Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.


Recommended Posts

There's even more than usual "You're an idiot if what matters to you isn't what matters to me!" that passes for Remainer "logic" here this morning, usually with little apparent thought given to why something matters to them, "duh, it's money innit?" being about the peak of it. Throw in a very dogmatic attitude (and some say Leave is like a religion?!) and you really do end up with a very unappealing bunch of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 135.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GrizzlyDave

    9502

  • Confusion of VIs

    7416

  • jonb2

    5732

  • thehowler

    5043

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I do.   https://twitter.com/housepricemania

1409 pages....you guys should have your own forum !!!

Oh OK. Shame that really, but hey it looks like @IMHAL helped us both out. Nice repost though, thanks ! Any thoughts ?  

Posted Images

33 minutes ago, slawek said:

In London suburbia where I live there is a house waving a St George flag on a mast in the neighborhood with people from around the world, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Poles. I think the guy feels to be under siege and this is his way to mark a spot as English among surrounding "barbarians". A desperate attempt to cling to the old world.       

I disagree, I think England is one of the least flag waving countries out there. Go to most countries and you'll see far more national flags being waved. Go to Scotland and you'll see the Saltire being flown and rightfully, nobody accuses the Scottish of being racist little Scotlanders. There is something very PC police about having a go at someone who flies St Georges fag in England.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of festive fun this morning. A quick quiz that all the family can enjoy!

Who said...

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

And also...

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Save me from the madness! said:

I disagree, I think England is one of the least flag waving countries out there. Go to most countries and you'll see far more national flags being waved. Go to Scotland and you'll see the Saltire being flown and rightfully, nobody accuses the Scottish of being racist little Scotlanders. There is something very PC police about having a go at someone who flies St Georges fag in England.

This is an anecdote. I haven't accused anyone of racism. I've proposed nostalgia, problems with adaption to changes as a possible motives behind this behaviour. Putting a flag on a mast in a garden is a symptom of a problem, not a problem itself.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IMHAL said:

It was fun. I enjoy their company and love them dearly. I received a more honest and open view, a clearer insight and a better idea of the key driver to what makes brexit tick.

They are also curious - because of confirmation biase, they have gravitated to a single source of information. My view for them was very different to their perceived reality. 

That's a relief. Your initial post sounded a little like you'd gone round to lecture some old folk about Brexit for Christmas.

Don't forget futuroid's point about everyone having their own personal Brexit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Futuroid said:

A bit of festive fun this morning. A quick quiz that all the family can enjoy!

Who said...

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

And also...

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge."

You make a very valid point. The referendum presented two options, one tested which is remain,, and one untested which is whatever leave morphs into.

We are about to see if the untested option is even viable. That is why I classed the result of the referendum as a negative vote - it was not a vote for an alternative to the eu, it was a vote for 'not the eu'. 'Not the eu' is not an alternative, it simply an expression of dissatisfaction. A democratic vote can only be valid if two or more viable alternative are presented. This was not the case with brexit.

Edited by IMHAL
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

1409 pages....you guys should have your own forum !!!

At the time of writing, according to that poll thingy at the top right of my screen, 303 votes and

6.27% voted Remain but now want to Leave

4.29% voted Leave but now want to Remain

So overall very little net movement. 

We are a selected population on here, so it's arguable if this would be reflected if there were another referendum.  But if it were, there's no evidence of a big switch to Remain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, kzb said:

At the time of writing, according to that poll thingy at the top right of my screen, 303 votes and

6.27% voted Remain but now want to Leave

4.29% voted Leave but now want to Remain

So overall very little net movement. 

We are a selected population on here, so it's arguable if this would be reflected if there were another referendum.  But if it were, there's no evidence of a big switch to Remain.

Compared with the National result were clearly have a strong leave bias. If you correct for this those numbers indicate a very small swing to Remain.

However, according to the recent poll that indicated a larger swing to Remain, this isn't being caused by people changing their minds, rather it is the effect or new voters being around 80% Remain replacing the now ex voters who were around 80% Leave. 

Edited by Confusion of VIs
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

You make a very valid point. The referendum presented two options, one tested which is remain,, and one untested which is whatever leave morphs into.

We are about to see if the untested option is even viable. That is why I classed the result of the referendum as a negative vote - it was not a vote for an alternative to the eu, it was a vote for 'not the eu'. 'Not the eu' is not an alternative, it simply an expression of dissatisfaction. A democratic vote can only be valid if two or more viable alternative are presented. This was not the case with brexit.

You make a somewhat valid point, but the problem is that as far as I can see there's no way of knowing what that alternative will be is until the process has been gone through; it's rather chicken and egg.

How do you avoid using such an argument to resist changing anything, ever, particularly when the ones in power at the time favour the status quo? All they have to do to maintain it then is refuse to offer an alternative (or deliberately come up with a bad one).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

You make a somewhat valid point, but the problem is that as far as I can see there's no way of knowing what that alternative will be is until the process has been gone through; it's rather chicken and egg.

How do you avoid using such an argument to resist changing anything, ever, particularly when the ones in power at the time favour the status quo? All they have to do to maintain it then is refuse to offer an alternative (or deliberately come up with a bad one).

I would have thought that a referendum of such gravity would warrant a significant amount of homework. That would have revealed, wto, norway and a few others perhaps, we also now have canada.

The eu made perfectly clear that there would be no cherry picking, so no mixing and matching and no negotiation. If these alternatives where presented, together with pros and cons plus staying in the eu then this would be a valid referendum.

If you ask people if they are dissatisfied with the status quo (which is what brexit was), then you are likely to get lots of votes for all sorts of different reasons - this however is not democracy - At best it is a mandate to look at what the drivers for dissatisfaction are and come up with any viable alternatives/solutions.

Edited by IMHAL
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Futuroid said:

A bit of festive fun this morning. A quick quiz that all the family can enjoy!

Who said...

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

And also...

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge."

Were they from politicians who want moar and moar power?

The most democratic country in the world seems to do fine with many referedums a year.

Perhaps they work less well for a constitutional monarchy with a FPTP system - voters here aren't used to democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

You make a somewhat valid point, but the problem is that as far as I can see there's no way of knowing what that alternative will be is until the process has been gone through; it's rather chicken and egg.

How do you avoid using such an argument to resist changing anything, ever, particularly when the ones in power at the time favour the status quo? All they have to do to maintain it then is refuse to offer an alternative (or deliberately come up with a bad one).

Going by their logic we shouldn't have joined the EU in the first place. :lol:

Oh no wait - I assume this is one of those amazing remain things that only works in one direction......

Saying there is no 'tested' alternative is to say that being outside the EU is 'untested'. Which his isn't. Plenty of countries do just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ccc said:

Going by their logic we shouldn't have joined the EU in the first place. :lol:

Oh no wait - I assume this is one of those amazing remain things that only works in one direction......

Saying there is no 'tested' alternative is to say that being outside the EU is 'untested'. Which his isn't. Plenty of countries do just fine.

The thing is....when we voted to join the eu, the terms of reference where know, there for all to see. It was clear what the destination was, it was also clear what the status quo was.

That is clearly not the case here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The thing is....when we voted to join the eu, the terms of reference where know, there for all to see. It was clear what the destination was, it was also clear what the status quo was.

That is clearly not the case here.

 

We've never voted to join the EU - the only EU related vote was the recent referendum.

Some - now - old people voted to join the Common Market. As they are now old, they are therefore stupid (probably racist too) and should therefore have their votes taken back. I demand a 2nd referendum on joining the common market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, highYield said:

We've never voted to join the EU - the only EU related vote was the recent referendum.

Some - now - old people voted to join the Common Market. As they are now old, they are therefore stupid (probably racist too) and should therefore have their votes taken back. I demand a 2nd referendum on joining the common market.

Yes true... all organisations change... we where part of the decision making process that brought about that change. The point is that we knew what we were joining when we voted to join the cm and we had a say in making changes to it moving forwards. 

Brexit could not be more different - we still have no idea what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The thing is....when we voted to join the eu, the terms of reference where know, there for all to see. It was clear what the destination was, it was also clear what the status quo was.

That is clearly not the case here.

 

Once the deal is done it will be. 

Presumably at some point those Leavers  who don’t care if in or out is better and those who do will split.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Yes true... all organisations change... we where part of the decision making process that brought about that change. The point is that we knew what we were joining when we voted to join the cm and we had a say in making changes to it moving forwards. 

Brexit could not be more different - we still have no idea what it is.

Joking aside, maybe old peoples' views shouldn't be discarded.

By my reckoning, anyone who voted in the EC referendum is now 60 at the youngest.

Isn't it possible that most of the over 60s are trying to undo their 1st chance at democracy (EC referendum) by their 2nd chance (EU referendum)? Most have children, many grandkids by now. All the old people I know care about their grandchilden above everything, even their children.

People who don't live in a true democracy **** up democratic decisions because... they're not used to democracy. Democracy means power to the individual - when one has some tiny power, one cares about using it. No power? Whatever.

Even for the even older ones, 'we won the war' (not IMHAL's quote, but someone else's) can't be the root of their sceptical stance. The children of the war generation would have heard for most of their young lives the real, at home, results of the second world war. They voted on the EC referendum too, and have viewed the results over 3 more decades of their lives.

The very oldies have children and grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren. They want the best for them.

I don't think that the EC referendum generation can be collectively described as stupid old racists.

It's funny how in many other cultures the older generations' views are regarded as wisdom, often being highly respected.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Polish translator accidentally dubs Theresa May 'Madam Brexit'

An interpreter gave the Prime Minister the nickname during a joint press conference with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. And the PM could not help smiling as she heard the translation.

Part of the speech was translated as: "Because as Madam Brexit said, Brexit is Brexit..." ES

 

What a faux pas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 428 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.