Brexit watch

Anyone who thinks that poster wasn't racist is a twit (imo).....

I know that Valls is actively encouraging businesses to relocate to Paris - Vodaphone being one company he is talking with and I heard today that Siemens is also moving to France - has any one else heard or seen that?

I think that the general opinion in the UK is that the poster is racist. In fact apart from Farage I have t heard anyone say it isn't.

I heard that the queen and prince Phillip are relocating to Versailles.

Immigrants aren't the same as refugees either. I think the problem some people have (those for whom Brexit is purported to be about immigration) is about economic migrants, not genuine refugees.

More deliberate muddling of separate issues?

Trouble is the refugee crisis, which involves both refugees and economic migrants from many countries has become meshed into one issue which there is no single solution . To then link that with freedom of movement for workers within the EU, has confused the issue, so some people believe that leaving the EU means getting rid of any migrant or even British born non white people.

Siemens has been in the UK since about the 1860s; it opened in Stafford in 1906 I believe, then it became English Electric.
Pre EU.
Siemens has plants throughout the UK - are they all re-locating Welshwife?

Panorama now- on reasons for voting OUT or REMAIN

This was the original. It was in the Daily Mail www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3286365/Slovenia-latest-country-resort-building-fences-borders-47-500-migrants-enter-overwhelmed-nation-days.html

Thank you, suzied and daphne. I didn't see or read about the original.

Have just read that key vote claims and pledges have been removed from the Leave website. Is this like ripping up a manifesto after an election has been won?

I am not sure how much but the CEO did say during one of the debates that they had been looking at options and one of the women in our French class today said she had seen today that they are moving - so must be some of them.
Valls has said things before and what he said this time is reported in French press.

"The Article 50 paradox can be characterised as follows:

Leave Supporter: “We want our own Parliament to be sovereign on matters to do with the EU!”

Response: “Like on whether to Leave then?”

Leave Supporter: “No.”

Those who campaigned Leave so as to uphold Parliamentary Sovereignty are now unhappy at prospect of Parliament being sovereign about whether to Leave."

Jack of Kent.

All I have seen with reference to Siemens and Vodaphone us that they are looking at their options. I would imagine that they would not do anything hastily if they did anything at all because of the French elections next year. There is quite a growing right wing movement with an anti EU sentiment. If Le Pen is elected this time (it was a close shave last time), she has stated that she would call a referendum on Frexit. Companies such as Siemens could well jump from frying pan to fire, so I would be very surprised if anyone relocated until either there is a major overhaul of the EU that satisfies all if the member countries that have exit rumblings, or the union disbands. We also have yet to see what trade deals post Brexit can be negotiated.

All multinational companies will be looking at their options; if they aren't they won't be doing their duty by their shareholders. And they'll carry on saying that and nothing more until things become a lot clearer. Just as my financial advisors sent me a sheet of utter waffle about the vote; they haven't a clue but they feel they have to say something, if only to stop their customers ringing up with questions they can't answer.

www.hulldailymail.co.uk/siemens-boss-juergen-maier-backs-hull-but-wants-end-to-xenophobic-abuse-after-brexit/story-29465381-detail/story.html

So the boss of Siemens has had xenophobic language directed at him, and it could impact on whether they stay here. The large windturbine factory in Hull was about exporting to the EU.

BREXIT: Turkeys voting for Christmas

For 30 years in the UK academics, political and community activists, trade unionists, and even religious groups have warned, argued, evidenced, threatened and sometimes begged politicians and wider society to recognise that ever increasing inequality cannot end well. I had hoped that day would be a political revolution brought about by an international solidarity movement led by working class people from all over the world. Instead, we have been subject to a Tory Party internal ideological battle. And the rest of parliamentary politics fell into line because in some way it benefited them.

The consequence has been that marginalised people all over the United Kingdom have used the Tory orchestrated EU referendum as an opportunity to be heard. I have never known such enthusiasm and debate amongst people that even last year had no interest at all in the General Election. Even I was surprised that over 38 million people turned out to vote. Out of that 17 million people voted to leave the European Union and did so for many reasons. Sovereignty, xenophobia, and racism were reasons and we have to be honest about that. However out of that 17 million there were millions that voted leave for other reasons. Millions of people used the referendum and cast their votes in relation to how they experience their lives in the United Kingdom today. They voted leave because they were tired, ignored, cold, hungry, and felt hopeless. They voted to be seen and to be heard.

Since the Brexit vote there has been a lot of hand wringing by politicians, and within sections of the media, asking ‘what has happened? How did we get here?’. I believe they honestly don’t know. There is a general consensus now that working class people have been conned, duped, and they are turkeys voting for Christmas. Some perhaps have been duped, and some thought it was a two-fingered salute to the middle class, and the establishment.

However my analysis is based on the research that I do and the people who tell me about their lives. I have been meeting up with a group of local women in East London for over two years and I have never had a conversation with them about mainstream politics until 3 weeks ago. We usually talk about how difficult life can be living in London. One of the women has learned how to manage her money by eating only every other day. She does this to ensure her two children can eat every day. She voted for the first time in the referendum and she voted out. Not because she thought her life would get better if we left the EU, she voted out because she couldn’t stand it being the same.

Lisa Mckenzie is a research fellow at the London School of Economics.

www.thesociologicalreview.com/blog/brexit-turkeys-voting-for-christmas.html

I'm confused at to which of the referendum threads include talk about expats' interests. I've chosen this one as appropriate in any case to remark that a leader in the Times this morning is saying that Theresa May and Philip Hammond are wrong to say that expats' rights should be on the Brexit negotiating table. I quote:

"Mrs May and Mr Hammond are wrong. Their stance has been condemned by Brexiteers and Remainers alike, and rightly so. Just because something can be included in a negotiation does not mean that it has to be. It is morally, legally and practically wrong to call into question the future status of these five million people, and every candidate for Tory leader should be clear as to why. On June 1 the Vote Leave campaign issued a statement promising that in the event of Brexit there would be “no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK”.

Vote Leave fought and won the campaign on the basis of that promise as well as the undertaking to control immigration. The winners of the referendum cannot break their promise now, and nor can a reluctant Remainer claiming to speak for them. To do so would be tantamount to holding millions hostage to the outcome of a negotiation that promises to be protracted and unpredictable. It would swamp consular authorities in Britain, Spain, Ireland and elsewhere with surges in citizenship applications even greater than they are experiencing already. In theory at least it would raise the spectre of deportation for those stranded without the right papers after withdrawal."

confused as...

Same article is also saying that the rights of EU migrants already established in the UK should be guaranteed too.

May, therefore: minus 1

Which candidate is the Times supporting?

Nobody can promise anything when the negotiations haven't even started.

Leave broke many promises, so why not this one?

Yes, it's morally wrong, but so were all the lies.

+1 for May for telling it how it is.

The point is Bags that the UK government cannot unilaterally decide what will happen to Brits in Europe. They could say that all EU citizens in the UK can stay and then the other countries in Europe could say that all UK citizens have to leave. This is unlikely, I know, but it is possible until there is a negotiated agreement.
And before anyone mentions the Treaty of Vienna, the opinion now is that it probably doesn't apply - and France hadn't signed it anyway.

Subject: EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

A summary of the current state of affairs

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if anyone ever does do it, it will be awful.

Clear? OH and this is probably out of date now??!

I posted that a while back Beam. Definitely needs an update though- a week is a very long time in politics.....