Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, crouch said:

No I don't think it is. You would be right about the revealed motive if what you said about Cummings was correct but is it?

You missed my edit?

This matter is now closed :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2020 at 07:29, spyguy said:

It already has started to fall.

Brexit was caused by thick headed Europeans who cold not see a problem. The cause of Brexit - flood of EE - is a hot topic in other European countries.

The failure is going to be Italy and its banks.

From a few months back.

Italy’s collapsing birth rate rings demographic alarm bells

Perilous economy leaves women having to choose between motherhood or employment

https://www.ft.com/content/a9d1fe0c-2306-11ea-92da-f0c92e957a96

At 36 years old, Valeria Morando, an unemployed former public sector worker from Rome, is an increasingly rare phenomenon in Italian demographic statistics — a mother who has had more than one child. Ms Morando was working on a temporary contract for Italy’s unemployment office when she became pregnant with her second child two years ago.

When she gave birth she was told her contract was not going to be renewed. Her family now survive on her husband’s salary. The demands of childcare and Italy’s stagnant domestic economy mean Ms Morando has struggled to find new work.

“In an economy like this it is a risk to have children, and many couples don’t want to take that risk,” she said. “Precariousness is the biggest reason why my friends are not having children. Everyone knows the economic situation of the country is bad.”

....



With only 440,000 children born, less than half the number of Italians that died, the population is both steadily ageing and shrinking. Almost 23 per cent of Italians are now aged over 65.

The problem is compounded by rising emigration. An increasing number of mainly young people want to escape the country’s economic problems, with 160,000 leaving Italy last year, the highest level since the early 1980s.

....

Indeed Joseph Chamie, a former director of the United Nations’ population division, has pointed out that it was 1995 when a critical crossover occurred in Italy, with that year being the first in which the number of Italians under the age of 15 were outnumbered by those aged over 65.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2019/

 

Italy is not a country that should be lent money,. Its growth is long gone. And they never paid any taxes to support the expensive public services.

Due to FOM, the demographics of EE esp the Balkans are much worse.

 

Share this post


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

What are your thoughts on the debt mess in the UK? Does that mean the UK is a failed project and we should dissolve and let each nation go on its own, free in glorious sovereignty?

we have the new satellite system to pay for it. keep up man. 

Share this post


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

Completely for brexiter consumption. It works too, the masses love it.

For example the bit where he says (to paraphrase) 'We are the ERG...David Frost is amazing you must listen to David Frost when he tells you your demands are out of order'.

Er....what ?

Is he trying to build up a narrative for no deal ? Is he strangely desperate ? Is he just weird ?

Share this post


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

No I don't think it is. You would be right about the revealed motive if what you said about Cummings was correct but is it?

Why not have a confirmatory referendum on the available options ?

What you have now is the majority of the country wanting to remain and Leavers attempting to retrofit the GE as a confirmatory referendum.

Why not simply have the real thing ? Why can we NEVER have the chance to vote for an ACTUAL path forward ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pig said:

Why not have a confirmatory referendum on the available options ?

The 2016 referendum was simply on the principle of leaving or staying and we know the result of that.

When you talk about "options" you presumbly mean to include staying in the EU. But as we've already had a referendum on that there's little point in having another. 

Furthermore the "options" would doubtless be costed up and I'm afaid to say this yet again but this is bound to be highly contentious and will result in widely differing views. Cvid 19 may well have far more effect than Brexit over the long run but who forecast a poentially game changing pandemic in 2016? 

19 minutes ago, pig said:

What you have now is the majority of the country wanting to remain and Leavers attempting to retrofit the GE as a confirmatory referendum.

As I attempted to explain in a previous post it's possible to rationalise the 2019 GE as other than a retrofit confirmatory referendum.

21 minutes ago, pig said:

Why not simply have the real thing ? Why can we NEVER have the chance to vote for an ACTUAL path forward ?

You forget that we didn't have a vote for entry in 1973 and our constitution is still that of a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. I would not have been saddened had the 2016 referendum not taken place; I believe the EU is a dead end with major dysfunctionalities and will disintegrate over time anyway and I would be quite content to stay in the interim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

Like our Prime Minister?

 

It seems clear to me that Boris is still trying to get a hard Brexit politically with no border and as close as possible to seamless trade with the single market.  He will either act "dismayed" when he does not get it, or act "shocked" when he finds that this causes problems if he does manage to pull a fast one.

It is bizarre.

One style of argument that crops on in this debate is to be deliberately stupid (e.g. open border with Ireland, closed border with the EU) then claim the moral highground when it is pointed out that the argument is stupid.

Share this post


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

The 2016 referendum was simply on the principle of leaving or staying and we know the result of that.

When you talk about "options" you presumbly mean to include staying in the EU. But as we've already had a referendum on that there's little point in having another. 

Furthermore the "options" would doubtless be costed up and I'm afaid to say this yet again but this is bound to be highly contentious and will result in widely differing views. Cvid 19 may well have far more effect than Brexit over the long run but who forecast a poentially game changing pandemic in 2016? 

As I attempted to explain in a previous post it's possible to rationalise the 2019 GE as other than a retrofit confirmatory referendum.

You forget that we didn't have a vote for entry in 1973 and our constitution is still that of a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. I would not have been saddened had the 2016 referendum not taken place; I believe the EU is a dead end with major dysfunctionalities and will disintegrate over time anyway and I would be quite content to stay in the interim.

The UK can't stay in the EU, it has left, it is no longer a member. Brexit is done, finished, and has been for 6 months now.

Did you think it was still 2019? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting the current situation? Or something else I have overlooked in my ignorance?

 

The question is what next, how should the future relationship be defined, organised, negotiated. Anyone who says "rejoin" is naive at best, that would be a huge undertaking to apply to join as a non-member.

Share this post


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

Did you think it was still 2019? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting the current situation? Or something else I have overlooked in my ignorance?

My reply was in no small measure tongue in cheek.

8 minutes ago, erat_forte said:

The question is what next, how should the future relationship be defined, organised, negotiated. Anyone who says "rejoin" is naive at best, that would be a huge undertaking to apply to join as a non-member.

Quite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, pig said:

Why not have a confirmatory referendum on the available options ?

What you have now is the majority of the country wanting to remain and Leavers attempting to retrofit the GE as a confirmatory referendum.

Why not simply have the real thing ? Why can we NEVER have the chance to vote for an ACTUAL path forward ?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

If a vote where to happen on the available options then joining the EU would need to be one of the available options, unless you wanted to disenfranchise 50% of the population. 

Brexit has been constructed in such a way that there is no way that democracy can determin what we do with Brexit. Aside from Brexit being enacted, you could say that moving forwards, Brexit has ensured that democracy cannot happen. It will be forever consigned to the politicians to determin where we go, but they will have been constrained by excluding an option favoured by ~50%.

Brexit was an own goal for democracy, a bit like voting in a dictator, democracy got him there, but it was also vote to end democracy.

 

Share this post


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

I think we all know the answer to that question.

If a vote where to happen on the available options then joining the EU would need to be one of the available options, unless you wanted to disenfranchise 50% of the population. 

Brexit has been constructed in such a way that there is no way that democracy can determin what we do with Brexit. Aside from Brexit being enacted, you could say that moving forwards, Brexit has ensured that democracy cannot happen. It will be forever consigned to the politicians to determin where we go, but they will have been constrained by excluding an option favoured by ~50%.

Brexit was an own goal for democracy, a bit like voting in a dictator, democracy got him there, but it was also vote to end democracy.

 

And there we have it...... One people, one state, one leader.

boris-hitler.jpg

Share this post


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

Why not have a confirmatory referendum on the available options ?

What you have now is the majority of the country wanting to remain and Leavers attempting to retrofit the GE as a confirmatory referendum.

Why not simply have the real thing ? Why can we NEVER have the chance to vote for an ACTUAL path forward ?

What was the Tory election slogan again? Go on, have a try... :)

Just suppose, that the 2019 GE had been won stunningly by the LDs, with Jo Swinson as PM then leading the UK back into the EU/Euro and the Tories hammered.

What would you think of Brexiteers suggesting the GE meant nothing and an iffy opinion poll - with no stated numbers or categories of respondents - that showed 53% for Brexit, should be respected?

Share this post


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

Brexit was an own goal for democracy, a bit like voting in a dictator, democracy got him there, but it was also vote to end democracy.

If Brexit was an own goal for democracy how would you characterise our entry in 1973, about which we did not have a vote at all.

Share this post


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

This is sophistry. We always have some ability to control our borders; the question is: is it enough? Inside the EU, even with the powers we did not use, it was perceived as not enough.

My point was factual, it is your response that is sophistry.  At no time did the UK government show any interest in using the powers we had to control immigration never mind having any real desire for extra powers.   

3 hours ago, crouch said:

Because the EU is a confederation it has limited competences so there are areas where we can make our own laws.

UK law is very heaviliy influenced by EU law. I posted a link yesterday concerning the Factortame case, a landmark decision that finally brought home the extent to which the EU had reached into our lawmaking powers. It was considered to be a decision that gave a decisive push to euroscepticsm.

Hard to see why, if the case had gone the other way the EU would have been left with no authority even in the areas of competence states had devolved to it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dryrot said:

What was the Tory election slogan again? Go on, have a try... :)

Just suppose, that the 2019 GE had been won stunningly by the LDs, with Jo Swinson as PM then leading the UK back into the EU/Euro and the Tories hammered.

What would you think of Brexiteers suggesting the GE meant nothing and an iffy opinion poll - with no stated numbers or categories of respondents - that showed 53% for Brexit, should be respected?

A GE was the wrong tool to ascertain the will of the people at that time. Cummings fought tooth and nail to get a GE rather than a 2nd referendum because he knew that one was winnable and the other wasn't. 

Don't forget that in a GE, the majority of people vote the same way they always have, a bit like supporting a football team.

Cummings was waiting for someone to blink, and it was Swinson. Truth be known, he probably fed her some guff that she could win a majority and off she went, on the road to ruin.

There are many polls and surveys, and almost all of them show that the majority of the British people want to rejoin the EU.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

Cummings was waiting for someone to blink, and it was Swinson. Truth be known, he probably fed her some guff that she could win a majority and off she went, on the road to ruin.

Are you taking LSD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crouch said:

If Brexit was an own goal for democracy how would you characterise our entry in 1973, about which we did not have a vote at all.

Fair enough but we did get to vote on continuing to stay or leaving just a couple of years leter did we not.

As far as I am aware the current deal is that we get no say on any future path or if even if we should continue on this leave path. To me the current situation is worse as it excluded any democratic mandate about how we move forwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Hard to see why, if the case had gone the other way the EU would have been left with no authority even in the areas of competence states had devolved to it. 

Factortame was a case of the late eighties / early nineties and up to that point I think many thought that the supremacy of EU law was a dog that would rarely bark but this decision put paid to that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

Please explain.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Cummings was waiting for someone to blink, and it was Swinson. Truth be known, he probably fed her some guff that she could win a majority and off she went, on the road to ruin.

I can just see Swinson trotting into Cummings' ( who she probably hated worse than the Devil)office being totally duped and going with a policy that most thought was a suicide note and a total slap in the face for 17.4 million people. This is fantasy, bonkers on stilts, LSD type fantasy.

Share this post


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

As far as I am aware the current deal is that we get no say on any future path or if even if we should continue on this leave path. To me the current situation is worse as it excluded any democratic mandate about how we move forwards. 

Did we get any say about de-colonisation? Or being a nuclear power? Or about the comprehensive establishment of the welfare state? No, because this is still fundamentally a representative democracy and it is still up to government to manage these issues.

The only reason you are interested in democracy is because you want a second chance to reverse the 2016 vote and that is very unlikely.

Very unusually, and many would say, very stupidly, the government held a referendum on EU membership, we voted to leave and it is now the job of government, within the current constitutional arrangements, to manage this going forward, not to pander to the terminally disgruntled.

Share this post


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

 

I can just see Swinson trotting into Cummings' ( who she probably hated worse than the Devil)office being totally duped and going with a policy that most thought was a suicide note and a total slap in the face for 17.4 million people. This is fantasy, bonkers on stilts, LSD type fantasy.

It's not done that way, as you very well know. 

Do you work for Cummings' Internet team?

 

Share this post


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

Did we get any say about de-colonisation? Or being a nuclear power? Or about the comprehensive establishment of the welfare state? No, because this is still fundamentally a representative democracy and it is still up to government to manage these issues.

The only reason you are interested in democracy is because you want a second chance to reverse the 2016 vote and that is very unlikely.

Very unusually, and many would say, very stupidly, the government held a referendum on EU membership, we voted to leave and it is now the job of government, within the current constitutional arrangements, to manage this going forward, not to pander to the terminally disgruntled.

You are cute. Ignoring the bit where the people go ot confirm that membership of the EEC after a few years and where 65% of the people voted and confirmed that they favoured this option, regarless of how it came about.

You do choose to ignore this? Is that because you fear that the same would not be said about whatever Brexit option might be enacted?

Lets look at this objectively, Brexit has been enacted, democracy has been done. We still don't know what Brexit means. The people should get to decide if the Brexit that is chosen is actually what people want, perferably in a few short years time when the path is clearer. I don't think there is anything contentious about that.

BOLD: You tie yourself in knots. If as you say we are a representative democracy then why did the UKIP party not win an election prior to the referendum? Afterall they where the party that wanted us to leave and using your logic they should have won the election based on that, but they did not.

Edited by IMHAL

Share this post


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

You are cute. Ignoring the bit where the people go ot confirm that membership of the EEC after a few years and where 65% of the people voted and confirmed that they favoured this option, regarless of how it came about.

In all honesty that vote to me means very little, and indeed meant very little at the time. It was held only two years after joining the EEC and was, to my mind totally unjustified. Putting it another way I would not have given the people the option of leaving the EEC after only two years; I would have simply continued with membership of the EEC.

26 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Lets look at this objectively, Brexit has been enacted, democracy has been done. We still don't know what Brexit means. The people should get to decide if the Brexit that is chosen is actually what people want, perferably in a few short years time when the path is clearer. I don't think there is anything contentious about that.

The problem here is that you can't see what's in front of your face. Brexit is for the long term and the situation we find ourselves in will most likely change substantially even in the next ten years let alone twenty or thirty. What is needed is flexibility to meet contingencies and that can best be given in the context of the current constitutional means of representative democracy, rather than asking the people every five miniutes what they want.

You care nothing for this as you would hope to reverse the initial result but your ostensible reasons will simply tie the hands of the government and make a satisfactory outcome less likely.

32 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

BOLD: You tie yourself in knots. If as you say we are a representative democracy then why did the UKIP party not win an election prior to the referendum? Afterall they where the party that wanted us to leave and using your logic they should have won the election based on that, but they did not.

A representative democracy is a system whereby you elect representatives to use their judgement on your behalf in order to govern in accordance with a broad mandate. It has nothing to do with the electoral system which is FPTP. It is that that decides who represents; representative democracy decides how they represent.

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.

  • 399 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.