Should we be getting behind Brexit by boycotting German cars

[Wills2]

The whole thing is a farce and a waste of time/money and energy, but that's what happens when governments stop governing and hand over responsibility for the country to the man/women on the street.

The OP's question around not buying cars from Germany says it all really.

[nickfrog]

Salamura said:

And why stop at cars? Just boycott everything from Europe! Now, that's a recipe for prosperity!

Yes, protectionism and isolationism has worked really well in the past. A pre-1990s Albania, anyone ?

[Zod]

jsf said:

Zod said:

jsf said:

Zod said:

Your argument is self-defeating: if you have to follow what people vote for, then you can't complain if they are offered another vote and vote differently. Why 40 years? We re-elect Parliament every five years.

I am sure you can work out why 40 years.

Shouldn’t it be 41 then?

Nope, it was 1975 to 2016 for the last time gap = 41 years
We had our referendum last year, so 40 years from now equals that out.

Thank you. Unusually for a lawyer, I have maths A Level. I assumed you meant 40 years from the last referendum.

It's an absurd postulation in any case. There is no logic whatsoever to justify the conclusion that a 41 year gap between first and second referenda mandates the same gap before any third referendum.

[RobM77]

TooMany2cvs said:

Ron99 said:

Accounting for just 10% of the EU population, the UK voters would have been an insignificant minority voice in the EU thereafter; unable to set their own policies and unable to have a significant influence on EU policies.

The UK has been an "insignificant minority" since we joined - when we were 56m in an EEC of just under 270m.

It's also worth pointing out that the UK has the third largest number of MEPs in the EP:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/im...

[Killboy]

RobM77 said:

It's also worth pointing out that the UK has the third largest number of MEPs in the EP:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/im...

Well now we will have none..... and no say in our biggest market? lol. Take that for trying to "govern" us.

[anonymous-user]

Killboy said:

RobM77 said:

It's also worth pointing out that the UK has the third largest number of MEPs in the EP:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/im...

Well now we will have none..... and no say in our biggest market? lol. Take that for trying to "govern" us.

The irony of the Morlocks always voting in MEPs who didn't believe in the EU and didn't actually turn up to do their job, and then moaning about how the EU doesn't achieve anything always amused me.

[Salamura]

dme123 said:

The irony of the Morlocks always voting in MEPs who didn't believe in the EU and didn't actually turn up to do their job, and then moaning about how the EU doesn't achieve anything always amused me.

Or moaning how the EU doesn't achieve anything, but jumping just at the mention of further integration and more centralised power over national governments... Schizophrenia of the highest degree.

[anonymous-user]

Oh great ANOTHER brexit thread.

Up next, here's another EV thread to whet your appetite PH.

Kill. Me. Now.

[Hungrymc]

TooMany2cvs said:

Ron99 said:

I felt that if there had been three options, the outcome would have been very different.

1. Leave.
2. Remain and continue as we are.
3. Remain and head for full integration.

I feared that a vote to remain would be taken by politicians (current or next government) as a signal to carry out option 3.
Therefore I voted option 1.
If there had been an option 2, I think it would have achieved an overwhelming majority.

Surely a fourth...

1. Leave completely.
2. Leave, but remain inside single market or EEA.
3. Remain and continue as we are.
4. Remain and head for full integration.

Trouble is, you get to that level of detail, and you start to actually assume a reliable level of factual understanding on the part of the electorate. We all know what the level of that was this time round.

And that's why Referenda are inherently flawed for complex questions.

They would indeed have been far more balanced questions (if ultimately outside of our power to offer) and I suspect most people’s concern about their own depth of understanding would have lead to 3.

2. Was pretty much what the Brexit campaign promised (yes, we know it was lies)

And this is why we should focus our disappointment on Juncker and Cameron. Juncker will not entertain the idea of any direction other than ever closer integration so would concede nothing. And Cameron tried to manipulate and control the electorate by offering a referendum with only one sensible possible result so that he could deflect any blame from himself for the future direction of Europe (As Ron is saying above). To roll that dice, and then fight such a dismal campaign to allow this result based on so many false promises was criminal. And as for neither major party offering a remain option at May’s ridiculous general election.... Words fail me.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

TooMany2cvs said:

<nods>
No rebate.
No Euro opt-out.
No Schengen opt-out.

And that's just a start.

To be honest, had we voted to remain I would be arguing that we should get on board with all of that anyway, and stop being sniping malcontents on the periphery perpetually wanting to be a special case and trying to slow the progress of EU integration. Properly, enthusiastically in, or out.

But then we would have found fellow members using thier veto. As a Nation we were never content with the EU Membership. Stuck with it for 40 years though. Hard to be
i eve that we were nigh top of the tree contributers, but then we did receive some back. Looking at the Whole deal now imho the EU will be no more within ten years, Social unrest, financial pain amongst workers, gross unemployment of the young. And that s within the caring sharing EU.

[otolith]

Salamura said:

Why stop at German?

They bombed our chippy.

[anonymous-user]

Zod said:

jsf said:

Zod said:

jsf said:

Zod said:

Your argument is self-defeating: if you have to follow what people vote for, then you can't complain if they are offered another vote and vote differently. Why 40 years? We re-elect Parliament every five years.

I am sure you can work out why 40 years.

Shouldn’t it be 41 then?

Nope, it was 1975 to 2016 for the last time gap = 41 years
We had our referendum last year, so 40 years from now equals that out.

Thank you. Unusually for a lawyer, I have maths A Level. I assumed you meant 40 years from the last referendum.

It's an absurd postulation in any case. There is no logic whatsoever to justify the conclusion that a 41 year gap between first and second referenda mandates the same gap before any third referendum.

I studied Applied Mathematics and Physics at A level, then went on to study electronics, I think my pre school mathematics could have worked that one out though.

It's as logical as any other reason given for another referendum, at least by then we will know what we are joining as I would expect either full federal integration or complete disintegration would have occurred by then.

UK never had a referendum on joining the EEC, the referendum was to remain members after the government took the UK in without a vote on the matter. We then didn't have a vote on changing the system from the EEC to the EU, we were due to have a referendum on the EU constitution but when other countries rejected that, it was abandoned before our turn to vote on it came about. We then saw that constitution rewritten as a treaty so it didn't need a referendum. Brown snuck in the back door late to sign that so he wouldn't appear in the photos, the coward that he was. But being a smart chap no doubt you know that.

[anonymous-user]

With regards to the OP, any change in buying habits is far more likely to be based on sentiment and economics than any conscious decision. Buying a major purchase such as a car is as much an emotive experience as it is a financial one. If the purchase of the product has some doubts sewn, for example if the buyer thinks the UK was unfairly treated for leaving the EU, their subconscious will colour that decision towards alternatives.

It doesn't need a conscious decision to make a buying pattern change. This is why its important for all parties to come out of this with an agreement that seems fair to most people, to not do so risks future buying habits changing, even of the economics don't change.

[Pistachio]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pistachio said:

when I saw it first saw title I thought it was to create a special edition based on Geoffrey Boycott

VW already make a car especially for Yorkshire.

,

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I am sure you can see I'm playing with you on the exact 40 years figure. It's more a position of it needs to be a long time, because the UK cant afford the uncertainty a short term potential turn around would introduce. Business needs to see that there is no chance of things changing again within the time frame it needs to make any investment decision viable.

You see this in Scotland, where companies wont invest because there is the constant threat of an independence vote. It's tragic.

[Zod]

Nobody believes there is any chance of another independence vote in Scotland until some time in the middle of the next decade.

[Toltec]

jsf said:

UK never had a referendum on joining the EEC, the referendum was to remain members after the government took the UK in without a vote on the matter. We then didn't have a vote on changing the system from the EEC to the EU, we were due to have a referendum on the EU constitution but when other countries rejected that, it was abandoned before our turn to vote on it came about. We then saw that constitution rewritten as a treaty so it didn't need a referendum. Brown snuck in the back door late to sign that so he wouldn't appear in the photos, the coward that he was. But being a smart chap no doubt you know that.

There we have the reason why a number of the people I know ended up voting to leave.

[anonymous-user]

Zod said:

Nobody believes there is any chance of another independence vote in Scotland until some time in the middle of the next decade.

Found this with Google in less than 1 second. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15172016.Tycoon...

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

You see this in Scotland, where companies wont invest because there is the constant threat of an independence vote. It's tragic.

They wont invest because the population drink meths and are a curious shade of blue.

[otolith]

yonex said:

They wont invest because the population drink meths and are a curious shade of blue.

That's what happens when you can't afford lighter fluid.