Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Lornapink

Herzlos wrote: »

Have you got any links yet about what Leave means?

Compared to Leave, almost anything has more certainty.

Leave means embracing a new reality with confidence, it means innovation and making our own decisions as do other prospering independent nations.

Remain is always advertised as a vote for certainty so rest assured Remain would be pinned to the wall over the question of what PRECISELY Remain means and what our membership fee is forecast to be following the 2021 review. Some EU figures are saying the budget should double (Tanjani is one example).

So far none of you has provided an unequivocal EU position on what Remain means.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

I'm not clutching at anything. I was simply pointing out the flaw in the argument.

And the flaw was?

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

Leave means embracing a new reality with confidence, it means innovation and making our own decisions as do other prospering independent nations.

Right, and any of that means what? Can you be specific on anything?

Remain is always advertised as a vote for certainty so rest assured Remain would be pinned to the wall over the question of what PRECISELY Remain means and what our membership fee is forecast to be following the 2021 review. Some EU figures are saying the budget should double (Tanjani is one example).

Ah, OK. Because Leave was never specific about anything and Remain was about certainty, only Remain has to prove that certainty to the satisfaction of someone who's not interested in the wording of the article, the word of the author, or how the law works? Like I said, I'll dig out the quotes you can deny aren't valid enough later, as it'll be fairly time consuming.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The eu are making up the rules as they go.

You're going to have to spell this out for me, as I am but a simple Remainer. But what rules, exactly, have they made up?

They simply do not want it to look like it will be anything like easy and profitable for any country to leave the eu.

Is that the EU making things deliberately difficult? Please be specific here. Or is it because disengaging from something like the EU where we've been a member for 40 years is significantly harder than brexiteers claimed?

As they are making up the rules they could have made up one whereby a leaving country could trade with the eu on leaving on the basis of X tariff but no, they decided to do it this way.

Evidence?


They gave us plenty of options to leave and trade with them. We don't want any, because we (seem to) want to trade with them as if we're a member, whilst not taking on any of the responsibilities of being a member. We were told no a la carte 3 years, and we're still not getting it.

I do not believe for one second that, if we had set out the way we wanted to negotiate, they would have done anything other than stamp their feet and say no.

If we'd offered anything that was acceptable, it'd be accepted. We've been a key member for decades; we know how it works and what'd be accepted, it's not just sane or politically acceptibe to take any of those options.

There is no way they will willingly let their cash cow go without trying to wreck us first.

We can't be a cash cow and have them try to wreck us, or we'd stop being a cash cow. Do you have any evidence (a dirty word, I know) that this is deliberate action from the EU and not a consequence of economic suicide?

Hopefully the way they have acted whilst we are trying to leave will make any other net contributors think twice about joining, and the fact that so many net takers want to join is sure to make the eu more than unsteady on their feet. Hoist by their own petard.

No other country is seriously considering leaving, because it just doesn't make sense on any level beyond some vague populist nationalism. No other country has reached the level required for it to be a credible threat.

Matt_L

Anyone who even thinks theres a chance of Article 50 being revoked is living in noddy land. Neither Labour nor the Tory's would attempt such a thing..

So this whole argument is a waste of internet ink..

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
Not leaving means we go back to the deal we had. All we lose is a lot of political clout/good will and the jobs that have already left.
...

That's just nonsense.

Surely, if we learn anything from this whole Brexit affair, it's that we need to try and be a bit more brutally honest with the voters.

The EU has to move to majority voting as it gets bigger, and as a result an unpopular member like UK could easily be marginalised in any of the key future votes.

It's disingenuous to pretend we are not a weaker member within the Union. That happened the day our referendum showed the lukewarm support in the country for the EU project.

Herzlos

I think you're calling my claim nonsense and then agreeing with it. We're weaker now whether we're in our out. Going back to what we had won't happen, so it's a choice between we can have have in the EU (pretty clear for everyone except Conrad) or what we can have outside the EU (pretty clear for everyone except May's cabinet).


Within the EU: We can have what we already had, on paper at least, by admitting leaving was a mistake and withdrawing A50. If we leave and re-join, we're in as a new member and much worse off.


So the question becomes: Is re-joining better than whatever Brexit is? I'd argue it's almost certainly yes, unless Brexit is EEA.

Filo25

For all of the criticism from David Davis, I didn't hear much of an actual comment on what Brexit we should be pursuing, it seems to be the usual nonsense that if we keep on asking for the non-deliverable then the EU will eventually crack even though there is sod all evidence to support that and the uncertainty is already starting to hit the business environment.

Herzlos

I think it's just a pig headed unwillingness to look facts in the face.


Somehow people seem to think that if we just keep polishing the turd the EU will eventually give in and agree to it. Then they get outraged when the EU rejects another clearly garbage proposal within minutes, even though it's almost the same as the previous rejected garbage proposal with a few of the words changed.




To bring back the house sale analogy:
EU: The house is offers over £200k
UK: £200
EU: No.
UK: Why are you being unreasonable? £201.
EU: Seriously? No.
UK: £202.
EU: ....

Filo25

Dominic Raab is the new Brexit Secretary