EU Referendum Results

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

26 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

Excuse me? Are you serious? If immigrants will pick the UK among others in the EU it's because of its language. Not the benefits system that are actually not the most generous in Europe. If that was the main reason most Eu citizen would migrate to France for example of Scandinavia. So no, job prospects yes but if you think that migrants come and sit on their ass waiting to get money from the UK you are fooling yourself because unless they contribute by working first they aren't entitled to anything and I say that as someone that used to work in the UK. 

The President of the European Commission has explicitly stated that the UK's generous benefits system is largely to blame for our immigration problems. 

That is simply not true I'm affraid, in order to claim benefits you simply have to maintain a working 'status'. Being on job seekers allowance (which is a form of benefit) is counted as a working 'status' and therefore you only need to be in reciept of benefits to claim further benefits. It is simply untrue that if you are an immigrant you must have a job before you can claim benefits. 

[StrawberryBlond 15,570]

The petition calling for a second referendum calling for a 60% verdict (either way) and at least a 75% turnout has reached over 2.6 million signatures in just 2 days. And it'll stay open until November at all petitions have to last 6 months. The union wants us to get out asap but this is so big that parliament is going to have to sit up and take notice. There has never been a response like this. People scoffed at this petition when it started but now they're starting to become scared as its gathered momentum. If its got this much in 2 days, how much is it going to get in 6 months? Remember that there was only a 1.2 million difference between Leave and Remain. That total has been beaten by 1.4 million who have signed this petition. Have a think about that for a minute. If you look at the map to see where the most votes are coming from (the deeper the colour, the more people voted), there are patches of deep orange all over England, even places that voted Leave, same for Northern Ireland. Scotland doesn't have that much but its picking up.

Remember that when voting is this close, the demand for a re-count in itself is perfectly reasonable. Parliament's never had to deal with anything like this but they're going to have to deal with it even if they don't want to. Those numbers don't lie.

[TiphEret 1,320]

3 hours ago, Saint Laurent said:

The President of the Eiopean Commission has explicitly stated that the, I would not have been able to ask for any kind of benefits actually UK's generous benefits system is largely to blame for our immigration problems. 

That is simply not true I'm affraid, in order to claim benefits you simply have to maintain a working 'status'. Being on job seekers allowance (which is a form of benefit) is counted as a working 'status' and therefore you only need to be in reciept of benefits to claim further benefits. It is simply untrue that if you are an immigrant you must have a job before you can claim benefits. 

Ok well then show me where you get that infos bec I was In the UK not so long ago and claiming benefits was harder for immigrants that have never worked before.

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

The petition calling for a second referendum calling for a 60% verdict (either way) and at least a 75% turnout has reached over 2.6 million signatures in just 2 days. And it'll stay open until November at all petitions have to last 6 months. The union wants us to get out asap but this is so big that parliament is going to have to sit up and take notice. There has never been a response like this. People scoffed at this petition when it started but now they're starting to become scared as its gathered momentum. If its got this much in 2 days, how much is it going to get in 6 months? Remember that there was only a 1.2 million difference between Leave and Remain. That total has been beaten by 1.4 million who have signed this petition. Have a think about that for a minute. If you look at the map to see where the most votes are coming from (the deeper the colour, the more people voted), there are patches of deep orange all over England, even places that voted Leave, same for Northern Ireland. Scotland doesn't have that much but its picking up.

Remember that when voting is this close, the demand for a re-count in itself is perfectly reasonable. Parliament's never had to deal with anything like this but they're going to have to deal with it even if they don't want to. Those numbers don't lie.

There is no constitutional reason to have a second referendum and actually it would be highly undemocratic. Pandering to whining remain supporters would make the majority of the UK loose faith in the Government. There would be national outrage and no politican wants that on their shoulders. 

Also the numbers you've provided are not indicative of anything. It's highly likely that a very large majority, if not all of the signatures on that petition are from people who voted to remain. Therefore, there is very little suggesion that a second referendum would make any difference to the result. 

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

1 hour ago, TiphEret said:

Ok well then show me where you get that infos bec I was In the UK not so long ago and claiming benefits was harder for immigrants that have never worked before.

I live in the UK and am currently undertaking a law degree, but if you don't want to take my word for it, a simple google of the facts might help. 

May I ask you: did you have a job and what was your salary?

[TiphEret 1,320]

46 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

I live in the UK and am currently undertaking a law degree, but if you don't want to take my word for it, a simple google of the facts might help. 

May I ask you: did you have a job and what was your salary?

Yes I did have a job for a little while and my pay was like 6£ something (strangely they are very keen on underpaying foreigners) but then I got fired for some odd reason and lived on my personal savings from France, I couldn't claim any kind of benefits, not that I wanted to and I knew they were very low anyways in comparison to what I would receive in my home country. It's not like it was a factor for me moving there anyways. I know however that if you claim benefits at home and relocate to the UK you can claim it there, and they would get pissed at French because in France the unemployment benefits is a lot higher but they had to give anyway to French citizen because of EU law. I had tons of friends (foreigners) working there while I lived in London and non could claim any sort of benefits besides not paying taxes on housing when you are a students. The only one I knew that were living on benefits where people either naturalized as British or British themselves but it's not like they were swimming in gold anyways. So I always found odd such claims because even in my country such allowances would be easier and higher to get even if you are foreign and don't even start me on Scandinavia it's crazy! The minimum wage is something like 20£ no kidding! But the benefits system is very different.

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

11 hours ago, TiphEret said:

Yes I did have a job for a little while and my pay was like 6£ something (strangely they are very keen on underpaying foreigners) but then I got fired for some odd reason and lived on my personal savings from France, I couldn't claim any kind of benefits, not that I wanted to and I knew they were very low anyways in comparison to what I would receive in my home country. It's not like it was a factor for me moving there anyways. I know however that if you claim benefits at home and relocate to the UK you can claim it there, and they would get pissed at French because in France the unemployment benefits is a lot higher but they had to give anyway to French citizen because of EU law. I had tons of friends (foreigners) working there while I lived in London and non could claim any sort of benefits besides not paying taxes on housing when you are a students. The only one I knew that were living on benefits where people either naturalized as British or British themselves but it's not like they were swimming in gold anyways. So I always found odd such claims because even in my country such allowances would be easier and higher to get even if you are foreign and don't even start me on Scandinavia it's crazy! The minimum wage is something like 20£ no kidding! But the benefits system is very different.

The UK national minimum wage is £6.70 per hour for those 21-24, and £7.20 thereafter so from the figures you have given you were not being underpaid. IF you are earning below £13,000 you can apply for something called 'Working Tax Credits', which usually amount to £1,960, but obviously is calculated based on your income. Also if you are earning below £10,000 you are exempt from paying income tax.

So as an example, you could have been receiving and earning a total of £11,960, which is close to £1,000 per month of tax free money, which is quite a lucrative proposition in itself.

Then of course, it becomes even more lucrative for those who do not want to work, but are actively 'searching for work' (this can be as little as a couple of applications per week). A person seeking work, but not necessarily wanting to find any can receive £73.10 per week (if over 25). If you are on JSA you are also entitled to receive either a council house suitable to your needs, or the Government will pay for you to stay in privately rented accommodation. So there we have somebody who could potentially receive £320 per month of tax free money and have a home to live in, FREE OF CHARGE.

If that isn't a lucrative benefits system I don't know what is.

[StrawberryBlond 15,570]

17 hours ago, Saint Laurent said:

There is no constitutional reason to have a second referendum and actually it would be highly undemocratic. Pandering to whining remain supporters would make the majority of the UK loose faith in the Government. There would be national outrage and no politican wants that on their shoulders. 

Also the numbers you've provided are not indicative of anything. It's highly likely that a very large majority, if not all of the signatures on that petition are from people who voted to remain. Therefore, there is very little suggesion that a second referendum would make any difference to the result. 

Yes, there is a constitutional reason. There was a miniscule difference between either side, it was almost 50/50 when all was said and done. 17 million said leave, 16 million said remain. That isn't "decisive" like some people have called it, that is a nation divided. Plus, 33.8 million voted - that's just over half the country deciding the other half's fate. Turn-out was high but not high enough, with less than 75% for such a big, life-changing vote. The remaining 28% who didn't turn up could have held the key to a different verdict. There needs to be a baseline expectation for such a big vote. If a PM is elected you don't like, you only have to put up with them for 4 years, 8 at most. But this is a forever vote. You can't decide a country's fate based on a gnat's wing of a difference between one side and the other. THAT is undemocratic. This isn't about being a "whining remain supporter," it's about something much bigger. The petition states that regardless of the verdict, they just want it to be at least 60% either way and a turnout of at least 75% in order to declare the verdict valid. There's nothing in it that says "If you're a remain voter who didn't like the result, sign this." It democratically, fairly states that whatever the result is, it will be accepted only if the winning side wins with a clear majority with a bigger turnout rate. Essentially, it could be saying: "If leave wins again, fine, as long as the gap between leave and remain is bigger this time." And there's already national outrage...from the remain supporters who didn't vote for this yet have to deal with it. Doing another referendum won't make things any worse than it already is. An astonishing number of leave voters are saying they wish they could change their minds now and didn't know what they were getting into. If we did it again, the result would be different, trust me. And I bet if the shoe was on the other foot, you leavers would be hopping mad and demanding recounts, let's be real here.

Yes, deniers are trying to say that most, if not all, of these signatures came from areas that voted remain anyway, so doing the referendum again would result in exactly the same as before. Such people simply haven't looked at the map of signatures in detail. All over the place, there are areas that voted leave who have started to have signatures in their thousands (Norfolk and Suffolk was a prime example of this). The whole of England is getting darker and darker orange (the deeper the colour, the more votes cast). The petition is now at 3.4 million votes. The total votes from Scotland, Wales and NI from the referendum total 5,096,581. Soon, this petition could gather more signatures to beat out the amount of votes from 3/4 regions of the UK. It's only 200k away from beating the total votes cast for the Scottish referendum (3.6 million). It's the most successful petition in UK history (the previous record-holder was 2.5 million). Tony Blair's now saying this petition must be taken into consideration. Be in denial all you want. People tend to go into denial when they get scared of what might be.

[TiphEret 1,320]

8 hours ago, Saint Laurent said:

The UK national minimum wage is £6.70 per hour for those 21-24, and £7.20 thereafter so from the figures you have given you were not being underpaid. IF you are earning below £13,000 you can apply for something called 'Working Tax Credits', which usually amount to £1,960, but obviously is calculated based on your income. Also if you are earning below £10,000 you are exempt from paying income tax.

So as an example, you could have been receiving and earning a total of £11,960, which is close to £1,000 per month of tax free money, which is quite a lucrative proposition in itself.

Then of course, it becomes even more lucrative for those who do not want to work, but are actively 'searching for work' (this can be as little as a couple of applications per week). A person seeking work, but not necessarily wanting to find any can receive £73.10 per week (if over 25). If you are on JSA you are also entitled to receive either a council house suitable to your needs, or the Government will pay for you to stay in privately rented accommodation. So there we have somebody who could potentially receive £320 per month of tax free money and have a home to live in, FREE OF CHARGE.

If that isn't a lucrative benefits system I don't know what is.

It was a few years ago, but when you work part time you just can't live with 6£ an hour and some jobs offered me 4£ yes... ridiculous! I didn't pay income tax because as I said I only worked a short time and then lived on my own savings. I don't think 1000£ in London is very lucrative, it's decent but still... 320£ a month? I think you would a lot more in France, but the system is very different as for the house I don't know about it, but literally none of my foreign friends knew about this or where talking advantage of this. We didn't come to London to live for free especially for 320£ a month when I could have get twice the amount in France and even more in most Scandinavian country, and that was my point in the first place. It's not a bad system but in comparison to other countries with better welfare it's quite ridiculous to think that it's what attract foreigners, IMO it's the language and the fact that London is multi cultural with existing communities from almost every country so very likely you would have a friend of a friend living there already. 

[Goosey 3,017]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yes, there is a constitutional reason. There was a miniscule difference between either side, it was almost 50/50 when all was said and done. 17 million said leave, 16 million said remain. That isn't "decisive" like some people have called it, that is a nation divided. Plus, 33.8 million voted - that's just over half the country deciding the other half's fate. Turn-out was high but not high enough, with less than 75% for such a big, life-changing vote. The remaining 28% who didn't turn up could have held the key to a different verdict. There needs to be a baseline expectation for such a big vote. If a PM is elected you don't like, you only have to put up with them for 4 years, 8 at most. But this is a forever vote. You can't decide a country's fate based on a gnat's wing of a difference between one side and the other. THAT is undemocratic. This isn't about being a "whining remain supporter," it's about something much bigger.

 

Like I said... Leave won the referendum. So those demanding a second vote are sore losers. Sour grapes.

What's that? People didn't get out and vote? Turnout was low? Well, that's their problem. If they didn't care enough to vote, they have to live with the result. 

 

Does this apply to elections as well? Tories win, but not enough people got out and voted Labour, so you want to go back and try again?

Um, no.

 

[StrawberryBlond 15,570]

3 minutes ago, Goosey said:

 

Like I said... Leave won the referendum. So those demanding a second vote are sore losers. Sour grapes.

What's that? People didn't get out and vote? Turnout was low? Well, that's their problem. If they didn't care enough to vote, they have to live with the result. 

 

Does this apply to elections as well? Tories win, but not enough people got out and voted Labour, so you want to go back and try again?

Um, no.

 

You clearly didn't read what I just said. You quoted it as well. I said that in the case of referendums, big, life-changing, "forever," votes, there needs to be a bigger majority wanting a change. If a PM gets elected you don't like, you only need to put up with them for a few years. This referendum was a "forever" vote, there's no going back. And no one's ever left the EU, so no one had anything to compare it to when they voted. A vote for such a thing should not be decided on such a small margin. Would you really truly be happy with this result if it was in reverse? Be honest. This life changing vote was foisted on us at the last minute, people didn't have enough time to let the information sink in, not enough people were educated. The run-up to the Scottish referendum, to its credit, at least had more educating for months beforehand. This vote essentially came out of the blue to most of us, we were given about a month's worth of education about it and we were forced into making a decision way too soon without taking time to fully weigh everything up. A big gamble that wasn't thought through properly. It's a disgrace.

[Goosey 3,017]

1 minute ago, StrawberryBlond said:

You clearly didn't read what I just said. You quoted it as well. I said that in the case of referendums, big, life-changing, "forever," votes, there needs to be a bigger majority wanting a change. If a PM gets elected you don't like, you only need to put up with them for a few years. This referendum was a "forever" vote, there's no going back. And no one's ever left the EU, so no one had anything to compare it to when they voted. A vote for such a thing should not be decided on such a small margin. Would you really truly be happy with this result if it was in reverse? Be honest. This life changing vote was foisted on us at the last minute, people didn't have enough time to let the information sink in, not enough people were educated. The run-up to the Scottish referendum, to its credit, at least had more educating for months beforehand. This vote essentially came out of the blue to most of us, we were given about a month's worth of education about it and we were forced into making a decision way too soon without taking time to fully weigh everything up. A big gamble that wasn't thought through properly. It's a disgrace.

You did not have "a month", it was not at the "last minute" or "out of the blue".

Smug David Cameron promised this referendum on January 23rd, 2013.

 

UK Prime Minister David Cameron promised today (23 January) to offer Britons a simple ‘in/out’ referendum choice on whether to stay in the European Union if he wins the next election, scheduled for 2015. 

“It will be an in-out referendum," Cameron explained, saying that he would seek repatriation of several EU laws, and enshrine those in a new treaty to be negotiated with Britain's EU partners.

Source

 

Clearly, to offer the referendum in the first place, Cameron was supremely confident that things would go his way... but they didn't.

[StrawberryBlond 15,570]

2 minutes ago, Goosey said:

You did not have "a month", it was not at the "last minute" or "out of the blue".

Smug David Cameron promised this referendum on January 23rd, 2013.

 

UK Prime Minister David Cameron promised today (23 January) to offer Britons a simple ‘in/out’ referendum choice on whether to stay in the European Union if he wins the next election, scheduled for 2015. 

“It will be an in-out referendum," Cameron explained, saying that he would seek repatriation of several EU laws, and enshrine those in a new treaty to be negotiated with Britain's EU partners.

Source

 

Clearly, to offer the referendum in the first place, Cameron was supremely confident that things would go his way... but they didn't.

It's easy to forget that stuff. Politicians back out of their promises all the time. I only pay extreme attention to politics when a vote affecting me is coming up, like most people. I didn't even have a clue about this referendum until this year. I'm still reeling after the Scottish one. We don't have time to breathe these days before another political onslaught.

[lego 44,165]

 

 

 

 

[Goosey 3,017]

4 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It's easy to forget that stuff. Politicians back out of their promises all the time. I only pay extreme attention to politics when a vote affecting me is coming up, like most people. I didn't even have a clue about this referendum until this year. I'm still reeling after the Scottish one. We don't have time to breathe these days before another political onslaught.

Cameron caused this himself  he didn't need to offer a referendum. He decided to for political advantage. It was a pure gamble. Cameron thought there was absolutely no chance of a Brexit. He just wanted those sweet, sweet Eurosceptic votes. It's been described as an "epic miscalculation".

Entirely David Cameron's fault (or, looking at it the other way, a great change entirely thanks to David Cameron).