Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

Sovereignty is the most important thing a country can have – once lost, it is only regained through great pain and suffering.

Of course, the accumulation of personal wealth and power is what matters above all else to some people – that's obvious looking at all the self-serving scum that has crawled out of the woodwork. It has always been thus – some would sell their souls to the devil, and sod sovereignty. Too bad – I'm not one of them.

The EU is enriching mainly Germany and spending vast sums of money on its bureaucracy, while stifling other countries through blackmail, and creating chaos through in Europe due to lack of closed borders – a situation that can only worsen. That's a desirable situation according to you? Or is your mind closed to that situation as well?

I do not think my mind is closed. Full sovereignty is an illusion but I agree you can get closer to it than we have now by having hard borders policed by our own immigration controls. You can get even closer to it by having our own laws, own trade deals, own customs rules etc. But every agreement you enter into under international law, every treaty you sign takes away some sovereignty.

So are we going to choose which parts of the UN Charter on Human Rights we adopt? Are we going to revoke our agreement to all the IMO standards we currently adopt or maybe just some of them we do not like? Its our choice of course but every time we sign up to something we reduce sovereignty.

The sovereignty argument to you is a matter of principle. You do not care how much it costs or what are the benefits of sharing sovereignty. To me it is largely about what we get by agreeing ways of doing things with others to share our sovereignty and what we lose by it.

The EU is enriching Germany, but it has enriched the UK as well. Obviously it comes at a price (FoM in particular). I think your argument is that you would rather have maximum sovereignty even if it reduces national wealth and standard of living.

I do not think a borderless EU is desirable. I do think the external EU border needs to be more tightly controlled. But I do think internal FoM is a price worth paying for the trade benefits we get. Is your mind closed to the benefits of membership?

However, none of this matters as we are leaving. I cannot apologise for being concerned that the practicalities of leaving will diminish the UK, possibly lead to its break up and cause medium term economic damage. I hope it will be better than I fear but we are being led into this by people who do not inspire confidence.

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? 'Anyone who voted remain' has and continues to speak about their opinions – I don't 'expect them' to refrain from doing so.

I got that impression from your post:

Good Lord! I'd have thought it would be clear by now to most people (unless their minds are completely shut) that there's plenty of evidence that those wanting to undermine the democratic vote for obviously self-serving interests are the ones who are clearly 'undermining democratic rights'.

For your information, no one I know was ever asked whether they wanted to be part of a 'political union' with the EU. An important issue such as this should have been put to a vote not just in Britain, but in continental European countries as well. Until 2015, as far as I was concerned the EU was an economic organisation. The reality of the situation came as a great and unpleasant shock to me.

Perhaps you were busy at the time, but it all happened in 1992 when the Government signed the Treaty of Maastricht and the EEC became the EU dropping the word Economic.

BobQ

andrewf75 wrote: »

Strongly disagree. For decades government have allowed the tabloid press to demonise the EU and use it as a scapegoat for all our problems. Funnily enough in other countries without a rabid media, people have a much more balanced view. Many surveys have shown Uk people as the least informed on the EU because all they hear is the propaganda.

Immigration was what caused the leave vote and even with free movement we could have done much more to reduce it. But we didn't because the government chased short term growth over long term stability and is too much in the pockets of business.

For me the establishment is almost fully to blame. I fully understand why people in forgotten post-industrial towns voted Brexit and don't blame them in the slightest. Even those who voted leave purely because they are thick or racist, ultimately whose fault is it that they are like that? They have been left behind by a London-centric economy.

This was a long time coming and in a way we are all to blame. We shouldn't blame the leave voters, certainly not the poor working class ones. The likes of Farage and Boris who exploited them maybe.

The British Public ignored the establishment, politicians, press, universities and "the experts". They decided that they knew best (and maybe they will be proved right). The Brexit campaign was clever in that it appealed to a broad church of discontent (immigration included) for which Brexit was the solution.

I agree that part of the establishment created the opportunity for the Leave campaign to capitalise on this discontent. That was the Conservative Government intent on papering over its internal divisions by calling the referendum. And with Labour's help they ran one of the worst campaigns for years

But the public voted against the establishment and I do not see that you can blame the establishment for that.. Now they must suffer the consequences.

BobQ

ilovehouses wrote: »

When you try and import a product into the EU it must meet EU product standards - yes some standards might be similar to ISO (there is some co-operation) but don't kid yourself it's a non-issue.

It's an onerous job for a third country supplier to prove their product meets EU standards. It's not just the product standard either - the EU also specify how it's made, the specification of the raw material and where in the factory it's produced. It's not free of charge.

Some think it's a doddle to find food elsewhere (we just reduce tariffs) but it's not the case. What food standards are going to be applied? Fancy relaxing the rules on antibiotics in chicken or hormones in beef - that'll help us get cheap beef from the US. Are we going to expand permitted GM species - that'll reduce the price of corn & soy. Not worried about factory hygiene standards - good news because there's a load of African and Chinese factories that can't wait to supply.

Very true but when a country wants to export to the newly independent UK, what product standards will apply at our border. EU nations will follow EU standards and we will probably accept them? If say Mexico wants to sell us something what standard will we apply? Will we keep adopting EU standards and changes to them? Or we ill we maintain a whole new raft of standards. Will we accept lower standards? If I were a business wanting to sell to the UK I would be wondering........

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

12 months of booming FTSE 250 and FTSE100, not a peep from Remoaners.


Watch how they cite any falls as evidence of Brexit harm.


You just can't reason with this

This remainer is very happy, I have more invested abroad than here.

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

Perhaps you were busy at the time, but it all happened in 1992 when the Government signed the Treaty of Maastricht and the EEC became the EU dropping the word Economic.

Perhaps very many people were 'busy at the time', because until 2015, no one I know, whether they recently voted in or out, was aware of the fact that the EU was about removing European countries' sovereignty – without the citizens of those countries having any say on the matter. (Note that the people in my circles, whether outers or inners, are well-read and knowledgeable, with considerable facts at their disposal, though they are not generally the sort of people who make decisions based purely on financial motives.)

Indeed, the 'government' signed the treaty – but unfortunately it did not consult the citizens about such a key, fundamental issue. And it is a very big issue, in my view, one that there should have been a vote on at the very least. There are still many people in Britain (and also in some countries on the European continent), who value their sovereignty above all else. This is especially true of countries that have had direct experience of losing their sovereignty, and regaining it after much bloodshed and terrible hardship – something that Britain has not yet had to endure, despite the horrors of the Blitz and other wartime experiences.

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

Perhaps very many people were 'busy at the time', because until 2015, no one I know, whether they recently voted in or out, was aware of the fact that the EU was about removing European countries' sovereignty – without the citizens of those countries having any say on the matter. (Note that the people in my circles, whether outers or inners, are well-read and knowledgeable, with considerable facts at their disposal, though they are not generally the sort of people who make decisions based purely on financial motives.)

Well I cannot speak for your circle of contacts but I recall that it was the matter of great debate at the time and the Major Government almost fell on its objections to opting into the Social Chapter of the Treaty. Only you know what you were doing in 1992 and early 1993.

Officially the EC will now be known as the European Union (EU) and a definite timetable and framework for economic and monetary union has been laid down.
The EU will take on new responsibilities for a common foreign and security policy and for home and judicial affairs - such as asylum, immigration, drugs and terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/7/newsid_2536000/2536459.stm

Indeed, the 'government' signed the treaty – but unfortunately it did not consult the citizens about such a key, fundamental issue. And it is a very big issue, in my view, one that there should have been a vote on at the very least. There are still many people in Britain (and also in some countries on the European continent), who value their sovereignty above all else. This is especially true of countries that have had direct experience of losing their sovereignty, and regaining it after much bloodshed and terrible hardship – something that Britain has not yet had to endure, despite the horrors of the Blitz and other wartime experiences.

Well it was part of the 1992 Tory Manifesto, but I agree there was no referendum.

Tromking

BobQ wrote: »

But the public voted against the establishment and I do not see that you can blame the establishment for that.. Now they must suffer the consequences.

....or reap the rewards.
It may be a cliche, but one of the reasons I voted leave was to give the political 'establishment' a kick up the backside. No one can deny that my wish hasn't come true, the cosy world they used to inhabit is gone and they are at last having to work for a living.
In a dictatorship the 'establishment' can operate without reference to the people, in a mature democracy like ours they patently can't.
Remain voters were as much let down by the UK and EU establishments as they feel they were by the leave voters.

always_sunny

Tromking wrote: »

....or reap the rewards.
It may be a cliche, but one of the reasons I voted leave was to give the political 'establishment' a kick up the backside. No one can deny that my wish hasn't come true, the cosy world they used to inhabit is gone and they are at last having to work for a living.
In a dictatorship the 'establishment' can operate without reference to the people, in a mature democracy like ours they patently can't.
Remain voters were as much let down by the UK and EU establishments as they feel they were by the leave voters.

I don't know, to have such democracy the electorate must be equipped with true facts to make an informed decision otherwise they're in a dictatorship. Propaganda isn't truth.
Democracy also needs higher consensus to be successful and in this case it's not far off from 50/50 so there will always be friction.

Tromking

always_sunny wrote: »

Democracy also needs higher consensus to be successful and in this case it's not far off from 50/50 so there will always be friction.

I agree.
The Brexit vote last year needed to have been backed up with an unequivocal pro-Brexit election last month. The fact that it wasn't has made Brexit as envisaged by leave voters like me, now highly unlikely.