How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland.

Chemikiem , you raise an interesting and insightful argument ,one that I will take some time to ponder over

Have a read of this Dolno:-

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-tory-campaigner-admits-brexit-immigration-some-control-a7102626.html

Chemikiem , will give it a read, but got to go , big thunderstorm (burza )wrecking wife's prized potted rose bush .... will catch up laterz

Yes, she does indeed. But may there be even more skeletons in the closet? This ridiculous Brexit affair is becoming more and more interesting day by day...

Cameron promised a referendum on any treaty with the EU (if he became PM) as early as in September 2007. In an article for the Sun he even called his promise a "cast-iron guarantee". In October 2011, David Nuttall MP, chairman of the Better Off Out group of MPs proposed an EU Referendum Bill in the House of Commons. Despite it being opposed by all main parties, the motion gained the support of 119 MPs. This helped trigger the chain of events that led to Cameron making another promise to offer a referendum on EU membership in 2017. [Tim Newark, "Protest Vote. How Politicians Lost the Plot", 2014]

Yea, a chain of events, it seems ...

The latest EU foreign policy document, titled "A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign And Security Policy", calls for an extension of the Union's influence in regions as far as Central Asia and Central Africa.


Really

I have a feeling that they're heading towards a second referendum. That may be what the stalling tactics are about in not triggering Article 50. As another poster Spiritus pointed out in this thread a few days ago, a referendum in the UK has no statutory status and is not legally binding upon a goverment in any way. It is simply an opinion poll. That's one of the reasons that Mishcon de Reya are in a position to bring a legal case. A precedent for a second referendum has been set by Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty back in 2008/2009 so it's not inconceivable. They allow panic to mount about the consequences of leaving and a couple of months from now give people a chance to vote again.

In the end I think we all know that it's Whitehall and the senior civil servants who run Britian, not the politicians. At times of national crisis they pretty much take charge. The UK will stay in if that's what they want. The legal case is being brought on behalf of a group of anonymous clients..........intriguing stuff.

It would be interesting to see the outcome of one now that the truth has come to light over the leave campaign's promises, but if this time remain win the vote by a similar margin as did leave before, what do they do? Have a third referendum? It could go on and on......


I personally think it's more about no-one wanting that responsibility! Cameron has left it to be on the head of whoever is voted in to be the new PM. Who would want to trigger a no going back process especially if the UK ends up in a worse mess in the future? I think Boris knew that and I think this is the reason why he did an abrupt u-turn and ran for the hills.


I think you're right on this one. Time will tell.

Yes, I think it will be a stay and democracy will be overwritten by politicians and civil servants. The leave vote won and everyone knows that, everyone in the world knows that, they will look at the UK and say;

Yes it is corrupt, just like everyone thought it was, we were right !!.

But the playing field wasn't exactly level was it? Have you not been listening to the leave campaigners renege on their promises?

What day did we actually leave the EU I forget ?

Fortunately it looks less and less likely that we will. Certainly if there are going to be any negotiations there will need to be a vote on accepting or defecting the terms on offer before triggering Article 50 and it is unlikely the terms would either be advantageous or would quell the anxiety of those dreary individuals who get afraid when they see a Pole next door.

I dont see how its looking less likely. Both leading conservative candidates have clearly stated brexit means brexit, the main differences between may and leadsom being the former would prefer to wait until the start of next year in triggering article 50, using the time to get a headstart in negotiating trade agreements with the EU, while leadsom would invoke 50 a lot quicker. May has stated their will be no general election until 2020 under her watch. Its quite possible there may be one announced in a year or two if she believes she can win it, but as of now nothing is clear and it would be foolhardy to assume one can win when its not clear who you will up against (labour and ukip leaderships up for grabs). Dont forget there is a lot of negotiating to do, not just with the EU. Youve had Japan Mexico, South Korea and others announcing they want to arrange free trade agreements with the UK and it will take a lot of man power to get through all of these talks. In the UK political sphere there arent too many experts in trade negotiations, as its been done on an EU level in large part, so its going to take time to gather a large enough, strong enough team to take on such a large task. So the fact that 50 isnt being triggered immediately makes a lot of sense, since once it is, you have 2 years with the EU.

maybe Britain hope of some France and EU leadership change before they proceed with negotiations. the current leaders seems very hostile towards Britain. especially Juncker and Hollande. France have election in early 2017,and who knows NF might win.

Merkel however has urged caution, and the legal case to prevent leaving looks more and more solid.

the EU runs a surplus with the UK, so it has more to lose tradewise, its that simple. Multinationals that lobby the governments will not allow anything but similar to current terms, but even if there would be tarrifs on both sides, the UK will offset that with new agreements with the likes of Japan, South Korea, Australia etc. But as i say, its a net lose all around if no trade agreement, so it will get done one way or the other, sooner or later. The EU cannot be seen to be soft on a member leaving but at the same time will not cut off its nose to spite its face. Germany and its corps will be the biggest losers on any non agreement, which is why Merkel is keeping the middle ground.

As for any legal case, you have had the UK vote with a small majority wanting to leave. But if you remove the Scots votes you get an even bigger majority wanting to leave - outside of London, there were only a handful of regions that voted net remain, the bulk were for leave.

ig.ft.com/sites/elections/2016/uk/eu-referendum courtesy of the ft.

Why would anyone "remove the Scots vote"? Anyway, it looks like the legal case for blocking Article 50 is solid.

And what precisely is the legal case for ignoring a clean and fair referendum?

>>>>>And what precisely is the legal case for ignoring a clean and fair referendum?
The result of the Referendum is NOT what the minority wanted. Simples!!!

What's really interesting is all the young radicals demonstrating to preserve the status quo!

The left is officially dead.

Long live the new political division between nationalists and globalists!

Google it; a lot of discussion at the moment.


Well, terri, you can't even change the structure of a company with less than a 66% vote, so good luck with making the biggest change in most people's lives on the basis of a 1.9% majority in a non-binding referendum...

Am sure if it were 52% remain and 48% leave, people on the remain side wouldn't be complaing or calling it unfair.

Pretty thin bananas... seems to boil down to "Hulk smash Brexit! Reasons!"


If leaving the EU is equivalent to the biggest change in most people's lives then the EU is a problem that needs to be dialed back some.

And now Farage is stepping down as party leader and seems to be indicating that he's retiring from politics - after causing all that fuss!

Probably because his name is mud.


Well, jobs, savings, small businesses, the right to live where you want, massive infrastructure investment in your community and so many other things make it a pretty drastic change.

Fortunately the constitutional lawyers are on the side of common sense.

Let's see what happens when British companies and multinational corporations start to shift their production/ services/ headquarters from the U.K. to another EU country.

Well osbourne has today told parliament that corp tax will fall to 15% from the current 20%. Last week BoE head Carney said interest rates are likely to fall over the summer and should help those worried about their monthly payments for their homes as well as boost for those wanting to borrow in the UK to expand their subsidiaires.

Looks like he really is running scared. I wonder how he'll make up the deficit...

Hes given up on getting rid of the deficit by 2020. And I think most investors will be prepared to see through that short term given the reasoning behind the move. Certainly if sterling can continue to weaken and stay weak, youve got some very favourable conditions for new foreign businesses to enter the UK, or indeed current ones to add at favourable levels.

The deficit in money available for public spending, healthcare, social services, education, infrastructure...


That's really going to cheer up the Brexiteers...

jon it seems to me you think that everyone that voted to leave did it on racist grounds. There are ghastly minorities on both sides, but its very much not the case for most people. Even those that had a problem with immigrants taking benefits, youll find most of them blame the EU for tying the hands of the UK government, not particularly the immigrants themselves for trying their luck. There will always be the few that tarnish the rest, but that goes for most arguments in all walks of life.