Ok, we are out, what now?

voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/06/24/uk-loses-its-place-as-fifth-best-performing-economy-after-brexit-vote/

We are no longer fifth best performing economy.

I think they should just shut the door in our face and say 'out is out, now live with it' and negotiate from square 1. You cannot resign from a club and then dictate terms about how you do it.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/top-eu-leader-we-want-britain-out-as-soon-as-possible

They want us out as soon as possible.

Who says that Britian is not becoming a police state, in or out of the EU?

Every where we go we are monitored by CCTV, we have an institutionally corrupt police force who put protection of themselves above the lives of innocent people, banks can close your bank account down without giving amy reason and all our communications are more and more likely to be monitored by the authorities.

Pot calling the kettle black.

I voted remain because I place a higher priority on international cooperation than on Britain's self interest, so I sincerely hope that the consequences are serious enough to stop any other countries from following us. I wanted Scotland to be in the UK and the EU for the same reason, but now it's a choice I hope they choose the EU.

Both sides lied!!! and would do so again. dd you don't know what brexiters would have asked for as it didn't happen. A re run was out of the question whoever won, Brexit had conceded defeat yesterday evening when it looked as though they had lost. The rules were clear and that's that! Never underestimate or patronise the ordinary man woman in the street, given the chance they will rear up at their intellectual masters and give them a bloody nose!

daphnidill your post at 12.06 - I'm very disappointed about the result. Just trying to make the best of it, and hoping it will come to nothing.

daphnidill I meant to say that he said it would be a police state not was. But as I also said: it was a bit over the top.

You knocked down my constructive post, Elegran. All I wanted was what the BREXITERs promised, but you wrote that it was unaffordable.

So BREXITERS lied, did they? Sounds like a reason for a re-run!

Luckygirl How true Re leaders and psychology. If he had understood humane nature and the British people when he went with the begging bowl and just pushed for 'a little bit more please' it would never have come to this.
We are not a greedy people, but we do want fairness.

What was a police state? The EU? I think your father was way off the mark.

I think I answered you, nigglie. I said the Brexiters would call foul and ask for another referendum.
If it's the law, it's the law.

act.goingtowork.org.uk/page/m/1f11b227/3ab9ec2e/547a3184/5407ce01/2615220831/VEsF/

This is to stop them altering workers rights. Lots of rexiters want to, even though people on here said that we had better rights before the EU.

Monica, That was part of the reason. They also didn't want to be dominated economically by the US.

Railman My Father explained this to me back in the 70s when we were asked to vote.
He even went so far as to call it a police state, a it ott, I know. But I've always understood what is happening.

Even intelligent people do stupid things.

I have never read that name calling is undemocratic.

So how will leaving the EU make people's lives better?

railman I agree with you but the prime purpose of the fundation of the EU was to try and ensure that never again did Europe have to face another pan-European war like WWI & II.

The men that set it up, Adenauer, Monnet and Schumann, wanted, more than anything else, to ensure there were no more wars like the two they had lived through and they believed the best way to do this was to build up an economic union between the countries and, as the treaty says:
"promote throughout the community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living, and closer relations of the member states."

This is because economic inequality, played a primary role in providing the conditions that led to the rise of fascism that ended in WWII and economic problems were also contributory to WWI

And here's the link again in case anybody missed it and wants to sign

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

Still no answer! Oh well!! As I see it democracy is about the views of all the population, trying to skew an election result to favour one side because you don't like the result owing to the perceived unintelligence of a certain class of people, even to the point of name calling is not democratic. As Churchill said about voting, ' one is enough! No rules were broken here and so any change in the rules after the event with a view to a re run to get the 'right' result is totally undemocratic. Getting the 'wrong' result can happen, democracy can be like that, the alternative is a dictatorship, which would eliminate the pesky illiterates!

POGS

So what were your thoughts? I must have missed them. Maybe you could repeat your answer to my question about the ways leaving the UK will improve ordinary people's lives.

Earlier this morning I felt I was staring into a long dark tunnel. Nicola Sturgeon has now provided a light at the end of it. Thanks for that post granny 23 but I hope your FB friend now feels as I do.

Someone on the TV saying Eu law will remain as British law and it would take years to review all the legislation- in other words we will stay much as we were. So no money for the NHS, no taking back the country- what ever has it been for then?

There have been many people who have said that the Common Market was established as a trading organisation. I really don’t understand why this, like so many other myths around the issue seems to have been believed.

Reading aspects of the original Treaty of Rome in 1960, and the UK Government White Paper from July 1971, this was simply NOT the case.
The EEC was not set up simply as a trading organisation, the first of the objectives of the preamble in the Treaty of Rome states "...establishment of the foundations of an ever closer union among European peoples, the furtherance of economic AND social progress..." The second article of the treaty "... approximating the economic policies of member states, to promote throughout the community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced EXPANSION, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living, and closer relations of the member states."

This was restated in the UK Government White Paper in July 1971 - on page 3.

We knew then that this closer union and expansion was a part of the Community plan, BEFORE we joined.

So why was there a need for a referendum on the basis that something had changed in our understanding of the purpose of the Community of European Nations?

I like that Nonnie
I've just read this from an ex chief of the BBC
"The 2016 referendum has witnessed the cashing in of some very bankable grudges. But I believe that, throughout this 2016 campaign, Europe has been the shadow not the substance"
More or less what Caroline Green said this morning.

Scotland are now totally justified in calling for another referendum.
I did not have had that view until this morning.

Would you leave if someone else was buttering your bread ?