Simples. Slap another Ten Quid a packet on cigarettes. Tax the insane.

Though getting advice for the best - at enormous cost - I wonder if these two are the best choices to invoke/implement Brexit.

Or to guide us through the forthcoming post-Brexit era. However the economy is doing well - with unemployment and interest rates low.

But they - on our behalf - must keep what we have, and have a business retention strategy to keep the international giants.


Sadly UBS want (it was announced today) to be based in an EU country...

Yes if I ran a company I'd move to Europe. If I was Scottish (or Ulster) I'd vote to leave the UK. England decided it wanted to be racist. I don't like that. Even though London said "remain" and we love all skin colours, religions and people except loonies.

JK2006 wrote:
If I was Scottish (or Ulster) I'd vote to leave the UK


Take Ulster/Northern Ireland, for instance.

Which costs the UK Exchequer £1 billion every month - just to meet their net deficit.

If they were daft enough to leave the UK - who would match our generosity?

JK2006 wrote:
England decided it wanted to be racist. I don't like that.
Most people who voted Leave probably don't like to be called racist or xenophobic and might say they voted Leave for other reasons* but the tone of the Leave campaign was clear: let's take back control (from foreigners), let's take back control of our borders (and keep the foreigners out). It's hard to see the difference between racists/xenophobes (e.g. BNP, EDL, Britain First, UKIP, who were all supporting Leave) and people whose votes were identical when they landed in the ballot box. Immigration and taking back control from foreigners were key issues for the Leave campaign and people had a choice of which camp they wanted to side with.

* or myths: EU mythbusters by Richard Corbett MEP (Labour)

Yes whilst I do believe many who voted Leave did so for other reasons a) there should never have been a referendum on so trivial an issue and b) the main thrust of the argument against was NOT economic as it should have been but immigration which, in many subtle ways, involves racism.

Please explain to me how wanting to break away from the control of the mainly white European EU is racist but wanting to break away from the United Kingdom is okay?

Uncontrolled immigration from within the EU means that we have to imposed greater restrictions on those coming from outside i.e. non-white people. Surely greater control of our own borders means we will be able to open up to more immigration from Commonwealth countries. Too many people seem to confuse the EU with the Syrian migrant crisis which has been exacerbated by open borders.

I think many of those who voted LEAVE did so because they do not want foreigners entering the UK and taking our jobs and money in benefits. Let then stay in camps in Europe. I think that is a bad attitude.

SpectrumIsGreen wrote:
Please explain to me how wanting to break away from the control of the mainly white European EU is racist but wanting to break away from the United Kingdom is okay?
Wanting to break away from the EU is more xenophobic than racist, in my view, (though the Leave campaigners didn't exactly go out of their way to distinguish between EU immigration and immigration from the rest of the world) and based on the myth that the EU (of which the UK is a part and enjoys special privileges) controls us (see link about EU myths above). Wanting to break away from xenophobes and/or people who happily side with them seems understandable to me.

Plus, those who want to 'break free' from the 'control' of Brussels should sympathise with those who want to do the same with respect to Westminster. Call me cynical, but I suspect that when people who have a problem with European migrants imply that they would welcome more immigrants from Commonwealth countries, they really mean Canada, Australia and New Zealand rather than Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, or the multitude of other non-white countries in the Commonwealth.