'll still be something.

Be better if everybody stopped with the fcuking whinging, and just got on with it.


FFS what happened to the Brits?

not sure taking note of almost every economist and expert in such things that exit from the EU will cost the UK dearly in terms of growth, jobs and living standards is whinging, but then again you're lot was fond of saying 'who needs experts' ...

[nobody]

My Lot?

[Repat Van]

Jul 4, 2016 22:40:43 GMT voice said:

Jul 4, 2016 21:54:32 GMT nobody said:

Be better if everybody stopped with the fcuking whinging, and just got on with it.


FFS what happened to the Brits?

not sure taking note of almost every economist and expert in such things that exit from the EU will cost the UK dearly in terms of growth, jobs and living standards is whinging, but then again you're lot was fond of saying 'who needs experts' ...

It's done now. Time to stop the whining, and deal with our exit and make it work. Instead of just seeing it as our start at becoming Zimbabwe.

It is quite disturbing the number of people who think the UK cannot function outside of the EU.

[flatandy]

The UK will be shittier outside the EU. I think everyone accepts that now.

So the choices are either:
how to overturn the vote - which seems to be what most people are moving towards
or
how to negotiate a deal that looks as close as possible to staying in the EU, without technically being in

[flatandy]

It is pathetic that everyone seems to be running from option 2 there. There are a handful of people working on option one in politics, clearly, But they aren't the Brexiters. Now none of the Brexiters wants to try and negotiate option 2 because it will look like they're selling out the people who voted for them.

But if they negotiated an exit that looked substantially different to being in the EU, then the country really would be f**k*d and would look properly nasty, too. Anything which doesn't at a minimum grant permanent leave to remain to all 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK would be monstrously unpleasant. Any deal that doesn't maintain the current tariff and quota free trade with EU countries will thoroughly f**k over businesses. Any deal that doesn't maintain whatever the weird passporting thing is for banks will utterly screw the city. Any deal that doesn't include structural funds is going to utterly f**k places like Cornwall, because Westminster is never going to make up the difference. And so on, and so forth.

So they're caught in a bind - they need to negotiate us out of the EU, keep all the stuff that we had with the EU, and still look like they're getting us out of all the EU stuff they claimed was so bad we needed to be out. It's an impossible task so they're all hiding away.

[Repat Van]

Jul 5, 2016 0:27:55 GMT flatandy said:

The UK will be shittier outside the EU. I think everyone accepts that now.

So the choices are either:
how to overturn the vote - which seems to be what most people are moving towards
or
how to negotiate a deal that looks as close as possible to staying in the EU, without technically being in

Who is everybody? I think everybody, or mostly everybody accepts short-term adverse impacts (potentially mid-term) as the markets adjust to uncertainty and change.

But it's not the case that the UK will be/has to be shittier outside the EU. Anyone would think the only successful progressive, developed democracies are those found inside the EU.

[Repat Van]

I think overturning the vote is possible but a very dangerous option for what it will do for societal trust in government and the state of our democracy going forward.

They would need to establish a second mandate to overturn. Potentially via a second referendum or an election.

They can also as you suggest just negotiate a deal whereby we essentially are still in the EU without being in the EU.

But then that brings us back to the issue of an arrogant middle class elite who ignored that the benefits (and negatives) relating to the EU haven't been felt evenly and we also need to address the negatives of you want public opinion to be on the side of remaining in the EU.

[flatandy]

Jul 5, 2016 0:38:49 GMT Repat Van said:

Anyone would think the only successful progressive, developed democracies are those found inside the EU.

No. But most successful, progressive, developed democracies would be improved if they were in the EU. Including Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

They'd be a bit wealthier, have a bit more international cooperation, would have fewer trade restrictions.

They're fine now. They'd be better inside.

The same, I suspect, for Britain - Britain will probably be OK outside (once the massive shock of exit is overcome and the xenophobic morons begin to realise that most people think they're shitheads and should shut up) but would be better in.

[Repat Van]

Jul 5, 2016 0:33:29 GMT flatandy said:

It is pathetic that everyone seems to be running from option 2 there. There are a handful of people working on option one in politics, clearly, But they aren't the Brexiters. Now none of the Brexiters wants to try and negotiate option 2 because it will look like they're selling out the people who voted for them.

But if they negotiated an exit that looked substantially different to being in the EU, then the country really would be f**k*d and would look properly nasty, too. Anything which doesn't at a minimum grant permanent leave to remain to all 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK would be monstrously unpleasant. Any deal that doesn't maintain the current tariff and quota free trade with EU countries will thoroughly f**k over businesses. Any deal that doesn't maintain whatever the weird passporting thing is for banks will utterly screw the city. Any deal that doesn't include structural funds is going to utterly f**k places like Cornwall, because Westminster is never going to make up the difference. And so on, and so forth.

So they're caught in a bind - they need to negotiate us out of the EU, keep all the stuff that we had with the EU, and still look like they're getting us out of all the EU stuff they claimed was so bad we needed to be out. It's an impossible task so they're all hiding away.

1) I agree that on the issue of immigration they probably can't (and shouldn't) apply it retrospectively. There would be some form of amnesty to those working here (only those working here) currently, with any changes applied going forward.

2) It maybe more difficult for businesses (primarily in the short/mid term) but there is no reason (given how much we import from the EU) we can't negotiate an agreement here.

3) As somebody who works for an investment bank I love that we now worship at the alter of the city now! But the passporting arrangement isn't the sole reason a bank would choose to have its headquarters in the UK. There are multiple issues: liveability of the major cities and ability to induce people to relocate, transparency of the legal system, taxation arrangements. HSBC as one example, when looking at where to place their global headquarters was deciding between London and Hong Kong. Hong Kong! Obviously the loss of passporting will impact certain product/service types and some banks may feel they have no option but to relocate, but it's not an issue to be looked at in isolation.

4) Yeah I am not buying this bullshit. There is no reason why we need to look at the EU as some form of benevolent Daddy instead of holding our own MPs and political parties to account and insisting on a commitment to the Regional Growth Projects we see currently. It also points to what I referenced earlier in that some people really have the lowest imagined opinion of UK political parties and populace.

[flatandy]

Jul 5, 2016 0:50:53 GMT Repat Van said:

I think overturning the vote is possible but a very dangerous option for what it will do for societal trust in government and the state of our democracy going forward.

They would need to establish a second mandate to overturn. Potentially via a second referendum or an election.

They can also as you suggest just negotiate a deal whereby we essentially are still in the EU without being in the EU.

But then that brings us back to the issue of an arrogant middle class elite who ignored that the benefits (and negatives) relating to the EU haven't been felt evenly and we also need to address the negatives of you want public opinion to be on the side of remaining in the EU.

I think that's all correct. Which is why nobody wants to do it.

Overturning the mandate by staying in the EU - pisses people off

Effectively overturning the mandate by exiting the EU but keeping all the EU stuff people don't like, such as freedom of movement and common business standards and paying dues to stay in the free market and so on - pisses people off

Actually completely cutting ties with the EU and pretending to be Australia, acting fully independently but losing many of the jobs in Britain that are dependent on single market membership, and thus damaging the economy substantially because of the massive shock to the system, and because it really does screw the lives of foreigners in Britain and Brits in Europe - pisses people off.

[Repat Van]

Jul 5, 2016 0:52:31 GMT flatandy said:

Jul 5, 2016 0:38:49 GMT Repat Van said:

Anyone would think the only successful progressive, developed democracies are those found inside the EU.

No. But most successful, progressive, developed democracies would be improved if they were in the EU. Including Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

They'd be a bit wealthier, have a bit more international cooperation, would have fewer trade restrictions.

They're fine now. They'd be better inside.

The same, I suspect, for Britain - Britain will probably be OK outside (once the massive shock of exit is overcome and the xenophobic morons begin to realise that most people think they're shitheads and should shut up) but would be better in.

You've lost the plot. Seriously you have.

Although if UK outside the EU turned itself into Australia there is no argument on the planet that could convince me to rejoin.

[flatandy]

Jul 5, 2016 1:02:40 GMT Repat Van said:

]1) I agree that on the issue of immigration they probably can't (and shouldn't) apply it retrospectively. There would be some form of amnesty to those working here (only those working here) currently, with any changes applied going forward.

That'll still screw hundreds of thousands of retired foreigners, of foreigners who lose their jobs, of foreigners who are sole traders (builders, etc), of foreigners who start dating Brits and move and can't find a job immediately, and so on

2) It maybe more difficult for businesses (primarily in the short/mid term) but there is no reason (given how much we import from the EU) we can't negotiate an agreement here.

We can (and will) negotiate an agreement. But it can't be as good as the current settlement we have.

3) As somebody who works for an investment bank I love that we now worship at the alter of the city now! But the passporting arrangement isn't the sole reason a bank would choose to have its headquarters in the UK. There are multiple issues: liveability of the major cities and ability to induce people to relocate, transparency of the legal system, taxation arrangements. HSBC as one example, when looking at where to place their global headquarters was deciding between London and Hong Kong. Hong Kong! Obviously the loss of passporting will impact certain product/service types and some banks may feel they have no option but to relocate, but it's not an issue to be looked at in isolation.

Fair point that we really don't mind City Wankers losing their jobs. And although headquarters might not move, lots of very wealthy peoples jobs will move, which is not going to be great, for example, for the UK's tax take.

4) Yeah I am not buying this bullshit. There is no reason why we need to look at the EU as some form of benevolent Daddy instead of holding our own MPs and political parties to account and insisting on a commitment to the Regional Growth Projects we see currently. It also points to what I referenced earlier in that some people really have the lowest imagined opinion of UK political parties and populace.

I know you don't accept this, but, you know, we vote for our politicians and they repeatedly do f**k all to help the regions. I understand that logically it's possible that they'll do the decent thing. But, using empirical data suggests it's extremely f**k**g unlikely.

[flatandy]

The point being not that Britain will collapse into being Zimbabwe, although I may have used that term before for hyperbolic effect. It's that Britain will be a worse place outside the EU and nobody wants to start a negotiation where the known outcome is guaranteed to make the country a bit worse and also a bit poorer.

[Repat Van]

Jul 5, 2016 1:13:21 GMT flatandy said:

Jul 5, 2016 1:02:40 GMT Repat Van said:

]1) I agree that on the issue of immigration they probably can't (and shouldn't) apply it retrospectively. There would be some form of amnesty to those working here (only those working here) currently, with any changes applied going forward.

That'll still screw hundreds of thousands of retired foreigners, of foreigners who lose their jobs, of foreigners who are sole traders (builders, etc), of foreigners who start dating Brits and move and can't find a job immediately, and so on

2) It maybe more difficult for businesses (primarily in the short/mid term) but there is no reason (given how much we import from the EU) we can't negotiate an agreement here.

We can (and will) negotiate an agreement. But it can't be as good as the current settlement we have.

3) As somebody who works for an investment bank I love that we now worship at the alter of the city now! But the passporting arrangement isn't the sole reason a bank would choose to have its headquarters in the UK. There are multiple issues: liveability of the major cities and ability to induce people to relocate, transparency of the legal system, taxation arrangements. HSBC as one example, when looking at where to place their global headquarters was deciding between London and Hong Kong. Hong Kong! Obviously the loss of passporting will impact certain product/service types and some banks may feel they have no option but to relocate, but it's not an issue to be looked at in isolation.

Fair point that we really don't mind City Wankers losing their jobs. And although headquarters might not move, lots of very wealthy peoples jobs will move, which is not going to be great, for example, for the UK's tax take.

4) Yeah I am not buying this bullshit. There is no reason why we need to look at the EU as some form of benevolent Daddy instead of holding our own MPs and political parties to account and insisting on a commitment to the Regional Growth Projects we see currently. It also points to what I referenced earlier in that some people really have the lowest imagined opinion of UK political parties and populace.

I know you don't accept this, but, you know, we vote for our politicians and they repeatedly do f**k all to help the regions. I understand that logically it's possible that they'll do the decent thing. But, using empirical data suggests it's extremely f**k**g unlikely.

1) I should have been clear when I said "not working" I meant "unemployed". Not those who no longer working and/or who are not seeking work or sole traders who work for themselves. I don't much care about those dating Brits. They can find a job, or get married and be supported by their spouse. Their romantic life is not our problem. As for those who lose their jobs why would it screw them? They would have been working when achieving residency.

2) Why?

3) As I've said passporting isn't the only reason a bank would situate it's headquarters in the UK. So it's not the case that the loss of this, in and of itself would see banks upsticks and move. And of course they will likely be doing many other things to entice banks to stay (like the recent current in corporation tax rates) which would mean rick people continuing to stay in the UK (and paying taxes.)

4) You're right, I don't accept it.

[Repat Van]

Jul 5, 2016 1:21:41 GMT flatandy said:

The point being not that Britain will collapse into being Zimbabwe, although I may have used that term before for hyperbolic effect. It's that Britain will be a worse place outside the EU and nobody wants to start a negotiation where the known outcome is guaranteed to make the country a bit worse and also a bit poorer.

It will be a worse place in the short-term, potentially the mid-term. The long-term however, depends on what we make of those opportunities that do exist.

[flatandy]

Even if you're correct on the long-term, how many politicians do you know of who will willingly make their country and peoples' lives worse in the short and mid term?

[perrykneeham]

I think we've done EU aid to the regions to death haven't we?

The UK's regional aid programme precedes the EU by a long time.

EU aid is just re-badged UK money being repatriated after being docked admin fees.

We did all this months ago.

[Repat Van]

Jul 5, 2016 1:30:22 GMT flatandy said:

Even if you're correct on the long-term, how many politicians do you know of who will willingly make their country and peoples' lives worse in the short and mid term?

Not as many who are willing to risk political suicide by overruling the mandate received from a referendum.

Besides it's not that uncommon, Thatcher did it when she broke the unions.

[mids]

Jul 5, 2016 5:01:14 GMT perrykneeham said:

I think we've done EU aid to the regions to death haven't we?

The UK's regional aid programme precedes the EU by a long time.

EU aid is just re-badged UK money being repatriated after being docked admin fees.

We did all this months ago.

It's weird how the remainiacs can't see this. Mind you, they're nanny-staters who also can't understand that all money doesn't naturally originate from and belong to national governments. They must see the EU like an even bigger, fatter and therefore more appealing super-nanny.

[Deleted]

"and because it really does screw the lives of foreigners in Britain and Brits in Europe - pisses people off."

As an interesting aside, through talks to those who know (at least as much as anyone else here in France - banks, doctors etc) it appears that France is accepting expats if there's a Brexit, as residents. ie., nothing will change.