Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Theophile

ukcarper wrote: »

No it isn’t you know full well what people voted for and are just not prepared to accept it and labelling their reasons for voting as fears and phobias does not help the remaim cause. The contempt some of the remain posters show for brexit voters is concerning.

What remain cause?
There is no remain cause.
We are leaving. Leaving the EU.
Whether the end result will satisfy Tromking's democratic wishes (as a 'winner') is another matter.

ukcarper

Theophile wrote: »

What remain cause?
There is no remain cause.
We are leaving. Leaving the EU.
Whether the end result will satisfy Tromking's democratic wishes (as a 'winner') is another matter.

I agree we are leaving and I suspect very few people will be entirely happy with the final deal but I dont see the point of going over the same arguments that were used in the run up to referendum. As yet we dont know how we will be affected its all speculation but if all the doom turned out to be true the damage was done June 2016 and there is no going back now.

There seem to be a lot of remain supporters trying to undermine the result and paying lip service to result.

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

I don’t object to people disagreeing with the result of referendum but at least they should be honest and say that they do not accept it. Although it wasn’t mentioned on ballot paper It is obvious to me that leave voters do not want be subject to the four freedoms and if I can see that so can the the like of Chuka Ummana and by pushing for solutions that include them they are not accepting the result.

But you do mind! Calling people dishonest for not saying what you think they should is frankly offensive.

You seem to want to infer things from a yes vote but cannot possibly know.

Personally I was quite content with three of the four freedoms but had some doubts about controlling immigration. But on balance I voted remain. Had I been obsessed with immigration I may well have voted to leave.

You cannot infer from a yes/no vote that anyone agrees with or opposes all 4 freedoms. To do so is dishonest.

BobQ

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Strangely enough, when I saw the ballot paper, I assumed that out meant out - of everything.

I voted to remain, but now I would not hesitate to vote to leave. Lies from the remain side such as that the idea of an eu army was ridiculous, and that Turkey would never be allowed to join (they are currently arranging to discuss membership). This is all the sort of thing that many people are against, including those currently in the "union", but they are ploughing on ahead anyway.

I say again, the eu is simply trying to take over the world, but there is no way a large organisation like that can be of benefit to all members, it is mainly Germany and France that will benefit, and that is fine by them, the Germans have always wanted to run the world.

Your comments are ill conceived. The impetus for a so called "EU army" is largely economic with nations unable to afford a full range of defence capabilities or able to sustain its national industry, seeking cooperation. Belgium and the Netherlands have cooperated for years on defence and shared facilities for example. The UK has often trained other NATO military personnel. European Industry already work across national borders and operate work share arrangements. Its all about economies of scale in projects like Eurofighter. Portraying this as an EU Army is tabloid journalism.

Regarding Turkey, you can never say never but Turkey will have to change a lot for it to happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42586108

More chance of the UK rejoining the EU.

ukcarper

BobQ wrote: »

But you do mind! Calling people dishonest for not saying what you think they should is frankly offensive.

You seem to want to infer things from a yes vote but cannot possibly know.

Personally I was quite content with three of the four freedoms but had some doubts about controlling immigration. But on balance I voted remain. Had I been obsessed with immigration I may well have voted to leave.

You cannot infer from a yes/no vote that anyone agrees with or opposes all 4 freedoms. To do so is dishonest.

I’m not implying they opposes all 4 freedoms or ECJ but most if not all are opposed to a least one of them and a solution which means accepting all of them means they will all feel aggrieved. I do think people like Chukka Umunna are being dishonest when they say they say they respect result. I am not happy with result but accept it and Chukka etc are obviously unhappy with result and should say so and then try to convince people they have made a mistake.

Backbiter

I don't suppose Tracey's got around to posting this link yet:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-wiped-out-7-7bn-of-business-investment-says-bank-of-england-9h56fgpjs

And as for Daniel Hannan:

. Daniel Hannan
!!!10004;
@DanielJHannan
!!!8220;Voters weren!!!8217;t told about the costs of Brexit!!!8221;. Oh yes they were. Day after day by Remain campaigners and by the Government itself. They weighed those costs against the gains and decided, on balance, to vote leave.

These were the costs denounced as Project Fear, but which he now acknowledge s were real, unlike the fabricated £350m a week on the Brexit bus.

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

So what do you think they were voting for ?

A host of things ranging from principled stands to accept that we must regain complete sovereignty whatever the cost or EU has too much regulation; to irrational views that the EU is responsible for decline in manufacturing jobs or immigration from India.

You may have thought the issues through and made a rational decision but I doubt most did. Whatever wen may disagree on, I hope we can agree that it was a terrible campaign with lots of lies on both sides.


,

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

They might not have heard the term 4 freedoms, but they would have voted leave because of at least one of them.

But not all four of them. I doubt you can say at least one. Do you think that free movement of capital, goods and services is a reason why someone might have voted Leave. I accept that immigration may have been a reason for voting Leave but that is a very simplistic view of Freedom of Movement. The assumption that they personally would have got a better job, faster healthcare, or a cheaper house if there was no FoM ignores the fact that we have been less able to afford healthcare, builders would have built less houses and jobs are often created by the economic activity that the labour provides.

But I do accept that for many the EU was the cause of whatever problem they had, the problem was not in themselves of course.

Herzlos

Rinoa wrote: »

Wrong. We're happy to trade tariff free with the EU which will require no border controls.

If the EU wish to apply tariffs of any description, then it is they who are responsible for the introduction of border controls.

It's not quite as simple as that. For there to be no border controls then taxes, standards, laws & regulations need to be the same on both sides for goods services and people crossing it. Just having tariff free trade won't do. The only way it'll work is if we stay in the customs union in all but name.

gfplux

Just a small nick in the skin.
When you have full employment they will all get new jobs probably at Asda or Tesco.
Let us hope AFTER Brexit they will be able to sell a lot more buses around the world.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43031346?SThisFB
Quote
"Today's announcement will be devastating for the workforce, the latest in what has been a series of hammer blows to the Antrim and Ballymena workforce," he said.
He added: "We understand that the job losses are the result of the loss of sales to Transport for London in addition to the protracted delay in new orders coming in from Translink.
End quote