This. Times god knows how many. I'm yet to be told something good that's happened since we voted to leave, but a lot of bad things have.
6% of those who voted Leave regret their vote, compared to 1% of those who voted to Remain. That's enough to change the outcome. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/10/daily-chart-6
Ok. Lets say that the EU turn around and gave us 100% border controls. Who decides who is allowed in and who isn't? Who do we let in? Do we let in EU citizens, or non-Eu citizens, or just the ones that can prove they work hard and contribute. If we do that, does that mean we can export the Brits who are lazy scroungers? Once we start limiting the people that can come in, do we start stopping people based on age, gender, sexuality, disability or any other criteria - and if it isn't official policy, how do we determine that the individuals that process the applications are not displaying bias. And can we then apply that criteria to long-term residents or even nationals? Do we let in Asylum seekers from Syria, who are fleeing a war that is partially the fault of our government, or just the ones from war zones where we aren't involved. What about Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the other places we've sent troops to recently? I don't know about you, but I think that we, as individuals and as a nation, are better than that. We need young, healthy people to come here, work and pay taxes so we can pay the pensions and meet the care needs of the increasingly older population. We need clever, hardworking people to improve productivity and give our industries a chance to compete, irrespective of their birth and do the jobs that need doing.
For what its worth, I voted to remain, however I think it would be disrespectful to the people of the borough if Jarvis then went against the wishes of the electorate and voted to remain. I still think economically that it would be better if we overturned the result, and maybe as a middle ground, and based on the information provided by Scoff (above) and now people are more educated on what all this mess means, it might be better going back to the polls. If the result is the same, so be it. But I would doubt now that people can see the reality rather than a load of political clap trap spouted by career politicians then we might be able to move on from the aforementioned mess once and for all.
As was said many times on here, areas such as ours, and the Welsh Valleys, etc that have seen large EU investment are the ones that will lose the most when we leave the EU. These MPs will be faced with a major dilemma when there is a vote. Do they vote for the best thing for their area (arguably) or vote with the will of the people. There is already talk of appeals by the losing side, so this could easily end up with the ECJ deciding who can trigger Article 50. And if the legal side drags on for long enough, the 2020 election could be happening just before the 2 years are up anyway. That would really be fun if a coalition of anti-Brexit parties won.
i think you're right,I voted leave, but I think people around here ( I can see jacksons from my front window) voted leave for the immigration thing ( rightly or wrongly, its their choice). IF we do leave I think after the dust settles we'll be ok because money talks and if big business can make a buck it will.
Some on here have suggested that Dan Jarvis has been mandated to vote for Brexit come what may but that is not so. Our MPs are our representatives in Parliament not our delegates. In a recent New Statesman article Chucka Umanna reminded readers of Edmund Burke's characterisation of their role as follows "when he told the voters of Bristol that an MP “owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. The voters of Bristol thought so, too. They dispensed with his services at the election. But Burke’s point is even more important in an era of social media, when every email, every tweet and every posting comes replete with the demand that an MP should do precisely as his or her constituents wish (which is always precisely as the correspondent wishes)."
Thats an interesting question! No matter how it gets dressed up as benefitting the economy in terms of getting the economy moving uncontrolled migration has impacted communites hard. No just in the uk but through out the Eu. Although it hardly gets a mention in mainstream media theres already issues in switzerland over italian migrants working on the resorts amongst other examples. Germany with its attempts to ban benefits for Eu migrants who have migrated with out work. For me, anyone who wishes to work in the Uk has to have confirmed by an employer a full time position within the organisation they are working for be it cleaning or the medical industry. None of this zero hour agency ******** where you dont know when your working or not with 5 folk wanting thenshift as well.. If not they have to prove they have the funds to self support for x amount of months to find work or they return to the country of origin. Itll kill the movement of people from the EU dead. Itll also mean that those who are on FTE will feel more secure and in turn would lead to an increase in real wages. Ill add more a bit later. Works calling. Olease feel free to belittle patronise and critique my musings.
Zero Hour contracts are probably the biggest threat to employees in the last 50 years. They should be replaced with minimum-hour contracts, where the company has to pay *at least* the equivalent of the benefits whether they use that person or not in that week. 0HCs just promote lazy management and cause financial hardship to the people that are stuck on them - but that is a different soapbox. The birth rate in the country is currently under 2. Without migration we would be looking at an increasing burden on the young to care for the old. If we require people to have a job before they can enter the country, then how can then enter the country to apply for jobs, do interviews etc, or do we leave employers to go overseas to advertise and recruit, so cutting the local populace out of the equation entirely. Don't get me wrong, there is a limit to the amount of migration a country can support, and much as it appalls me, it is leading to a rise in the far-right extremists. Its a complex problem, and one that I wouldn't like to sort out - and probably can't without deeply alienating a good 20-30% of the population either way.
Anyone heard the Lbc radio interview between James Palmer and Ashley from Pinner. Comedy gold. Parliament was always going to have to approve any changes given we live in a parliamentary democracy. I hope that mps reflect their constituents views of the 'deal' on offer rather than those on a generic Brexit as that is what they will be asked to ratify.
so IF he votes remain then hes failed to represent 2/3 of the people hes mandated to represent. what would happen if the day after a general election the labour m.p. elected by Barnsley crossed the floor to join cons/ukip, he'll still represent us
An elected MP represents the constituency from the day of the election until the next election, unless he dies in office, goes to prison or steps down. The MP could change party, vote against the wishes of the voters or anything else and there is nothing that the voters can do until the next election. What could be interesting is if an MP (Labour for Barnsley) with a large majority votes Remain in parliamentary debates, against the wish of the local people is then opposed in the next election by a opposing politician who promises to vote Leave (Tory for Barnsley). That could be a major shake up in the election results.
James O'Brien, link below: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/which-eu-law-are-you-looking-forward-to-losing/
that's my whole point, any mp should do what his constituants tell him they want irrespective of his own opinion otherwise its a dictatorship ( following the whip/partyline)......................................... I've got a 5 year contract with expenses and I can do what I like,I can retire after this .................... **** you . wuuuhhhhooooooo
The MP has to vote for what they think will be the best deal for the people they represent and it is their job and responsibility to know all the facts - including a fair few we might not find out for 50 years due to official classification (Syria or Iraq for example). Otherwise they would have to have a local vote before every single vote in Parliament. Think about it another way. If 30 years ago there was a vote to reduce the use of coal to protect the environment, should an MP from a mining area vote against it to safeguard the jobs in the area, or for it because of the future benefits to the health of all the constituents and the environment? There are many other examples where MPs vote against the wishes of their constituents to implement something that has long-term benefits that the people at the time can't appreciate. An MP for Barnsley voting to remove £xmillion of funding to the area without any sign of it being replaced would be negligent to the constituents, whether that would outweigh the opinions of those affected is another question.
But, what if a minority, who make a lot of noise, are organised, dictate what the MP does. Said group might not represent the view of the majority of constituents.
reduce the use of coal ????????. either end of the m62 are/were 2 massive coal importation terminals where built( Liverpool and Immingham, and yes Immingham is not on the 62 but m180 but you know what I mean). but I get your point. but isn't that a bit condisending ( the mp not you) look I know more than you but you'll find out one way or another in 30 years when i'm retired and living in a Caribbean tax heaven ( all the parties not just 1)
that's why we had a vote, so we either voted for the biggest liars or somebody whos to thick to lie properly