Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

kabayiri

I thought it was clear what we were voting for; Cameron's leaflet spelt it out.

"A decade of uncertainty" <-- if we leave
"benefits system less of a draw for EU migrants" <-- if we stay

We chose the uncertainty didn't we?

Nowhere in the leaflet did it say that the government could not deliver Brexit. It just said they would find it troublesome and difficult...which is as it is panning out.

People do vote for things which make either themselves or others worse off you know. Voting for Corbyn would make lots of people worse off...but they still did it.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
The official UK government position before the referendum was that if we voted to leave, the government would then choose the best possible balance between rights and responsibilities, and make compromises that may include accepting free movement of people in return for the access to the single market.
...

...and we can judge them on the balance they achieve.

Seems fair enough to me. There's a good chance the Tories will split when people see poor delivery, and I'm afraid Corbyn has proved spineless.

Time for some proper right wing option, not this fickle UKIP.

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

Even our resident right wing brexiteers seem to go into a swoon whenever they hear of a European electorate moving towards the right so I can't it happening. Unless, maybe, just maybe they're pretending.

Besides proper right wing options are available but people tend not to vote for them because..well... they're proper right wing and most people find them a bit repulsive.

The reality is that there’s been a minor shift from dead-centre bland generic Cameron/Millinand one-size-fits all politics back to where the parties were pre-Blair.

There’s nothing really extreme in either may or corbyns agendas. Maybe slightly more so in the latter but it’s hardly bnp vs swp territory.

At the moment may clinging on and delivering a compromise is the favourite outcome. Which would be an absolute miracle i’m sure you’ll agree.

Thrugelmir

mrginge wrote: »

The reality is that there!!!8217;s been a minor shift from dead-centre bland generic Cameron/Millinand one-size-fits all politics back to where the parties were pre-Blair.

Blair\Brown was only ever a sticking plaster on a septic wound. Milliband like Corbyn was the paymasters choice of puppet.

Filo25

kabayiri wrote: »

I thought it was clear what we were voting for; Cameron's leaflet spelt it out.

"A decade of uncertainty" <-- if we leave
"benefits system less of a draw for EU migrants" <-- if we stay

We chose the uncertainty didn't we?

Nowhere in the leaflet did it say that the government could not deliver Brexit. It just said they would find it troublesome and difficult...which is as it is panning out.

People do vote for things which make either themselves or others worse off you know. Voting for Corbyn would make lots of people worse off...but they still did it.

And many in the Leave campaign said it was all Project Fear nonsense and it would be the easiest deal ever, I certainly recall reading a lot of that on here from our resident "Leave" population at the time, I think most Leave voters thought this would be straightforward, some of the more enthusiastic Leavers still seem to think that is the case!

Of course certain groups like the retired may think they are more insulated from any economic fallout and I can see why it might be a much lesser consideration for them.

A lot of people vote for Corbyn think they will be better off under a Corbyn government I suspect, that's the reason for those eye catching bribes for parts of the electorate, and trying to convince people that it can all be paid for by only taxing a relatively small group to pay for it.

buglawton

kabayiri wrote: »

I thought it was clear what we were voting for; Cameron's leaflet spelt it out.

"A decade of uncertainty" <-- if we leave
"benefits system less of a draw for EU migrants" <-- if we stay

We chose the uncertainty didn't we?

Nowhere in the leaflet did it say that the government could not deliver Brexit. It just said they would find it troublesome and difficult...which is as it is panning out.

People do vote for things which make either themselves or others worse off you know. Voting for Corbyn would make lots of people worse off...but they still did it.

Benefits system a major draw? In that case they'd be going to France, Denmark or Norway where the social net is more comprehensive.

Why do politicians try to mislead us with talk of benefits?
Why did Cameron not go to Brussels with a more genuine grievance?

The real draw of the UK is a fairly vibrant jobs market around the minimum wage level.

Eastern Europe or rural Southern Europe: Young persons, even graduates wage €1 to €3/hour.
UK: Minimum wage (that's actually enforced except for small employer Apprenticeship scams) £7.80/hour.

The UK has been conveniently absorbing the EUs more extreme edges of unemployment and low wages for a long time.

The real draw of the UK is: Easy unbureaucratic job seeking, popular English language, proper minimum wage regime, good cheap transport links back to home.

This would have been all great, however certain UK regions/cities feel hard done by by this one-directional super labour mobility.
Hence your 52%.

Repeat: It's not about benefits.

kabayiri

Filo25 wrote: »

And many in the Leave campaign said it was all Project Fear nonsense and it would be the easiest deal ever, I certainly recall reading a lot of that on here from our resident "Leave" population at the time, I think most Leave voters thought this would be straightforward, some of the more enthusiastic Leavers still seem to think that is the case!
...

Personal view only. I always thought a Brexit would be a long haul, not a short term instant nirvana thing.

Thing is, when have you known voters to go for the long term? Mainstream parties avoid tackling issues like pension or social care reform because they know the electorate doesn't want to pay. The new economic migrants are even more short term; they want money now. It's a short term world in the UK now.

I can understand why Brexit was sold the way it was. You do what is needed to persuade people.

kabayiri

buglawton wrote: »

Benefits system a major draw? In that case they'd be going to France, Denmark or Norway where the social net is more comprehensive.
...

It was straight from the leaflet. I quite agree it was a weak pitch, but that was the actual pitch.

It's no wonder Remain lost ... Cameron had no compelling offer.

Matt_L

mayonnaise wrote: »

Do you mean none of these claims were made during the official referendum campaign period of 15 April 2016 to 23 June 2016?

That's possible.

But utterly irrelevant.

Utterly irrelevant to a remoaner that just can't accept the democratic will of the people..

Thats possible:rotfl::rotfl:

Filo25

kabayiri wrote: »

It was straight from the leaflet. I quite agree it was a weak pitch, but that was the actual pitch.

It's no wonder Remain lost ... Cameron had no compelling offer.

Both sides lied their backsides off during the campaign, but Leave ran the far more effective campaign to be honest.

There was no positive vision at all from Cameron and Osborne, although to be fair I think it is difficult to offer sunny uplands and a better future for all when you are the "status quo" option, Leave benefitted by being able to be flexible in presenting very different (and sometimes even opposing!) arguments in support of Brexit to different groups.