Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

kabayiri

phillw wrote: »

The whole "both sides lied" argument is poor. David Cameron never said that brexit would trigger world war 3 no matter how many people claimed he did (and the daily mail are still claiming that).
...

Err, not sure where I have ever mentioned WW3? Maybe the papers did, but I didn't follow that.

I think that organisations that are able to evolve and respond to new challenges are ultimately more stable than staid institutions like the EU.

kabayiri

ilovehouses wrote: »

I think some of the fringe (who can't even see the current centre they're so far away) are hoping the bell curve is going to move to the right to meet them.
...

It's not really left/right, it's just that opponents want to categorise the opposition.

If you believe in big state, as Labour do, you have to find the money to pay for it. I think the era of largesse is over, certainly for a few decades.

The alternative is smaller government, which typically comes from the right, but not exclusively.

phillw

kabayiri wrote: »

Err, not sure where I have ever mentioned WW3? Maybe the papers did, but I didn't follow that.

That was just the first one that came to mind, because you floated the idea that both side lied but didn't go into any detail. It's possible to rebuff all the so called lies, which are nothing like what leave.eu had already admitted to.

kabayiri wrote: »

I think that organisations that are able to evolve and respond to new challenges are ultimately more stable than staid institutions like the EU.

Our current government is not such an institution, the current loud voices appear to be suggesting returning to colonial days. The EU has proved itself to be far more able to adapt.

kabayiri wrote: »

It's not really left/right, it's just that opponents want to categorise the opposition.

If you believe in big state, as Labour do, you have to find the money to pay for it. I think the era of largesse is over, certainly for a few decades.

The alternative is smaller government, which typically comes from the right, but not exclusively.

The Conservatives are buying into the "Our NHS" sentiment, they are going to have just as much problem paying for it as Labour would.

kabayiri wrote: »

He's right about the Irish bluff isn't he? Managing an effective border is an implementation problem between Eire and UK. Over time we will get it right. We'd have had the same potential challenge with an independent Scotland, yet nobody was fretting over it.

Neither of your points is valid. Independent Scotland would still have been in the EU & nobody thought Britain would have left, so nobody was worried. A lot of people in Scotland now think their referendum should have been held after brexit, so they could have jumped ship and not gone down with the rest of us.

The Irish border issue is a hot spot since we stole half their country and refuse to give it back. No amount of hand waving is going to appease them, no matter how much the leavers really want the problem to disappear.

kabayiri

phillw wrote: »

...
Now because of voter apathy during the first referendum because everyone thought we'd stay in, we're going to have to figure out either how to fix the problems with democracy in the UK or abandon the country for one that isn't so cray cray. The "you snoozed you lose" argument is pretty galling.

I honestly thought the Leave vote would be noticeable but not a win. It takes a big swing to counter the Establishment line, which Cameron fully backed.

I know a lot of people here from Asian background, mostly down to work connections. I was surprised just how many voted to Leave. Maybe it really is harder to read the mood of a much more varied country, another challenge for our democratic systems.

Herzlos

People could have voted leave for all sorts of reasons, particularly when they felt there was no chance of it succeeding. I wonder if we'll ever find out what percentage did it as a protest against something in the establishment.


It's not hard to see why Leave won - the lies were incredible, but suited what people wanted to hear.

kabayiri wrote: »

He's right about the Irish bluff isn't he? Managing an effective border is an implementation problem between Eire and UK. Over time we will get it right. We'd have had the same potential challenge with an independent Scotland, yet nobody was fretting over it.

I don't think we would. We'd either both be in the EU with FoM and no border, or we could introduce a border, with some sort of pre-approval/fast-track for stuff crossing it. Like we do elsewhere around the Eurozone.


We can't do that with Ireland because of the Good Friday Agreement (no border) and the DUP having a disproportionate amount of power (due to the minority Tory government), coupled with May's insistence that we'll leave the customs union.


There's literally no option that satisfies the requirements - to be outside of the customs union but without any border infrastructure on either side of NI.


Potentially, another snap GE may fix it, if the Tories get a majority and can tell the DUP to get back in their cave.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
We can't do that with Ireland because of the Good Friday Agreement (no border) and the DUP having a disproportionate amount of power (due to the minority Tory government), coupled with May's insistence that we'll leave the customs union.
...

Well, the Agreement is broken. If you want the North and South to get along, you need a practical approach to trade.

The EU deal takes priority, for me.

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

I think some of the fringe (who can't even see the current centre they're so far away) are hoping the bell curve is going to move to the right to meet them.

Not going to happen. It's too far.

UKIP was their best hope. Although some seem quite nonplussed about voting for them I suspect, for most its become a dirty secret.

The fringe are going to be disappointed because they always are.
In between the fringe and the centre are pragmatists who understand you have to accept marginal shifts over the longer term.
Such leavers will ultimately accept a compromise leave because it’s the step in their direction that’s most important. Non-lunatic remainers will ultimately accept a compromise leave as long as that step isn’t too great.
Selling the trade-off takes longer than figuring out what the trade-off actually is.

It’s the only solution and always was going to be despite ramblings from both sides.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rinoa wrote: »

From Theresa May's Mansion House speech 2nd March 2018, a long time after the 2017 election:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-our-future-economic-partnership-with-the-european-union

JRM simply wants her to carry out these pledges.

Well she's not going to, so best just get over it.;)

The inevitable consequence of 'taking back control' is that the UK govt then gets to choose what it wants to do and what the right balance and trade-offs are in it's future relationship with the EU.

So if it decides that in future, something close to free movement but with a bit more control and suitably rebranded is in our best interests, it can do that.

Or if it decides to leave 'the customs union' for a 'new customs partnership' it can do that too.

Or it can even just decide to apply for EEA or EFTA membership if it wants to.

"Taking back control" is the first step - evaluating the best way forward for the UK is something else entirely, and that something will no doubt change over time as the real world does, and those questions weren't on the referendum ballot paper....

They were however clearly explained in the official UK government White Paper published in March 2016, which was clear as to what would happen if the UK voted to leave.

If the result of the referendum were a vote to leave, we would seek
the best possible balance of advantage for the UK.

However, regardless of the preferred outcome that the UK seeks, the
precedents clearly indicate that we would need to make a number
of trade-offs:

- in return for full access to the EUs free-trade Single Market in key UK
industries, we would have to accept the free movement of people;

- full access to the Single Market would require us to continue to
contribute to the EUs programmes and budget;

- an approach based on a Free Trade Agreement would not come
with the same level of obligations, but would mean UK companies
had reduced access to the Single Market in key sectors such as
services (almost 80 per cent of the UK economy), and would face
higher costs;

- in order to maintain the rights of UK citizens living, working and
travelling in other EU countries, we would almost certainly have
to accept reciprocal arrangements for their citizens in the UK.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

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.

What individual campaigners or politicians may or may not have said is of no relevance - as the official government position was laid out very clearly before the vote...

And if some Brexit voters didn't bother to read the government's position prior to voting, that's hardly the fault of Remainers...

Graham_Devon

phillw wrote: »

The whole "both sides lied" argument is poor. David Cameron never said that brexit would trigger world war 3 no matter how many people claimed he did (and the daily mail are still claiming that).

He pointed out that europe has never in it's history been so stable and that is all because of the EU, so dismantling it for tenuous reasons is kinda reckless. Both the two world wars were due to economic problems which the EU was set up to prevent (which was at our recommendation and then when our economy suffered we begged to join too).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296

What he said is there.

He never said "World War 3", no, but he did reference the last 2 wars (stating the UK regretted turning it's back before) and asked the country whether voting leave was worth "risking the peace".

People made of that what they wanted - and Cameron purposely made the speech that way in order that people could conclude what they wished. He hoped for fear of a new European War breaking out should we leave - that's very clear.

Herzlos

Even you must be able to admit that nothing he said is close to brexiteer warcry that Cameron promised Brexit would result in WW3.

kabayiri wrote: »

Well, the Agreement is broken. If you want the North and South to get along, you need a practical approach to trade.

In what was is it currently broken?
The practical approach to trade is open borders - staying in the customs union. Everything else is a less efficient compromise.

The EU deal takes priority, for me.

But it doesn't take priority for a lot of people. I presume you don't live anywhere near the border in question?


Given that we're leaving and need to do something though; I'd also be in favour of either tearing up the GFA and sending the army back in, or giving NI a referendum on whether they want to have a hard border between Eire or what's left of the UK.