Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

The_Last_Username

chucknorris wrote: »

I can't see the link because I don't want to subscribe, but given that soft Brexit is generally accepted to mean remain in the single market, and hard Brexit means leaving the single market. Why is there 'no such thing'? Both seem possible outcomes to me.

A simple web search of the quoted area in my post brings up viewable content.


Please note that I am neither advocating nor denying, merely proffering a point of view (which is not necessarily mine) although it really does appear that the most vocal "hard-" or "soft-" Brexit comments come from those reluctant to actually leave the EU.
Again, not that I am a fan of John Redwood but his comment makes perfect sense:

The new Remain media line is to draw an absurd distinction between hard and soft Brexit.
We were asked to vote to remain or leave. We voted to leave the EU. The Vote Leave campaign made clear that meant taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Polling after the event shows starkly that Leave voters understood that and mainly voted to take back control. It also shows that very few Remain voters (about 10% of total voters) bought into the idea of European Union and wanted further integration along continental lines. ( Michael Ashcroft post vote polls)

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/09/30/there-are-no-such-things-as-hard-and-soft-brexit/

Now I repeat, I am neither strongly pro-remain nor strongly pro-leave but the fact is that a referendum was held and the result was in favour of leaving.
Since the only questions on the ballot paper were as below it cannot reasonably be argued that no-one knew what they were voting for because to leave the European Union must include with all the consequences thereof. There were no other options.

chucknorris

The_Last_Username wrote: »

A simple web search of the quoted area in my post brings up viewable content.


Please note that I am neither advocating nor denying, merely proffering a point of view (which is not necessarily mine) although it really does appear that the most vocal "hard-" or "soft-" Brexit comments come from those reluctant to actually leave the EU.
Again, not that I am a fan of John Redwood but his comment makes perfect sense:

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/09/30/there-are-no-such-things-as-hard-and-soft-brexit/

Now I repeat, I am neither strongly pro-remain nor strongly pro-leave but the fact is that a referendum was held and the result was in favour of leaving.
Since the only questions on the ballot paper were as below it cannot reasonably be argued that no-one knew what they were voting for because to leave the European Union must include with all the consequences thereof. There were no other options.

Why didn't you link to the link that didn't need a subscription then?

The fact that the actual referendum does not distinguish between a hard and soft Brexit, does not mean that that decision doesn't need to be eventually taken. So there is such a thing as a hard and soft Brexit.

What I think you were trying to say (but didn't) is that the referendum did not distinguish between a hard and soft Brexit. But we all knew that, myself and many others have commented on the bad wording of the referendum. What you actually said was that there is no such thing as a hard or soft Brexit, but clearly there is.

kabayiri

You couldn't really word the question clearly though, could you?

It would end up being about 35 pages long, and would bore the voter stiff.

Instead, we had to rely on a bunch of people riding around in bright coloured buses telling us what it meant.

And who did we pick for this task? Politicians !!! The most untrustworthy; sneaky; duplicitous; conniving; underhanded bunch you can imagine.

At one point many a voter could be forgiven for thinking the question included the key words "£350m" and "NHS" !

chucknorris

kabayiri wrote: »

You couldn't really word the question clearly though, could you?

It would end up being about 35 pages long, and would bore the voter stiff.

Instead, we had to rely on a bunch of people riding around in bright coloured buses telling us what it meant.

And who did we pick for this task? Politicians !!! The most untrustworthy; sneaky; duplicitous; conniving; underhanded bunch you can imagine.

At one point many a voter could be forgiven for thinking the question included the key words "£350m" and "NHS" !

The real problem was that most voters didn't know enough to actually vote, and that was the Gov's fault (as you are implying). It was handled disgracefully.

kabayiri

chucknorris wrote: »

The real problem was that most voters didn't know enough to actually vote, and that was the Gov's fault (as you are implying). It was handled disgracefully.

I always thought it should be an EU person heading up the Remain team.

If you're trying to decide whether to stay in a club or not, you usually expect to hear the club members pitching for your business.

Cameron decided to take on this role, and when he went mobilising support, they stabbed him in the back, saying he got "very little".

I bet his Christmas card list is a whole lot shorter now !

The_Last_Username

chucknorris wrote: »

Why didn't you link to the link that didn't need a subscription then?

Why don't you try it and find out yourself? Because although a link might be free to view for me now, next time I click on the same link it isn't free. Thank the FT for that, it's nothing to do with me.

The simple fact is that an in/out choice is what was given and what was voted-upon. There is and was no "hard" or "soft" on the ballot paper, there is simply (just like the old TV show) deal or no deal.
There was no bad wording, it is explicit. Unless of course you are unhappy with either option.

As with all votes, responsibility lies with the voter to discover the differences between options and if you're not sure you really should not be voting. After all, a simple web search very clearly leads to for example the Wikipedia page detailing what the EU is.

So regardless of opinions it seems very clear that retaining any formal arrangement with the EU beyond Brexit is not complying with the wording of the ballot paper voted-upon, "Leave the European Union".
Suggesting anything else is akin to expecting the recent GE ballot paper to list each candidate along with a choice of options at the side of their name which would, as I'm sure you would agree, be both ridiculous and unworkable.

StevieJ

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Why don't you try it and find out yourself? Because although a link might be free to view for me now, next time I click on the same link it isn't free. Thank the FT for that, it's nothing to do with me.

The simple fact is that an in/out choice is what was given and what was voted-upon. There is and was no "hard" or "soft" on the ballot paper, there is simply (just like the old TV show) deal or no deal.
There was no bad wording, it is explicit. Unless of course you are unhappy with either option.

As with all votes, responsibility lies with the voter to discover the differences between options and if you're not sure you really should not be voting. After all, a simple web search very clearly leads to for example the Wikipedia page detailing what the EU is.

So regardless of opinions it seems very clear that retaining any formal arrangement with the EU beyond Brexit is not complying with the wording of the ballot paper voted-upon, "Leave the European Union".
Suggesting anything else is akin to expecting the recent GE ballot paper to list each candidate along with a choice of options at the side of their name which would, as I'm sure you would agree, be both ridiculous and unworkable.

I would settle for 'OUT' just like Norway, Iceland or Switzerland :-)

chucknorris

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Why don't you try it and find out yourself? Because although a link might be free to view for me now, next time I click on the same link it isn't free. Thank the FT for that, it's nothing to do with me.

The simple fact is that an in/out choice is what was given and what was voted-upon. There is and was no "hard" or "soft" on the ballot paper, there is simply (just like the old TV show) deal or no deal.
There was no bad wording, it is explicit. Unless of course you are unhappy with either option.

As with all votes, responsibility lies with the voter to discover the differences between options and if you're not sure you really should not be voting. After all, a simple web search very clearly leads to for example the Wikipedia page detailing what the EU is.

So regardless of opinions it seems very clear that retaining any formal arrangement with the EU beyond Brexit is not complying with the wording of the ballot paper voted-upon, "Leave the European Union".
Suggesting anything else is akin to expecting the recent GE ballot paper to list each candidate along with a choice of options at the side of their name which would, as I'm sure you would agree, be both ridiculous and unworkable.

Yes I do agree, but that wasn't my point, my point was that there is a hard and soft Brexit option, and your post said that there wasn't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Since the only questions on the ballot paper were as below it cannot reasonably be argued that no-one knew what they were voting for because to leave the European Union must include with all the consequences thereof. There were no other options.

Then someone should probably have mentioned that to all the 'Vote Leave' campaigners running around claiming differently...

Here's what prominent 'Vote Leave' folks were saying at the time...

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market"
~Daniel Hannan MEP


"Only a madman would actually leave the Market"
~Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer


"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing"
~Nigel Farage, Ukip leader


"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK"
~Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

chucknorris

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Then someone should probably have mentioned that to all the 'Vote Leave' campaigners running around claiming differently...

Here's what prominent 'Vote Leave' folks were saying at the time...

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market"
~Daniel Hannan MEP


"Only a madman would actually leave the Market"
~Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer


"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing"
~Nigel Farage, Ukip leader


"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK"
~Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

I hope that you are right Hamish, it would be nice for common sense to prevail, even though £m's have probably unnecessarily been wasted.