Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Who buys papers these days?

Brexit voters.;)

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that the epithet “enemies of the people” can only really be used one way, as those who are perceived as trying to thwart Brexit are fighting against the will of the people as expressed in the referendum.
I think you would better off not looking at Brexit through the prism of your personal dislike of the Tories and Westminster, lest we forget that both major parties were pro-remain before the referendum result and since then are now both pro-Brexit.
This whole Brexit thingy transcends party politics and left winger and right winger in my view.
A day after the Lords try and box the Government in re. a customs union, the EU commission reject the UK’s suggestions about the Irish border. TM’s reaction to that will be fascinating.
Is it hard Brexit or is it cue Big Nige Farage and a return to frontline politics?

The High Court judges who upheld legislation that parliament must be given a vote on Brexit aren’t enemies of anything other than anarchy. Nor is Gina Miller. It didn’t stop them all being the target of a sinister propaganda campaign the next day outing them as enemies of democracy.

Miller particularly had, and continues to receive, all the usual misogynistic and racist abuse that frustrated right wingers like to hurl out from the safety of their computers to vent their fury at the sight of a black woman with more money and success than they have, not knowing their place.

Telling her to get back on the boat etc etc. Meaning she no longer feels safe. Unlike the judges she doesn’t get automatic police protection.

I would be less averse to Brexit if so many of its supporters weren’t quite so keen to don black shirts and start marching through the East End.

cogito

Gina Miller is fully entitled to do what she likes and if that includes bringing futile lawsuits, then so be it. What she shouldn't be able to do is bring lawsuits funded by the likes of George Soros who are more than happy to chuck their wealth around in an attempt to subvert democratic votes. Unfortunately she's too dim to realise that she's no more than a pawn in a much bigger game.

Herzlos

You can't subvert democracy with a lawsuit. It has to adhere to the law.

Having a lawsuit to make May follow the law does not subvert democracy, it's the opposite. You should be supporting Miller not demonizing her.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

The Daily Mail is (as I remember) the most read English language news website in the world, and is in the top most read websites. Just because people aren't buying the bog roll doesn't mean they aren't being subjected to the message.

You'd have thought Google would have made a pitch for a juicy website like that then, if they valued it.

I don't reckon they do. The likes of YouTube and Facebook will continue to dominate the media space I reckon.

You're more likely to get your right of centre daily dose from Rebel Media or the Fox News clippings. I'll be honest. I follow what happens on USA and Canadian campuses far more than what is being said about London.

kabayiri

cogito wrote: »

Gina Miller is fully entitled to do what she likes and if that includes bringing futile lawsuits, then so be it. What she shouldn't be able to do is bring lawsuits funded by the likes of George Soros who are more than happy to chuck their wealth around in an attempt to subvert democratic votes. Unfortunately she's too dim to realise that she's no more than a pawn in a much bigger game.

Gina Miller has a narrow focus. You don't have to strip the veneer back to see where her economic interests are.

She has absolutely nothing in common with the many working women around the country who have just average jobs. Why should she?

It's not a gender divide. It's about retention of money and hence power with her.

Lornapink

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

At one extreme of the spectrum there are some Remainers who think Parliament should just call the whole Brexit thing off and stay in the EU - that's not going to happen.

At the other extreme there are the hard-Brexiteers who think the UK should crash out of the EU without any deal, and never participate in any EU programmes, institutions, etc, ever again - that's also not going to happen.

The reality will be somewhere in the middle.

It is likely we will remain a participant in some EU institutions, like EASA, etc, and remain governed by those regulations set by the EU with no say on our part.

Some form of trade deal will be done, but we'll have to agree to be bound by a non-UK resolutions entity as final arbiter for disputes, and accept EU market regulations.

Participation in 'a' customs union is starting to look more likely than not, and some form of preferential access for EU workers likewise.

The debate is no longer about staying or leaving the EU - we'll be leaving, for now - the only real question is how to minimise the damage from doing so until the campaign to rejoin starts up in a few years.

My personal opinion is that Britain is now engaged in a long, drawn out, pointless, civil conflict... we have become a bitterly divided nation... and both sides are more or less evenly matched and ready to slug it out for the long term.

But while Brexiteers have by the slimmest of margins won the first battle - they are ultimately doomed by demographics and economic realities to lose the war.

Pretty sensible post overall, but on the last part I've highlighted, I think there is virtually no chance of us re-joining. People become accustomed to new realities and British youngsters will soon feel very much like Aussie or Canadian youngsters growing up in an independent nation.

Once nations gain independence they don't go back.


I recall many people saying they'd never give in to wearing a seatbelt, that there would be mass-dissent, but once the law came in they quickly became accustomed to the new reality. That's how most Remainers will react once we've left the EU.

Arklight

ilovehouses wrote: »

Lawsuits are judged by people looking at the evidence and the points of law.

Whoever funds the lawsuits or their motivations is irrelevant.

As far as I am aware the only people fighting a futile lawsuit were Theresa May's government, who were found to be acting illegally and lost.

Your contrivance that Remain is funded by vested interest billionaires is absurd.

Who do you think funded the Leave campaign? Who do you actually believe owns Britain's right wing press; the Alliance of Decent Ordinary People? Oh no, they are all too busy funding multi millionaire Nigel Farage, and Rupert Murdoch, and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

And we mustn't forget Man of the People, Jacob William Rees Mogg.

Phew, I am glad we have them standing up for the little man.

Lornapink

Herzlos wrote: »

You can't subvert democracy with a lawsuit. It has to adhere to the law.

Having a lawsuit to make May follow the law does not subvert democracy, it's the opposite. You should be supporting Miller not demonizing her.

You cannot square her sudden passion for full UK Parliamentary democracy, with her ultimate goal of wanting Parliament ruled over by Brussels.


Lord Adonnis and co' want us ruled over by Brussels, they don't give a fig for meaningful democratic integrity and accountability.

Lornapink

Arklight wrote: »

Phew, I am glad we have them standing up for the little man.

The entire establishment backed the status quo. In spite of massive campaigning advantage, Obama fake queue threats, pompous ermine clad fat-cats, the manipulation of State organs, a £9m Gov't leaflet & the Gov't backing Remain, still the establishment lost, thwarted by raw people power.