Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Thrugelmir

Rinoa wrote: »

She could have met Juncker, or maybe Tusk, or any one of 27 heads of state. But she only met with one, Angela Merkel.

Perhaps the UK and Germany have matters of a mutual interest to discuss. Merkel can hardly tell the UK to accept unlimited immigration either now. As would undermine her personal situation at home.

LHW99

chose to leave what exactly

I believe the question was do you wish to "leave the EU".
I can understand the argument that that meant different things to different people, but however they interpreted it, that's what the choice was about.

Only by a small percentage & not all of the people who voted to leave were that committed to leaving

And quite possibly not all those that voted to remain were that committed either, as the status quo can appeal to many people. The percentage gave a majority, and that was what the result was judged on. There could have been a requirement for the result to have been, say, over 60% voting leave to action the change, but there wasn't.

Thrugelmir

LHW99 wrote: »

There could have been a requirement for the result to have been, say, over 60% voting leave to action the change, but there wasn't.

That's not British democracy though. We seem to live in an era where people aren't willing to accept majority decisions. Perhaps Brexit is re-establishing good old fashioned values. If the referendum applied only to England. Then the picture was very clear. Clearly illustrating those directly feeling the impact. London centric politicians are hopelessly out of touch with much of middle England. There's been huge changes that many people are resenting.

kabayiri

LHW99 wrote: »

I believe the question was do you wish to "leave the EU".
I can understand the argument that that meant different things to different people, but however they interpreted it, that's what the choice was about.
...

Yep.

"Should we leave the EU"

not

"How do you think we should leave the EU"

It's been very instructive this last few years. There isn't an ounce of integrity amongst the majority of our 2 main parties MPs.

They put party politics before country. I hope people don't forget this.

Herzlos

LHW99 wrote: »

I believe the question was do you wish to "leave the EU".
I can understand the argument that that meant different things to different people, but however they interpreted it, that's what the choice was about.

And quite possibly not all those that voted to remain were that committed either, as the status quo can appeal to many people. The percentage gave a majority, and that was what the result was judged on. There could have been a requirement for the result to have been, say, over 60% voting leave to action the change, but there wasn't.

I'm always amused by people to cling to the fact there was no majority requirement but if it's that the referendum was advisory.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

They put party politics before country. I hope people don't forget this.

Full circle back to Trump's win. To win elections you need to address peoples real day to day concerns. Not nanny them with unrealistic promises that cannot be delivered for them and their families.

ukcarper

ilovehouses wrote: »

The days when someone would win an election and everyone kept their mouths shut until the next election never existed even in the good old days.

I should remind you though there was a vote about whether to leave the EU. The majority decision was to leave. We leave on 29th March 2019. The argument that democracy hasn't been respected is going to look increasingly bizarre once we've left.

I'm not sure that is entirely true, I agree people are entitled to voice their opinions but after having referendum (which we only had because of remain MPs misplaced confidence that we would vote remain) I fell we must now leave and that must satisfy the reasons people voted leave for and not be leaving in name only.

Tromking

ilovehouses wrote: »

The days when someone would win an election and everyone kept their mouths shut until the next election never existed even in the good old days.

I should remind you though there was a vote about whether to leave the EU. The majority decision was to leave. We leave on 29th March 2019. The argument that democracy hasn't been respected is going to look increasingly bizarre once we've left.

The calculation is that TM’s ‘BRINO’ will somehow satisfy Leave voters, it’s my gut instinct that it won’t. We already have MP’s in leave constituencies fretting how about how this going down outside the Westminster bubble, a jump in the polls and membership of UKIP will kill this Chequers deal stone dead and maybe even TM at the same time. The ‘fun’ hasn’t even started yet.

Tromking

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure that is entirely true, I agree people are entitled to voice their opinions but after having referendum (which we only had because of remain MPs misplaced confidence that we would vote remain) I fell we must now leave and that must satisfy the reasons people voted leave for and not be leaving in name only.

Absolutely spot on.
I’m not sure the average Remainer realises the negative impact for our democracy if the aspirations of Leave voters are not met. I genuinely fear for our country if the referendum result is not carried through with.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure that is entirely true, I agree people are entitled to voice their opinions but after having referendum (which we only had because of remain MPs misplaced confidence that we would vote remain) I fell we must now leave and that must satisfy the reasons people voted leave for and not be leaving in name only.

Given that you acknowledge the referendum was just an attempt to silence some party rebels, why do you feel the justification to actually leave in more than name only?


Does leaving in some capacity address anyones concerns? Is it worth the cost? Do the people actually will it?