Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Rough_Justice

Herzlos wrote: »

We've quoted the actual words coming out of their mouths.

But not from during the referendum campaign, as said.

phillw

Rough_Justice wrote: »

You realise that your link was posted 14th May 2015 but the referendum date was not announced until February 20th 2016?
As such it was not said during the referendum campaign but the year before.
So Matt is correct in saying because it was said before the campaign.

I acknowledge that he is correct in the timeline of events, but that video did not cease to exist on the February 20th 2016. So in effect he says it every time someone pressed play, do it now and he says it again.

Matt_L

phillw wrote: »

The video was still available during the referendum campaign, if people saw it and didn't see him retract the statement (which I haven't found him do before the referendum) then the time he actually said it is irrelevant.

The leave campaign didn't really do a good job of saying "By the way, a vote for us means you should ignore what these people said a little while ago before the campaign started because we really are going to be leaving the single market and all these other things you might care about".

They didn't have to explain what they may have previously thought, im sure theres many people out there that previously thought that being a member of the EU was a great idea, turns out that most have now changed their minds... And yes during the referendum campaign he made it clear that we should be outside the SM and CU..

All i was looking for during the campaign was honest, thoughts, views, answers and opinions, i didn't care for what they may have said many years ago on this subject because as the EU has evolved so has opinion...

Herzlos

Rough_Justice wrote: »

You realise that your link was posted 14th May 2015 but the referendum date was not announced until February 20th 2016?
As such it was not said during the referendum campaign but the year before.
So Matt is correct in saying because it was said before the campaign.

Not during the campaign, but used in the campaign and not retracted until afterwards. Why would we assume an opinion on something said before a campaign is no longer valid during a campaign on the subject?
That only makes sense if you're saying they'll lie during a campaign.

If it was 10 years before the campaign, sure, but 10 months is likely to still be pretty valid.

Matt_L

Herzlos wrote: »

We've quoted the actual words coming out of their mouths.

Yes, "and then they went on to say"

Again none of which was said during the referendum...

phillw

Matt_L wrote: »

They didn't have to explain what they may have previously thought

It depends on if they wanted informed support or not, I believe they knew that people believed it and kept quiet. Similar to the whole red bus fiasco.

Do you think it would be right to implement brexit if a sizeable portion of people were misinformed of what they were voting for? I accept you probably will say they weren't, but if they were. Would you feel uneasy pushing through brexit even though leaving the single market was not what people wanted but they happened to tick the leave box.

Herzlos

Matt_L wrote: »

They didn't have to explain what they may have previously thought, im sure theres many people out there that previously thought that being a member of the EU was a great idea, turns out that most have now changed their minds... And yes during the referendum campaign he made it clear that we should be outside the SM and CU..

All i was looking for during the campaign was honest, thoughts, views, answers and opinions, i didn't care for what they may have said many years ago on this subject because as the EU has evolved so has opinion...

Can you cite anyone in the campaign prominently saying leave meant the single market?

If you were expecting honesty during the campaign you must have been pretty disappointed. Politics was awful on both sides.

gfplux

Rough_Justice wrote: »

It's all bluster though, do you not realise that yet?
Posturing, huffing-and-puffing bluster.
On both sides.

Eurocrats love their bureaucracy and that is all your vaunted draft is, bureaucratic paperwork that in reality means nothing. ( Other than jobs for those responsible in setting out another worthless EU tome of course.)
Nil.
Zilch.
Nada.
Because until a final deal is agreed the paper is just that, worthless paper.

They have to keep up this bluster for another year yet, following which as many have suggested all the real decisions will be made in the final hours.

Once THAT is published would be the time to revere or to criticize, not now.
The final decision is the one that counts.

This is just my opinion
First I do not think the EU will allow THEMSELVES to not have a signed withdrawal agreement at the last minute.
The transition agreement depends on the withdrawal being agreed.
The EU have said (and will be held to it by its members) that talks on trade can not begin until the withdrawal agreement, with or without the transition, is signed off.

MORE important continued uncertainty will mean industry will IMPLEMENT all those contingency plans we have heard so much about.

I am not saying that the EU does not sign deals at the very very last minute but the damage done everywhere by Uncertainty should and must be avoided if at all possible.

Herzlos

Matt_L wrote: »

Yes, "and then they went on to say"

And went on to say nothing that contradicted the quoted part.

Rough_Justice

Herzlos wrote: »

Not during the campaign, but used in the campaign and not retracted until afterwards. Why would we assume an opinion on something said before a campaign is no longer valid during a campaign on the subject?
That only makes sense if you're saying they'll lie during a campaign.

If it was 10 years before the campaign, sure, but 10 months is likely to still be pretty valid.

There were lies on both sides, I thought this had been gone over repeatedly?
No lying is acceptable but that's politics, sadly.
And it was said before the campaign unlike the majority of remain lies, like recession; war; emergency budget; job losses etc which would allegedly mean immediate consequences.
These were said during the campaign.
Again though, nether is acceptable IMHO.
It hasn't got any better since either and AGAIN on all sides.