Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

You're in no position to attempt to take the moral high ground - you do plenty of sniping from that fence of yours.

I'd point out there's a not so subtle difference between not having all the answers and not having a clue.

I only snipe at hypocrits.

System

This is nonsensical, I'm going to the pub.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

If you think the 52% will be outraged in a single coherent block, then you're under thinking it.

If the four freedoms are still in place I think a very large majority if not all will be.

kabayiri

ilovehouses wrote: »

The democratic process is continuous and regularly overturns previous decisions that were also democratically decided. Democracy doesn't care whether you or I like the result of it.

People can change their minds and the democratic process allows for it.

No it's not that cut and dried at all.

You can get clear regional variations. Why should the people of Sunderland care what those in St Albans think?

I suggested before the referendum that people might vote based on local perceptions, and nothing has convinced me this is not the case.

We try and argue on here as though the UK is one big voting entity. It is not. That's why we get all the bickering, because how well you are doing can depend to a large extent on where you are.

It's just upset the Southern crowd that a lot of pesky Welsh and Northern types have spoilt the unity....well, it was never that unified then, was it.

mayonnaise

kabayiri wrote: »

Most of my dealings are with India and China. Why should I give a sausage about the single market?

That's like me saying why I should give a sausage about whether Britain has roads because I always take the train.

Don't get me wrong, good for you that your dealings are with India and China, nothing wrong with that.

However, our trade with India and China combined tots up to the trade we do with France. And that's just one of the 27.

System

ukcarper wrote: »

If the four freedoms are still in place I think a very large majority if not all will be.

Yesterday, for the first time since the referendum, the cabinet met to discuss what sort of relationship the UK wants with the EU post-brexit.

Immigration wasn't deemed worthy of discussion. It beggars belief really. This government is the very definition of a lame duck.

tracey3596

Michel Barnier is 'Scrooge' to rule out bespoke Brexit deal, City bosses say

“There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn’t exist,” Mr Barnier told newspapers including the Guardian.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/19/michel-barnier-scrooge-rule-bespoke-brexit-deal-city-bosses/
Ah.
More double-standards Monsieur Barnier?
Because it seems that you're looking to open the financial sector in your planned expansion of the trade deal proposed with Mexico - and they don't already deal with you and apply the necessary EU regulations as the UK does.

The EU already has a basic accord with Mexico since 2000 covering goods such as machinery and cars, but the upgrade would liberalize trade in important sectors such as finance, e-commerce and agriculture.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and-mexico-make-big-push-for-trade-deal-in-coming-days/

That's nothing new either as this was also covered by Politico way back in June. So is Barnier blustering ................. or ignorant?
https://www.politico.eu/pro/from-banks-to-avocados-eu-seeks-mexico-trade-upgrade/

kabayiri

ilovehouses wrote: »

The bickering is because a referendum where the result is evenly spilt can be nothing but divisive. If the result was 90:10 we wouldn't be having this conversation because politicians go where the votes are. A hard brexit when 48% didn't even want to leave - yes, you don't want to upset the 52% but you can't ignore the 48% either.

It was a stupid frame of reference for the referendum I agree.

In fact, I'd go so far as to fire anyone who was responsible for it on and deprive them of their generous pensions.

When you are asked to make a value judgement, you can generally get 3 outcomes :
- yeah, I'm all for it
- no chance, it's stupid
- honestly, I don't know, pros and cons either way.

Politicians don't like to acknowledge that there are people in this 3rd group.

The referendum should have identified the 3 biggest issues driving the public vote, at the same time.

We would have ended up with a split decision, and a big old battering ram to take to Juncker and co saying this is why we are on the cusp of leaving. Sounds like a plan to me.

Instead, Cameron goes off prematurely to the EU, and they basically send him off with a flea in his ear!

kabayiri

mayonnaise wrote: »

That's like me saying why I should give a sausage about whether Britain has roads because I always take the train.
...

Yes, it is.

It works the other way too. I met plenty of Uni lecturers who were asking parents of future students to vote Remain because it was good for them and their academic interests.

It's just as selfish as a leaver, but I respect their honesty.

The politician role is to promote the collective good over individual interests I guess. They just haven't been very good at it recently.

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

The bickering is because a referendum where the result is evenly spilt can be nothing but divisive. If the result was 90:10 we wouldn't be having this conversation because politicians go where the votes are. A hard brexit when 48% didn't even want to leave - yes, you don't want to upset the 52% but you can't ignore the 48% either.

I’m just wondering where the exact problem is then.

You don’t want a hard brexit and Parliament isn’t going to deliver one.
Well, not unless talks completely fall apart, which they won’t.