Brexit and moving London forward

We need fast and fierce action to nip the rising tide of racist attacks in the bud. Windows of shops with 'foreign' owners/managers are smashed in Lewisham; there are people in Hackney who haven't dared go out for several days because they are immediately subjected to racist abuse on the streets. It is everywhere.

You are continuing with the line that London can be separate from the UK. I wish people would forget this line and give us here suggestions that work for the UK as a whole after Brexit. Do you mean after the Bombings in '39 etc or the bombings by the IRA. The War bombings were received patriotically by the Media and population at that time and everyone responded with a positive attitude, by the time of the IRA terrorists the British media had changed and was not so patriotic against this enemy, and therefor did not promote a common attitude to the population. Then more recently the Muslim bombers at Kings Cross,
great emphasis was put on the mixed ethnicity of the killed and injured as if that was the most important thing about those bombings. Where was the 'Community', there isn't One!
Only selfish perceived interests for London. Don't keep on about London being different, it is as the Capital and the Largest city in Europe, not because there are many non Brits here. This pushing of ethnicity by the Mass Media and many writers here does not help with good ideas to keep London ahead of others Financial Centres. London needs to be Efficient and show our traditional British/ English culture which as been respected all over the world, unfortunately the over emphasis on its Multicultural life does detract from that image. Keep London's reputation as a city which brings together the best brains of Britain and don't get side tracked with fighting against a positive future for Brexit.

There would be huge problems with the rest of England wanting secure borders all round London.

OK so why don' we start a petition NOW that the country's future is being shaped? One against multinational organisations rules that keep us in the dark and want to control us behind our backs?
But be aware in the day of instant gratification, when people want to have cheap goods, newest iPhone, biggest TV, cheap flights, this will hurt their every day pockets. It will however, be easier to implement wages on which you can live without stressing where is the money for the next bill coming from, without worry whether you will still have a job tomorrow. Maybe we need to start with advertising against consumerism, which is so very bad for this planet. Maybe we should start with campaigning on reducing population, which is expanding to earth's destruction.

" a predictable outcome" is not something the average voter would have been aware of."

The ONS reports that the average adult today has the abilities in literacy, numeracy and comprehension of an 11 year old child. Eleven year olds are still sticking heir hands into fire to see if it hurts.. It is for this reason that Britain has a representational democracy, while a referendum is simply the expression of inadequate understanding.

Harmonising laws is not done to 'suit other countries' exclusively they are a result of compromise on the part of all the countries involved.

At the time Britain had just gone through the destruction of the Sterling Area because the various countries all wanted to retain their own standards, their own unharmonised laws, their own self interest, it was clear that in order to function without trade barriers laws had to be harmonised.

But, the average voter today or even then simply did not want to know about 'the Sterling Area' but would prefer to repeat the errors of (then ) an immediate past because "it sounded good"

You criticise human rights law, but you haven't specified which of those laws, which we ought to remember were initially created and put forward by Britain, you would be happy to do without.. Moreover the complaint would be more impressive if it did not resort to misrepresentation to back up the reasons:
The RouteMaster bus was removed because the open rear platform constituted an obvious safety risk, and in a litigious society where people were being held responsible for unsafe practices, no bus company or council could fund the compensation claims.

The controlled size of bananas was a trade description. What the directive actually says (you clearly haven't read it) is that categories of bananas can only be sold if properly described. So one could not sell 'dollar' bananas as 'caribbean' bananas or describe 'small' bananas as 'large', and defined what constitued dollar, caribbean, small and large when applied to bananas. The problem was simply that the supermarkets and journalists of a certain disreputability made up a story that the word 'class', used in the context of a group like a school class, was used in the context of quality, as in "first class". One can suspect that this was simply deliberate, the supermarkets used it as an excuse to sell the cheaper 'dollar' bananas at the same price as the more expensive 'Caribbean' bananas, claiming that 'the EU won't allow us to sell Caribbean banans as they are in the same class as Dollar bananas". They relied on the misrepresentations put forward by journalists and the lack of ability or inclination of the 'average adult' to research the facts.

There are no restrictions on trading partners between companies. However no company may break the law as regards the export of goods or the import of goods and the quotas, charges and tariffs that may apply. This has long been the law in Britain, for example, where evading taxes due on the import of goods is called 'smuggling'. Equally, by international agreement, countries cannot simply break trade treaties which they have signed with other countries in order to 'undercut' other signatories of that same agreement. This isn't simply the resul;t of the EU, but is explicit in agreements like the World Trade Organisation, to which the UK is a signatory..

" it is still unacceptable that the EU was sold, promoted and informed very deliberately as a common market. After all, it is common folk and not law makers who voted for us to join."

However it seems clear that the Brexit politicians told lies, distortions and misrepresentations and the fact that the majority of people voting in the referendum admit that they didn't have any clear understanding what they were voting about is acceptable.

The truth is that the whole country voted. Just because the majority ( which could only be 3 %,,). Of certain parts voted against brexit is neither here or there. It was a vote out. The media and some politicians are the cause if " divisions". Do we hold another general election because the voters may have been misled?
Let's leave the u government but remain in reasonable terms with Europe.
We may not get the best terms but we will trade with Europe and the rest of the world. There us not enough space or time to discuss everything but everyone who voted out knew it was not going to be an easy ride.