Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Because it's not a binary outcome.

There seems to be at least 3 different visions of "Leave": WTO, Canada, Norway.

What really should have happened is for the first referendum to have triggered a 2 year consultation on the options, with a question like "Should we investigate leaving the EU?: Yes or No".
After that consultation period, we should have another referendum based on the outcome, with "Which option should be try to achieve?: A, B, C or D".

With the current setup, you pretty much guarantee that the majority will be unhappy with whatever outcome we have. There's literally no option that will satisfy as much as half of those that voted.

We have said before that the process was half baked. I also think that Cameron needed some evidence of the genuine concerns of the British people *before* he went on his EU road trip asking for concessions.

The other EU leaders clearly did not believe he had a genuine agenda.

The last national Census cost about half a billion quid. It contained just 50 questions. I went through it in detail, and I felt that they didn't ask nearly enough to judge the public outlook.

It would have been better to have a Census IMO. Still, it's all water under the bridge now.

.string.

Herzlos wrote: »

They did also tell us that it was a self destruct button, very clearly.



Everyone who votes has the responsibility to take it seriously and at least have some idea of what we are voting for. Going by the spike in Google queries like "what is the EU?" after voting closed, I think a lot of voters failed in the most basic due diligence.

I'm not blaming the voters entirely, they information they were fed by the media was absolute garbage, intended to play on their fears. But neither are they completely innocent. They had plenty of opportunity to do the most basic research in advance.

Most of the blame definitely lies with the liars though, and they really should be regarded as criminals.

Well I didn't like waking up in the morning after the referendum and realising that such a large percentage of my fellow Brits were gullible morons, nor did I like the similar feeling after the last GE when it was clear that another large group had not realised that the UK Government needed a strong mandate to argue, bluff and cajole it's way through the Brexit negotiations. Those that believed Corbyn's irresponsible promises were notably to blame, from wet-behjnd-the-ears Students to scared Pensioners.

But I've got over that.

So my message is --- it's done, now let's make it work.

Rusty_Shackleton

always_sunny wrote: »

What you're describing is red tape which will not bring any befit to the UK beside scream that investing in the UK is unstable and legislation can change at the detriment of foreign owners.
Would you invest in such country?

(You do know getting British citizenship is a fairly easy task, dual nationality is also allowed making the whole point futile)

Red tape, loopholes etc. are all something that can be discussed and addressed if the policy were to be pursued.

Would I invest in a country that passes a law that affects a couple of dozen individual billionaires. If I was a foreign media mogul, then no, but anything else... this isn't like Venezuela's somewhat questionable nationalisation of their oil sector... some perspective about what I'm actually proposing wouldn't go amiss!

Rusty_Shackleton

.string. wrote: »

It didn't take a newspaper to point out the similarity between Trump's initial utterances on the violence and the organisations behind it and Corbin's remarks on IRA and other terrorust atrocities. The parallel was there for all to see.

The notion that extremists of sides in a fight are to be condemned is not exactly rocket science, it's obvious. But Trump's remarks were Corbyn-like in their avoidance of outright condemnation of the major far-right organisations, especially against the background of that murderous car attack.

Trumps remarks are inappropriate because one side committed murder, have been documented as extremely violent, and were representing outright racists the KKK (and in this context, we're talking about would like to lynch black people, not anything to do with political correctness or anything else where there's debate to be had about, "is it racist").

Corbyn criticises Israel and Hamas, the IRA and Unionist terror groups because they all murder and bomb each other. If the counter protestors in Charlottesville murdered an opponent, or planted a bomb or similar, you'd have a point. They didn't, and you don't.

Can you honestly not tell the difference?

always_sunny

Herzlos wrote: »

Because it's not a binary outcome.

There seems to be at least 3 different visions of "Leave": WTO, Canada, Norway.

What really should have happened is for the first referendum to have triggered a 2 year consultation on the options, with a question like "Should we investigate leaving the EU?: Yes or No".
After that consultation period, we should have another referendum based on the outcome, with "Which option should be try to achieve?: A, B, C or D".

With the current setup, you pretty much guarantee that the majority will be unhappy with whatever outcome we have. There's literally no option that will satisfy as much as half of those that voted.

Frankly I don't think that would have been possible, sensible perhaps but not possible.
The UK was already a sceptic member of the EU, the referendum confirmed and made that scepticism clear, how would they interact in the EU during these 2 years consultation about what to do. Are you in or out? Will you stay or go? Will you participate or not? What is the point of your voice in the EU if you may not be here in 5 years time?

The EU would have said jog on and that's what they said really. Hurry up and go.
Even the option of a second referendum is deluded because the UK is not in a position to decide making the whole proposition extremely risky if results are not coherent. What would be the position of the UK, a nation that voted for Brexit in 2016, with results of another referendum with folks voting No for the terms. What would the UK do? Can't go back, can't go forward. So polish those gnashers, smile and keep on walking cause that is all the UK can do.

Fella

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

There is a world of difference between Corbyn condemning violence on all sides with the likes of the IRA amd Hamas, and the nazis in Charlottesville:

With the IRA and Hamas they commit gross violence, but so has the other side. In Charlottesville, only one side turned up armed and with makeshift riot shields. Only one side have driven a car into a crowd, only one side have been filmed chasing and beating on a lone opponent like a pack of wolves. Sure, the counter protestors might have thrown a few punches, but if thats all that had happened on both sides we wouldnt be discussing those events, who cares. Youre trying to equivocate minor violence with murder - take a long hard look in the mirror, you are a disgrace to think these things are the same.

The other major difference between Corbyn and in this example, Trump, is that Corbyn always condemns all violence, thas his stance. Trump has no problem calling Muslims terrorists for the acts of relatively few individuals, yet won't call out the extreme right terrorists in the US. Take a look at the FBIs figures for terrorist perpetrators and which 'side' theyre on. The US doesnt have a Islamic terrorism problem, it has a white nationalist effing nazi problem.

You keep saying the guardian and mirror are as bad for stoking hatred, yet youre still failing to give ant evidence of a call to action involving violence or illegal means against anyone. Youre accusing me of blind bias, but youre the one unable or unwilling to prove your point or properly counter mine.

Don't expect any further responses from me to your trolling. You complained about wanting proper debate then respond with illiterate abuse when you get it. Feel free to have the final word, I suspect you're the type that needs it. I shan't respond.

Rusty_Shackleton

always_sunny wrote: »

Frankly I don't think that would have been possible, sensible perhaps but not possible.
The UK was already a sceptic member of the EU, the referendum confirmed and made that scepticism clear, how would they interact in the EU during these 2 years consultation about what to do. Are you in or out? Will you stay or go? Will you participate or not? What is the point of your voice in the EU if you may not be here in 5 years time?

The EU would have said jog on and that's what they said really. Hurry up and go.
Even the option of a second referendum is deluded because the UK is not in a position to decide making the whole proposition extremely risky if results are not coherent. What would be the position of the UK, a nation that voted for Brexit in 2016, with results of another referendum with folks voting No for the terms. What would the UK do? Can't go back, can't go forward. So polish those gnashers, smile and keep on walking cause that is all the UK can do.

Since the country is clearly divided and having an identity crisis anyway, why would it do harm to at least look like we're trying to have an adult discussion and resolve differences?

From the outside, does anyone think it looks good that the government is hammering on with a vision that it doesn't actually command much support for?

People treat the EU negotiations and outsider perspectives as if they go by the results of the election and what the government says as their only sources of information. They clearly don't.

Herzlos

.string. wrote: »

So my message is --- it's done, now let's make it work.

Agreed. Though my next question is a biggie. Make what work? What are we actually trying to achieve?

Rusty_Shackleton

Fella wrote: »

Don't expect any further responses from me to your trolling. You complained about wanting proper debate then respond with illiterate abuse when you get it. Feel free to have the final word, I suspect you're the type that needs it. I shan't respond.

The only thing I can think you mean is that I said you're a disgrace if you actually equivocate minor violence with murder. I stand by that, that would be a disgraceful stance to take.

But, I apologise if you feel unjustly abused.

Also, if you think I'm trolling go ahead and report me - it's against MSE's rules and if you're right you can have me banned But I don't think you know what trolling is and are using it as an attempt to discredit an opponent.

Herzlos

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Since the country is clearly divided and having an identity crisis anyway, why would it do harm to at least look like we're trying to have an adult discussion and resolve differences?

From the outside, does anyone think it looks good that the government is hammering on with a vision that it doesn't actually command much support for?

Agreed. Would we rather press on with a vague answer and a tenuous mandate, to negotiation something we don't know with people who we want to maintain a good relationship with. Or do we spend a bit of time and figure out what we actually want, and then try to negotiate that.