Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

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

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

"When it ceased to exist two years ago" -  :lol:

Real, actual member of Question Time audience in 2016;

"What's the point of being in a union that won't exist in a couple of years time?"

😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, crouch said:

No deal is based on the precautionary principle and would, I would have thought been first on any agenda.

I quite agree that the backstop is no small matter; it is not a "confected" issue.. What is interesting is that I understand that the EU themselves are investigating this in the context of a prospective no deal

In Sir Ivan's view No Deal was never a credible threat. Why would anyone spend hard earned money preparing for an event that would have a substantial negative impact and be self inflicted...... by our own government..... who are supposed to have our interests at heart.

You are too wrapped up in this collective fantasy.... Brexit continues to be a bad script with bad actors....making for a lousy performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

there's no evidence that in the long term, they want to be politically isolated from the rest of Europe.

Quite correct - and we won't be.

Share this post


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

In Sir Ivan's view No Deal was never a credible threat. Why would anyone spend hard earned money preparing for an event that would have a substantial negative impact and be self inflicted...... by our own government..... who are supposed to have our interests at heart.

You are too wrapped up in this collective fantasy.... Brexit continues to be a bad script with bad actors....making for a lousy performance.

You cannot see the quite unconscious arrogance of all this. I'm not wrapped up in any "collective fantasy" at all. It does indeed continue to be a bad performance but I'm afraid whether it's a bad script is a matter of opinion and that is something you simply cannot get past. It is not delusional - do you really think a deluded person would have posted those video links - hardly comfortable viewing for leavers?

I believe that wanting to stay is misguided but quite rational but why should the converse not be?  We existed before we joined the EU and one day that will not exist but life will go on. You and many others seem to take the utterly absurd view that it isn't possible to leave the EU and be just as well off, drawn in broad terms (non economic and economic) and that is a fact that is undeniable. It isn't a fact and it is deniable and is not irrational. but you simply cannot admit that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, crouch said:

What the videos say is that the whole process so far has been a disaster - which it has. 

What they also say is that the politicians are not being straight with people and telling them that there are trade offs - which they are not.

What they also say is that getting to an acceptable position is going to be long and perhaps very hard - which it may well be.

All of this presents a litany of difficult and time consuming problems. But these do not mean that people suddenly if faced with this decide to cancel Brexit. There is a very deep and wide Euroscepticism in this country: many are not comfortable being in the EU and do not like where it's going and, at the end of the day will consider the trials and tribulations worth it.

That is not delusion: in polite circles it's called choice and I'm afraid is just as valid as yours.

My arguement is that people where not given an economic model as an alternative to Remain before the referendum. Sir Ivan points out that this was a deliberate ploy to secure the totality of leave votes. Which is disingenuous (my words). 

Given that we eventually have to decide on an economic model, we will have to be told the truth regarding the compromises that we will have to make (and I believe that Sir Ivan says that these will be pretty much all to our detriment...). Given that many leavers will be unhappy that their own personal unicorn will not be delivered to them on a silver platter... I can imagine that had that reality been commuicated to them..... when people had a choice .......they might have chosen differently. 

When we eventually get to settle on an alternative economic model... I believe that project fear can be put to bed and there will be an apetite to debate the reality of our situation rather the current hypotheticals of a multitude of fantasy Brexits.

I like the fact that Sir Ivan menations Alice in Wonderland quite a few times in his talks about Brexit...... :D 

Share this post


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

You cannot see the quite unconscious arrogance of all this. I'm not wrapped up in any "collective fantasy" at all. It does indeed continue to be a bad performance but I'm afraid whether it's a bad script is a matter of opinion and that is something you simply cannot get past. It is not delusional - do you really think a deluded person would have posted those video links - hardly comfortable viewing for leavers?

I believe that wanting to stay is misguided but quite rational but why should the converse not be? 

1 - We existed before we joined the EU and one day that will not exist but life will go on.

2 - You and many others seem to take the utterly absurd view that it isn't possible to leave the EU and be just as well off, drawn in broad terms (non economic and economic) and that is a fact that is undeniable. It isn't a fact and it is deniable and is not irrational. but you simply cannot admit that.

1 - Trite... and meaningless.

2 - Sir Ivan has pointed out the current risks of getting a Brexit that works (and they are significant and real).... A Brexit that works is not going to be better economicaly than remain. The largest none economic factor was immigration... something we could have controlled through other means.

You are simply off the scale when it comes to delusion and denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Republic of Ireland would have to build border inspection posts if it wanted to continue importing food from Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, a report has concluded.

The study was commissioned by NI's Department for the Economy.

The EU has strict rules for checking imports of animals and food products at its borders.

Those products must come through inspection posts in the immediate vicinity of the point of entry.

Ireland currently has border inspection posts (BIPS) at Dublin Airport Port, Dublin Port and Shannon Airport.

what about the technology solutions 😄

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48602075

 

Share this post


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

Sir Ivan has pointed out the current risks of getting a Brexit that works (and they are significant and real).... A Brexit that works is not going to be better economicaly than remain. The largest none economic factor was immigration... something we could have controlled through other means.

No one - certainly not me - has denied the risks and difficulty of Brexit; it will be very difficult.

As to there being a Brexit that works being worse than remain is purely speculative; there is no evidence for that at all - and cannot be.

We could have had better control of immigration but not complete control and certainly not enough control.

That you have to use pejorative terms to characterise someone else's opinions means that your arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own - which is indeed the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smash said:

Feck Business !

I think this is deeper and is a hidden policy of the Tories. Boris just let the cat out of the bag.

We have investment bankers, hedge funds, private equity companies, tax avoiders, oligarchs  and arms sales. Enough money floating about for the Tories to enrich themselves by associating with enabling the deals. Who cares about normal business - when there is no money in it for the Tory talking heads and their mates. Parallel universes - them and us.

All other things are merely just empty words and pointless actions to keep the populace at rest. Nicely wrapped food parcels with no calories.

And so it goes on.

Share this post


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

My arguement is that people where not given an economic model as an alternative to Remain before the referendum. Sir Ivan points out that this was a deliberate ploy to secure the totality of leave votes. Which is disingenuous (my words). 

Why should they? You continually refuse to understand that most people voted Leave because they wanted just that - leave. The rest was up to the politicians; after all that's what they're paid for. They didn't vote for a particular form of Brexit because most didn't, and probably still don't, regard that as particularly important - they just want out. The possible alternatives were talked about but not voted upon.

 

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

Given that we eventually have to decide on an economic model, we will have to be told the truth regarding the compromises that we will have to make (and I believe that Sir Ivan says that these will be pretty much all to our detriment...). Given that many leavers will be unhappy that their own personal unicorn will not be delivered to them on a silver platter... I can imagine that had that reality been commuicated to them..... when people had a choice .......they might have chosen differently. 

Maybe;maybe not. I suspect the vast majority will not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, crouch said:

That you have to use pejorative terms to characterise someone else's opinions means that your arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own - which is indeed the case.

Always tempting to say that but for the sake of fairness I'd say that people inevitably start to resort to them whenever they get frustrated, which inevitably happens when you've got a fundamental clash of values where no side will ever budge.

It's only when people start off like that that it's apparent they're mentally incapable of understanding anything other than their own immediate impulses and therefore have nothing valid to say about someone else's opinions (of course they might be like that anyway but just managing to be polite to begin with).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, crouch said:

Why should they? You continually refuse to understand that most people voted Leave because they wanted just that - leave. The rest was up to the politicians; after all that's what they're paid for. They didn't vote for a particular form of Brexit because most didn't, and probably still don't, regard that as particularly important - they just want out. The possible alternatives were talked about but not voted upon.

I'm not sure I can agree with you there.  To take any decision on a rational basis it is necessary to have some understanding of the likely consequences of each of the options that you have to choose from.

Would you have expected the referendum result to have been the same if the Leave option had been "Leave - even if it results in the UK going back to the stone age".  (I am exaggerating for effect btw 😉).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

I'm not sure I can agree with you there.  To take any decision on a rational basis it is necessary to have some understanding of the likely consequences of each of the options that you have to choose from.

Would you have expected the referendum result to have been the same if the Leave option had been "Leave - even if it results in the UK going back to the stone age".  (I am exaggerating for effect btw 😉).

A rational basis is shaped around what you happen to desire rather than something that informs you what is desirable - the means to an end rather than the end. The arguments tend to be around "I think that the likely consequences to the things I personally value and desire will be poor therefore your choice was not rational," which is generally a sign of being unable to grasp that different things really do matter to different people differently (this is often apparent with people who cannot comprehend the intangible mattering to some people and consequently dismissing it, even though it can have a significant impact on the happiness of the people it does matter to - again, you can't rationalise desirability, only the means to the end of achieving it and balancing the various sometimes contradicting factors towards different desirabilities).

And of course how much various factors come in to play matter depending upon the degree, which is why you have to be careful with exaggerations. Such exaggerations are useful to get people to recognise that there's a point at which something becomes a concern but they tend to get used to imply that it should be the only concern.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, crouch said:

Why should they? You continually refuse to understand that most people voted Leave because they wanted just that - leave. The rest was up to the politicians; after all that's what they're paid for. They didn't vote for a particular form of Brexit because most didn't, and probably still don't, regard that as particularly important - they just want out. The possible alternatives were talked about but not voted upon.

 

Maybe;maybe not. I suspect the vast majority will not care.

Who know's, they where never given an option to vote for so we will never know. More, they were not given a fleshed out option as a means of capturing the maximum leave voters irrespective of what they personally though t Brexit is and is not. That is slight of hand. Once that is acknowledged then the debate can move on.... 

The fact that some of all of them may not have cared what Brexit option is implemented in entirely speculation on your part. What we can say for certain is that they were not given a choice .... it is my firm belief that this will be re-visited, more from necessity rather than through want.

Edited by IMHAL

Share this post


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

I'm not sure I can agree with you there.  To take any decision on a rational basis it is necessary to have some understanding of the likely consequences of each of the options that you have to choose from.

Can you define "consequences"? In terms of broad alternatives there are not many - see Barnier's diagram which shows broad options. Are you talking about something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/06/2019 at 16:36, Bruce Banner said:

Damn, Labour seeking to pass a new law to prevent a Tory PM proroguing Parliament to force a no deal Brexit on August 31st.

I was hoping that McVey, or another loopy prime ministerial hopeful, would get elected and try just that before being stopped in their tracks by Parliament thus forcing the revocation of A50 and a general election.

Labour shooting themselves in the foot again :(, they should've kept their powder dry.

 

 

It didn't pass so McVey is still in with a chance :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Riedquat said:

You can at least vote for someone campaigning to do something about something you have an issue with if it comes from Westminster. One voice is still a voice, you're effectively saying "couldn't care less about democracy."

Brussels is democratically accountable. The leader of the European Commission is chosen by the member state governments, legislation goes through the European Parliament and the EU Council (made up of the member state governments) etc. There is no part of the EU institutions that doesn't ultimately answer to a democratically elected body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kzb said:

I was sent that news by email.  I just thought I would post it to stir things up.

Whatever the truth of it, there is a petition about electoral fraud been launched.  When you have 10,000 postal votes anything can happen.

There's nothing particularly unusual about the number of postal votes cast in Peterborough. At the 2017 general election 18% of votes were cast by post and this number has been steadily rising in recent years:

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/234976/UKPGE-2017-electoral-data-report.pdf

At the Peterborough by-election it was 9898 postal votes cast out of 33,920 i.e. 29%.

Given that postal voting is a low effort way to vote, that people who have bothered to actively register for a postal vote are probably more motivated than the average voter, that by-elections like Peterborough have low turnouts etc a higher turnout for postal votes resulting in 29% of votes cast coming from them seems entirely unsurprising.

Funny how the hardcore Brexiteer response to losing a vote has been to jump straight to the conclusion that it was illegitimate and now try to get postal votes severely restricted, turns out it's not just Remainers who moan when voters don't give them the result they want.

I have a postal vote myself because I like the convenience and I can't always guarantee I won't have to travel on business at short notice. The local imam even lets me vote for whoever I want, as long as it's Labour of course.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

A rational basis is shaped around what you happen to desire rather than something that informs you what is desirable - the means to an end rather than the end.

This is wrong.  For example you might desire to live on Mars, but that's irrational because it's not possible.  In more earthly politics, you also need to be informed by what is possible before you start desiring things that don't exist.  That means accepting the geopolitical reality of the UK's position in the world of 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, smash said:

Real, actual member of Question Time audience in 2016;

"What's the point of being in a union that won't exist in a couple of years time?"

😜

"Ok, but if you're wrong after a couple of years, we rejoin"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, crouch said:

You cannot see the quite unconscious arrogance of all this. I'm not wrapped up in any "collective fantasy" at all. It does indeed continue to be a bad performance but I'm afraid whether it's a bad script is a matter of opinion and that is something you simply cannot get past. It is not delusional - do you really think a deluded person would have posted those video links - hardly comfortable viewing for leavers?

I believe that wanting to stay is misguided but quite rational but why should the converse not be?  We existed before we joined the EU and one day that will not exist but life will go on. You and many others seem to take the utterly absurd view that it isn't possible to leave the EU and be just as well off, drawn in broad terms (non economic and economic) and that is a fact that is undeniable. It isn't a fact and it is deniable and is not irrational. but you simply cannot admit that.

I don't know enough to say if we'd be better or worse off in the long term. But in the short term, almost certainly worse off. So we've had the young being screwed by decades of asset inflation and being cut out of many things the older generations enjoyed, where mostly older people vote for these policies. Then as a final hurrah, they vote once again against the interests and wishes of the young, to cause yet another (probable) decade of economic hardship on a generation they've already screwed many times.

And why? Because of some misplaced sense of nationalism and anti-foreigner sentiment. And all backed by a campaign that was dishonest to the core by people who are dishonest to the core.

So ****** the long term, I'd never support something like that on principle.

Edited by dugsbody

Share this post


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

Brussels is democratically accountable. The leader of the European Commission is chosen by the member state governments, legislation goes through the European Parliament and the EU Council (made up of the member state governments) etc. There is no part of the EU institutions that doesn't ultimately answer to a democratically elected body.

You know you can repeat that paragraph till you're blue in the face, this is what brexiters will see:

Quote

Brussels is mrgglgrgrl foreign bureaucrats. The dictator of the Foreigners Commission is mrggrlrglrlrgl by the mrggrrllrlgvrglrl, diktats goes through the Foreigners mrgrglrglrgl and the EU dictators (made up of the mrmfgrglrgllrgl sgrgttgt grgodsssdes) etc. There is no part of the EU institutions that doesn't ultimately mrgmrgrlrgl into a undemocratically appointed mrgmrgmrgmrg.

 

Share this post


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.

  • 224 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.