Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

Filo25

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Now as someone admittedly more pro-leave than pro-remain and yet with a capacity to interpret facts & figures, some of your statements therein I must take issue with:

There is so far absolutely no evidence that we will be poorer outside the EU than in it - in fact the opposite does appear to be more likely on balance.

Remain supporters still haven't convinced me that I will lose anything from Brexit as opposed to remaining making us a bit poorer. Until some other EU poop hits the fan or some other fabrication is made and we get another request for additional funds, as has happened before. (£1.7 billion in 2014 for example.)

The language coming from senior Eurocrats is suggestive of the fear they have of losing a major contributor. There is absolutely no reason otherwise for the tone taken, as covered widely in threads within these very forums.

The talk of "blame" smacks of desperation - more-so given so far absolutely nothing has been agreed between ourselves and the EU regarding Brexit.
You might like predictions, but reality is often far different.
Once an outcome is known and if there remains any necessity to apportion blame you may do so if appropriate; beforehand is (politely) both premature and foolhardy.

FYI the above applies equally to both pro-remain and to pro-leave.
So far however any talk of impending doom flies in the face of statistical evidence.

I don't really want to go over the same ground we have already been over so many times before, as to be brutally honest I think both "sides" in this debate stopped listening to the other long ago, we all have developed a great ability to cherry pick facts to suit our case and ignore all others, and as always with economics there will always be facts which can be spun on both sides of the argument.

But we haven't even left the EU and you can already see some impacts just from the impact on confidence of the decision to leave, the fall in Sterling has already led to inflation and squeezed real wages and our GDP growth has deteriorated significantly relative to the other major economies compared to where we stood before this.

And just to reiterate we haven't seen any "real" Brexit impacts yet, this is just being driven by reduced confidence in the economy as a result of what we fear is coming, if its on the Harder end of the Brexit scale then things will get worse economically, if its a softer Brexit then a lot of Brexit voters will no doubt feel betrayed by what happened, I don't think anyone is destined to have much joy in the outcome of this and we will remain a very divided country for a long time to come.

Thrugelmir

Filo25 wrote: »

EU politicians are playing to their domestic galleries in exactly the same way ours are, its hardly a surprise, the whole thing is so depressingly predictable.

Even the mighty Merkel in reality only polls around 28% of the German electorate. While appearing tough. She speaks in reality for a minority. Politics across much of Europe is splintered. While the UK's election system isn't perfect. At least it provides stability.

Filo25

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Even the mighty Merkel in reality only polls around 28% of the German electorate. While appearing tough. She speaks in reality for a minority. Politics across much of Europe is splintered. While the UK's election system isn't perfect. At least it provides stability.

It does but at the expense of the level of power you have as a voter, in the last election I found myself voting for a the candidate of a party whose leader I profoundly distrust, otherwise my vote would have been wasted, it was very much a case of voting for the least awful option rather than out of any great love of either of the main parties, for many living in safe seats under FPTP their vote is basically irrelevant.

Equally I wouldn't say that the lack of stability seems to be doing Germany much harm!

Rusty_Shackleton

setmefree2 wrote: »

I seem to recall that Rusty (and his many sockies) works for the German company SAP - so I'm sure he does have a vested interest in the UK staying in the EU and is not really thinking of the greater good.....but his own pocket.

Completely explains his rage fwiw.

:rotfl: would you care to explain your accusation of a vested interest, in that I supposedly work for SAP? Ive mentioned on several threads that I work for a manufacturer, Ive never mentioned SAP.

Please go ahead and do an advanced search on my posting history for SAP, i'd appreciate an apology for your completely baseless accusation once you've confirmed your error.

Regardless of your stance on the EU you should all recognise there's a serious problem if you need to fabricate something to try and discredit someone because you disagree with them.

always_sunny

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's good to have checks and balances, it's rare that there is a need to overrule the HoL. There are benefits to not having an elected 2nd chamber. Lobbyists have less influence as there's no need to fund re-election like the US Senate. It could go and I wouldn't be upset about it as long as we replace it with a functioning 2nd chamber to keep the HoC in check.

If you're frustrated that's fair enough but I'm not bashing the EU out of spite. It's a truth that MEP's cannot change the legislation without bureaucratic blessings from the commission who not one vote was cast for by the people. It's a truth that added to a multitude of other reasons that resulted in a leave vote for some people.

The monarchy does no one any harm as far as I can tell. Apart from maybe Andrew, there's always one black sheep. I wouldn't put Phillip in that category as he's too old to know better now. Like most elderly they'll say and do as they please.

I'm not trying to prove who is better or who is worse, that argument is completely irrelevant. We can change our national systems if we want to via parliament.

But you are, MEP cannot change legislations because of its design:

In the beginning, the 1957 Treaty of Rome gave Parliament an advisory role in the legislative process; the Commission proposed and the Council adopted legislation.

The Single European Act (1986) and the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties successively extended Parliament's prerogatives.

The EU is now looking at extending further the EU Parliament powers but these things don't happen overnight so yes, you're bashing out of spite because anything with the EU-tag must be rejected.

There are the same checks and balance you talk about are also applied in the EU Parliament, the Commission/Council cannot approve a legislation the EU Parliament must have a majority.
The UK has has 73 MEP elected by the people.

The monarchy like the unelected HoL cost taxpayers a huge amount of money. We can argue that the Queen brings revenues and that the HoL brings balance, but the bottom line is you (as an ordinary citizen) have no say whatsoever in those matters,

In your opinion, if the same scenarios are in the UK, that's fine it's not a problem, but if [pretty much] the same things is in the EU, then it must be bad at all costs or are you able to articulate something positive about the EU?

posh*spice

Filo25 wrote: »

So you have issues with the way in which a varied group "the white working class" have been demonised and had stereotypes applied to them, and then do the same to "Remoaners", fair enough.

I will freely admit to being a Remoaner, I don't hate my country, I don't hate people who voted for Brexit, but I think it was an act of economic self destruction.

I don't think Britain will fall apart outside the EU, I don;t think it will stop trading with the EU, but I think we will largely be poorer than we otherwise would be (indeed we already are to a small extent), Brexit supporters still haven't convinced me that I will gain anything else from Brexit to make up for us being a bit poorer.

Just over a year ago we were all being told that the EU needed us far more than we needed them and we had them over a barrel, that seems a long time ago, now we get prominent Leavers telling us the big bad EU is trying to blackmail us (which should be pretty hard to do given that we apparently have all the bargaining power).

All of this was immensely predictable, a lot of us predicted it on here long ago, of course rather than admit that some claims which were made by the Leave campaign (and the Remain one for that matter) were based more in fantasy than reality, instead we get the blaming of the predictable usual suspects, the EU, Remoaners, Elites, Saboteurs, etc. , that unfortunately was also equally predictable

All your own opinions with not a shred of evidence to back them up. Feel free to carry on remoaning I'm guessing you (and all your sock puppets) will get bored eventually.

Private_Church

always_sunny wrote: »

But you are, MEP cannot change legislations because of its design:

In the beginning, the 1957 Treaty of Rome gave Parliament an advisory role in the legislative process; the Commission proposed and the Council adopted legislation.

The Single European Act (1986) and the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties successively extended Parliament's prerogatives.

The EU is now looking at extending further the EU Parliament powers but these things don't happen overnight so yes, you're bashing out of spite because anything with the EU-tag must be rejected.

You seem blind to the damage that can be caused by the EU taking years to reform and thats exactly why many people voted to leave because the EU has shown its incapable of genuine reform purely down to the way its constructed.

If the Bubonic plague broke out in Romania tomorrow I would guarantee the EU would do zip all till at least Christmas by which time the plague would be in France. This is the problem with the EU and you can't deny that it takes years/decades for it to refom in any way. The CAP being a good example and even after the so called reform its still not fit for purpose.If you had a leaky roof and the builder came round every couple of weeks to "repair" it and months later its still leaking what would you do?.. Let him carry on? no don't think you would but we have no power to sack the EU elites.

At least the UK parliament tends to act quickly in times of need. The EU's response times are quite pathetic.How long has the UK,Netherlands and others tried to get the EU to reform and it failed purely down to the political dogma of middle aged men in offices who we cannot vote out.

Tromking

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

What is anti-British or unpatriotic to point out that the UK does, at times, have delusions of granduer? There is visibly an imperial attitude in some areas of our society, certain newspapers and politicians come to mind. There is also a popular perception of the empire being this great thing, and while it had some admirable accomplishments, a lot of people gloss over (or arent aware) of some appalling crimes committed by the state... Hell we basically had concentration camps in Kenya in the 20th century. As for being run by toffs wanting to turn the clock back 100 years, thats a comment about a political party - and given the highly disproportionate number of Eton and Oxbridge alumni in government, the first half is hardly disputable.

Your last sentence is incredibly ironic when you're replying to my point that people need to stop trying to play the man instead of the ball. Im getting an awful lot of credit for going off on a tangent in part 2, its interesting how you and others seem to think I was debating with myself... Is there a reason you don't mention the brexit supporting posters who were taking part?

I'm sorry Rusty but the majority of the above is just guilt-ridden leftist drivel. I'm 51 and have no such imperialist hangover and can't even remember a time when we lorded it over anyone. What we do possess, for good or ill is a fiercely independent spirit which does not lend itself kindly to being a supplicant member of a supranational entity like the EU.
I am personally looking forward to leaving the likes of Barnier, Verhofstadt and juncker behind. These Brit bashing political pygmies have no place in our national life IMO. Let them curry favour with the Germans and French by having a pop at the errant Poles or Hungarians in the future.

TrickyTree83

always_sunny wrote: »

But you are, MEP cannot change legislations because of its design:

In the beginning, the 1957 Treaty of Rome gave Parliament an advisory role in the legislative process; the Commission proposed and the Council adopted legislation.

The Single European Act (1986) and the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties successively extended Parliament's prerogatives.

The EU is now looking at extending further the EU Parliament powers but these things don't happen overnight so yes, you're bashing out of spite because anything with the EU-tag must be rejected.

There are the same checks and balance you talk about are also applied in the EU Parliament, the Commission/Council cannot approve a legislation the EU Parliament must have a majority.
The UK has has 73 MEP elected by the people.

The monarchy like the unelected HoL cost taxpayers a huge amount of money. We can argue that the Queen brings revenues and that the HoL brings balance, but the bottom line is you (as an ordinary citizen) have no say whatsoever in those matters,

In your opinion, if the same scenarios are in the UK, that's fine it's not a problem, but if [pretty much] the same things is in the EU, then it must be bad at all costs or are you able to articulate something positive about the EU?

The UK systems have nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. I never said it was fine, those are your words.

I was pointing out the flaw with the EU process regarding why power at the ballot box does not exist for EU citizens when it comes to the EU itself. That is true in the past, at the time of the referendum vote and it's still true today. It's not spite, it's a fact.

If I responded to a post about what is good or bad about the EU then you would be justified in your segways into topics completely unrelated to the point I made. But I didn't reply to a post like that and thus your segways about the monarchy, the HoL, future plans (however vague or not) are irrelevant when talking about the power we have at the ballot box within the systems of the EU.

I don't reject anything with an EU tag. I would stay in the EEA, I've said that on many occasions but I call a spade a spade. No circular logic or deflection, MEP's cannot table legislation and as such your vote for your MEP means nothing if you want to affect meaningful change at the EU level. It is only if the commission agree and propose legislation that the EU parliament get a say on the matter, is it not?

BobQ

Tromking wrote: »

......and you accuse the UK and its people of being arrogant.

No I accuse those who suggest that the EU is undemocratic of arrogance. Not all of us think that way,

I am not saying the EU is perfect, clearly its not and Barnier is I agree arrogant.