Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Theophile

A_Wanderer wrote: »

Barnier is doing all he can to stop that so WTO looks far more likely.
:T

Oh. Another one.

gfplux

studentguy wrote: »

And The Sun, and the Daily Express, and the Daily Star, and the Daily Telegraph...
Yes this did have a huge impact on the referendum, if you read that anti-EU drivel every day for 20 years it's bound to have some impact, no?

"The findings, which cover two sample days of coverage a week during the first two months of the referendum campaign immediately after David Cameron's post-summit Cabinet meeting on 20 February, find that of the 928 articles focused on the referendum, 45% were in favour of leaving compared with only 27% in favour of staying in the EU. Of the remainder, 19% of articles focused on the referendum were categorised as !!!8216;mixed or undecided!!!8217; and 9% as adopting no position."
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit



How dare the EU try and advertise the good things it does. If you believe the old "but it's our money they're actually spending" line, well okay, but it's highly unlikely we'd spend it on the good projects the EU spend it on. Coincidentally the money we'll save from not being part of the EU will be mostly lost due to our economy shrinking

FT research shows that the weekly hit to the British economy could be the same £350m that Leave campaigners promised to claw back
(https://www.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5f-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482)

But nope, keep your head in the sand, Brexit will be a success!!!!!!

Wonderful. Well written thank you student guy.
More please. We need more common sense on this thread

phillw

wunferall wrote: »

phillw are you deliberately being disingenuous?
The UK electorate is under 48 million out of which under 34 million actually voted in the referendum. Much though you might want the remaining 30-odd million of the UK's population to be on one side or another you cannot decide for them.
The time for voting has been and gone; respect the democratic decision.

You're making the fatal mistake that because people didn't vote for something that they will be happy with the outcome. I don't have any respect for people who use the "you snooze you lose" arguument and then talk about the will of the people.

Filo25

wunferall wrote: »

phillw are you deliberately being disingenuous?
The UK electorate is under 48 million out of which under 34 million actually voted in the referendum. Much though you might want the remaining 30-odd million of the UK's population to be on one side or another you cannot decide for them.
The time for voting has been and gone; respect the democratic decision.

Personally I would have no major problem with Brexit, if the government could deliver on the promises made during the campaign (Brexit leading to a large economic dividend which can be invested in public services, getting all the benefits of the Single Market without actually being in it, etc.) the problem is it all sounded like nonsense back then, and it sounds even more like nonsense now.

It is shocking how much the bar has been lowered for what can be achieved from our exit negotiations, if you read this forum back around the referendum and compared it to now, and yet most Leave supporters seem fine with that, so many just want to pick a side and stick with it.

If the government and their allies in the media want to hear less from good old Remoaners maybe the easiest way is actually to deliver an economically successful Brexit. Instead they seem to prefer to whinge about how unfair it all is that, the Big Bad EU isn't giving them everything they want, and that UK citizens are calling therm to account for being more concerned with trying to keep unity in the Tory party than actually going out and negotiating the best deal they can for the country.

gfplux

wunferall wrote: »

But the UK have and the EU agreed. Not only that but posts here a few days ago showed EU research suggesting that the UK proposals were not only possible but would actually benefit the UK.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8042/CBP-8042.pdf
In Para.4 the EU clearly accept that a unique solution will be needed AND they accept the need to continue to recognize the Good Friday Agreement.
Why now then are the EU doing an about-face? Before you say "no concrete plans", HOW is it possible to make firm plans when the EU will not approve what has been previously agreed?

But no, it's the UK fault according to some. That briefing paper alone shows clearly that this is another EU attempt to disregard its subjects wishes, just like they are doing with FOM and future citizenship. The EU are clearly using its citizens as nothing more than pawns.

Very very very sorry wunferall. Perhaps the link was posted recently but this link is to A British paper published in July LAST year. A British paper.
December 2017 was a very different place when phase two was agreed.

wunferall

phillw wrote: »

You're making the fatal mistake that because people didn't vote for something that they will be happy with the outcome. I don't have any respect for people who use the "you snooze you lose" arguument and then talk about the will of the people.

I don't have any respect for people that attempt to argue that those unable or unwilling to participate have a justifiable stance beyond that which has been voted upon. Simply put it is NOT your place to decide.

wunferall

gfplux wrote: »

Very very very sorry wunferall. Perhaps the link was posted recently but this link is to A British paper published in July LAST year. A British paper.
December 2017 was a very different place when phase two was agreed.

Oh so now when it suits the past doesn't count? December obviously was NOT agreed was it, or why the disagreement now? You really cannot have it both ways.

cogito

studentguy wrote: »

And The Sun, and the Daily Express, and the Daily Star, and the Daily Telegraph...
Yes this did have a huge impact on the referendum, if you read that anti-EU drivel every day for 20 years it's bound to have some impact, no?

"The findings, which cover two sample days of coverage a week during the first two months of the referendum campaign immediately after David Cameron's post-summit Cabinet meeting on 20 February, find that of the 928 articles focused on the referendum, 45% were in favour of leaving compared with only 27% in favour of staying in the EU. Of the remainder, 19% of articles focused on the referendum were categorised as !!!8216;mixed or undecided!!!8217; and 9% as adopting no position."
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit

Has the universtity carried out any studies on coverage by the BBC during the referendum campaign? I would guarantee that at least 90% were pro remain. What impact would you say that had on the outcome of the referendum?

Filo25

wunferall wrote: »

Oh so now when it suits the past doesn't count? December obviously was NOT agreed was it, or why the disagreement now? You really cannot have it both ways.

If we had an issue with the December agreement, we probably shouldn't have agreed to it....

The NI border question was a fudge in December as there wasn't an obvious answer to it with all of our redlines, as far as I can see there still isn't,

cogito

:beer:

gfplux wrote: »

Wonderful. Well written thank you student guy.
More please. We need more common sense on this thread

Rubbish. The post completely overlooks the fact that newspapers are not the only source of news.