Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

buglawton

Capitulate in advance? That’s a bit Cameron, you know. That’s the sort of attitude that results in popular uprisings when it goes wrong. Leading to things like the rise of UKIP, a referendum and then...

Herzlos

I'm not saying that isn't the case; lots of people will be outraged with the deal May gets, which will look a lot like an existing one. Most of her effort seems to be going on ways to take an off the shelf deal but make it sound like we got a special deal. That's why we're talking about ambitious managed divergence.

Will it result in another boost to UKIP? Possibly.

Moby

wunferall wrote: »

I get it ................... you mean like you did here.
Do you know what evidence is? Evidence is the facts that keep being posted that you ignore, not the opinions of others.
Like business growth at a 2-year high that you tried to rubbish as above. Like record numbers in work. Like new factories. Like new car models being made in the UK. etc. etc. etc.
THAT is evidence.


Oh and BTW, I would rather see a doctor that is straight with me than a doctor more interested in telling me what he thinks I want to hear.

Business growth at a two year high while incidentally EU market conditions prevail is hardly someting to brag about in comparison to the weight of opposing evidence. Record numbers of gig economy jobs doesn't do it either; neither does Siemans building a few trains for Gods sake! Like I said scraping the barrel.
Back to the reality of our future:-


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/06/theresa-may-conservative-politics-brexit-solutions-leaked-eu-report

The EU has dismissed Theresa May!!!8217;s Brexit speech as being more about Conservative party management than putting forward sensible solutions on trade, according to an internal document leaked to the Guardian.

The Brussels analysis of the prime minister!!!8217;s address, issued to representatives of all 27 member states, described her intervention as !!!8220;a change in tone, but not in substance!!!8221;, warning that all the UK!!!8217;s red lines remained.

And while it said the prime minister had promised clarity on Britain!!!8217;s hopes for a future trading relationship, it described the model she proposed as unworkable and !!!8220;double cherry-picking!!!8221;. It also claimed there had been !!!8220;zero progress!!!8221; when it came to ideas for customs cooperation.

!!!8220;Like with PM May!!!8217;s previous speeches, she addressed more her domestic audience, trying to bridge the gaps between the two poles of the debate on Brexit in the UK,!!!8221; the paper concluded.

Moby

Tromking wrote: »

What do have against the good people of Barnsley?
Why are your fellow North Walians in Wrexham spared your derision?

They aren't when we meet up in the pub. I just thought of Barnsley because Question Time was there recently and there was a preponderance of old shouty white men in the audience that were irritating me.Their victim hood and EU blaming for their ills I supposed was reflected in the large Brexit majorities in their areas. I've now lived in London for 30 years and I see people who are immigrants from Eastern Europe, Somalia, Syria etc who are doing pretty well for themselves, setting up businesses etc. They don't worry about being in the EU at all. Its not holding them back!..... So if this is the case what drives Brexit I ask myself....?

IMO a lot of the energy of Brexit came from older white males whose status and dominant position in their communities is disappearing. Their sense of entitlement means that they have been unable to adjust to a changing world and their anger over this is directed at scapegoats. The EU is the major target. To camouflage their true reasons because they realise they feel shame over these reasons, (ie losing their patrimony grip), these people talk in code about bringing back control of law making etc, the ability to trade internationally etc. The leave campaign knew this and very effectively took advantage of their feelings of dislocation by repeating the mantra 'taking back control' again and again. The groups I describe believed this message spoke for them....... Brexit was their last chance to 'take back' their traditional patrimony and control from new surging social groups such as women, ethnic minorities etc.

This social 'phenomenon' has its own totemic symbols of hate which are developing as part of the culture. Regarding language we have often used terms which are used as coded insults such as 'metropolitan elite', 'snowflake' ' liberal' etc. Another way you can identify this social phenomenon is if you shouted 'Diane Abbott' while in the company of such a group. The response will be pavlovian and almost uncontrollable. I suppose the words 'Diane Abbott' encapsulates so many of the 'hate' symbols in one package.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

They aren't when we meet up in the pub. I just thought of Barnsley because Question Time was there recently and there was a preponderance of old shouty white men in the audience that were irritating me.Their victim hood and EU blaming for their ills I suppose reflected the large Brexit majorities in their areas.

Makes a change from the usual QT audience stacked with Guardian readers.

I've now lived in London for 30 years and I see people who are immigrants from Eastern Europe, Somalia, Syria etc who are doing pretty well for themselves, setting up businesses etc. They don't worry about being in the EU at all. Its not holding them back!

Are you actually claiming that Somali businesses are not being held back because of the EU? Unbelievable.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

This social 'phenomenon' has its own totemic symbols of hate which are developing as part of the culture. Rearding language we have often used terms such as 'metropolitan elite', 'snowflake' ' liberal' etc. Another way you can identify this social phenomenon is if you shouted 'Diane Abbott' while in the company of such a group. The response will be pavlovian and almost uncontrollable. I suppose the words 'Diane Abbott' encapsulates so many of the 'hate' symbols in one package.

Oh, no. You're not getting away with that.

The 'metropolitan elites' and so called 'liberals' (who are only liberal in their own minds) have sneered at those who they consider beneath them for decades. They consider themselves to be superior, that their way of thinking is the only correct one and those who don't think the same way are simply wrong and in need of reeducation. It's remarkable isn't it they they are a classic example of groupthink and that they invariably agree with one another? That simply reinforces their beliefs.

Unfortunately for them, the little people have the same number of votes that they do and are now using them in a way that they don't like. Italy is just the latest example. The backlash has only just
begun, believe me.

Moby

cogito wrote: »

Oh, no. You're not getting away with that.

The 'metropolitan elites' and so called 'liberals' (who are only liberal in their own minds) have sneered at those who they consider beneath them for decades. They consider themselves to be superior, that their way of thinking is the only correct one and those who don't think the same way are simply wrong and in need of reeducation. It's remarkable isn't it they they are a classic example of groupthink and that they invariably agree with one another? That simply reinforces their beliefs.

Unfortunately for them, the little people have the same number of votes that they do and are now using them in a way that they don't like. Italy is just the latest example. The backlash has only just
begun, believe me.

I'm not choosing those terms, they are out there! As I said the perceived victimhood makes people feel that they have been ' sneered at'! That's how victimhood works. You are describing the phenomenon yourself but fail to see the energy behind it comes from their loss of dominance and patrimony. Italy is similar in some ways. Look at where the populist energy comes from....white males, tradition, Church. All groups who are losing control/power. Young people in Italy are rebelling against the stifling patriarchal traditions and this soft fascism is their Brexit backlash.

Moby

ilovehouses wrote: »

Brexit would've been easier to implement if the people who voted for it were able to articulate why rather than creating narratives about taking back control, sovereignty and the like.

Imo they have to hide the real reasons because many of them are pretty ugly as I explain above. Ultimately it's about power and who has it and who is losing it.

gfplux

wunferall wrote: »

It looks like you have been disappointed again. Publication has been postponed according to the below, see entry at 09:16. Methinks somebody somewhere is feverishly editing and retyping following Friday but their fingers are not quite fast enough to meet todays now-failed deadline.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/06/brexit-david-davis-eu-scrutiny-committee-eu-firms-more-worried-about-protecting-single-market-than-maintaining-trade-with-uk-says-barnier-aide-politics-live

Thanks. Taking account of Mays speech is a smart move otherwise the document would have been out of date.

I am now looking forward to the publication today, Wednesday.

Politico have this today.

QUOTE
TUSK LAYS IT OUT: European Council President Donald Tusk will today table the EU27’s draft guidelines for negotiating the future relationship with Britain. Tusk is in Luxembourg for talks with Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, but will hold a press conference at around noon U.K. time. The draft guidelines are expected to firmly rebuff Theresa May’s proposal of “managed divergence” from EU rules and regulations and effectively present Britain with a binary choice: a limited free trade deal a la Canada, or binding membership of EU institutions a la Norway.

Tone control: The Telegraph’s Gordon Rayner says the document has been “toned down” in the past 24 hours “to remove any reference to a Canada-style agreement.”

Reminder: This is only a draft. The EU27 will now discuss and revise the proposals, before agreeing a final position at the EU Council summit on March 23. And only then do negotiations with Britain actually begin.

But here’s a flavor of it: The Guardian and POLITICO overnight revealed the contents of an internal EU report critiquing May’s Mansion House speech. Perhaps extending a tedious metaphor just a little too far, it accuses the PM of “double cherry-picking” for wanting both the key benefits of EU membership and of third-party trade agreements. It also describes her speech as “long on aspirations” but “short on workable solutions that would respect the EU27 principles.” Ouch.

SCOOP — More pushback on May: European Parliament leaders will today agree their own draft position on the future relationship with Britain. POLITICO’s Maïa de la Baume has the scoop — and it does not make pretty reading for Theresa May. Maïa reports that large parts of the “uncompromising” 13-page document “read as a direct rebuttal of the vision of Brexit that Theresa May set out in her Mansion House speech.” The draft resolution states that any “deep and comprehensive” trade deal must entail “a binding interpretation role” for the European Court of Justice, and “does not allow cherry-picking of sectors of the internal market.”

How this plays out: European Parliament President Antonio Tajani will host a private meeting of the Parliament’s main political group leaders today where the draft position will be agreed. Tajani and his Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt will hold a joint press conference in Brussels this afternoon at 4.30 p.m. U.K. time. The motion will then be debated and formally adopted by MEPs in the Parliament in a session in Strasbourg next week. While non-binding upon the EU, it is a reminder that MEPs are keen to flex their muscles ahead of their own big vote on the final Brexit deal later this year.
END QUOTE

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

The 'metropolitan elites' and so called 'liberals' (who are only liberal in their own minds) have sneered at those who they consider beneath them for decades.

Sneering liberals is definitely a problem; nothing entrenches someone in a view than telling them they are wrong.

This has been such a divisive debate that anything reasonable is hard to do.

It's a shame, because if the problems were articulated properly and actually listened to, we could have dealt with them without burning the economy to the ground in protest.