Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And in other news....



Now that the reality of leaving is becoming clearer, voters appear to be having a serious case of buyers remorse.

phillw

vivatifosi wrote: »

Security should be above politics. I can t see why either side would want to play hardball over this. It's pathetic.

Security is above politics, but not above the law.

If someone has not been convicted of a crime then sharing information about the likelihood of whether that person may commit a crime based on hear say has to be proportionate. Within the EU it's safe to share information because there are limits on what that information could be used for, because the person has the benefit of the EHCR.

Theresa May wants to get rid of the EHCR because the EU wanted to make sure Abu Hamza wasn't tortured and would receive a fair trial if he was deported to the US. She would rather get rid of the EHCR than get that assurance.

This gives you enough to know why we will be untrustworthy with any intelligence.

Herzlos

Lords vote that there will be no checks and infrastructure at the NI border

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-ireland-border-house-of-lords-theresa-may-eu-a8333466.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1525284210

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

Lords vote that there will be no checks and infrastructure at the NI border

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-ireland-border-house-of-lords-theresa-may-eu-a8333466.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1525284210

Nice of the Lords to echo the U.K. Governments default position on the Irish Border issue.

Herzlos

Is it the UK gov's position? Davis seemed to be hinting heavily at using infrastructure like cameras as long as it wasn't "at the border", as if moving the infrastructure 250m away would solve all the problems.

But yes, it's good that May is going to have to be held to her claims. She'll need to either find a genuinely borderless way to use the backstop of regulatory equivalence.

mayonnaise

Pauciloquent_1 wrote: »

No wonder then that there remains a convincing argument that the EU remains troubled.
"Forget Brexit, the EU may be on the brink of collapse"

Oh drat, the EU is about to collapse again.

:doh:

Pauciloquent_1_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And in other news....

Now that the reality of leaving is becoming clearer, voters appear to be having a serious case of buyers remorse.

None if it counts for anything, leading to much gnashing-of-teeth by remainers.
The time to decide was before placing your "X" in the box and that opportunity has come and gone.
That alone led to the only result that matters and so we are leaving.
After the performance of the EU following the referendum, it will be an uphill battle to convince a majority to rejoin and that is IF you can convince enough people to consider the option in the first place.
You have more chance of plaiting fog, as it stands.

Pauciloquent_1_2

mayonnaise wrote: »

Oh drat, the EU is about to collapse again.

:doh:

First, I did not say that; the link did - or rather, it said "may be".
Second, how about you try to debate the contents of the post if you can?
Which bits specifically do you disagree with?
(This could be fun. I will get my popcorn ready. )

Herzlos

Pauciloquent_1 wrote: »

None if it counts for anything, leading to much gnashing-of-teeth by remainers.
The time to decide was before placing your "X" in the box and that opportunity has come and gone.

Wasn't it Davis that said that it's not democracy if you can't change your mind later.

If you're clinging to tightly to the "will of the people", then you need to accept that if the will of the people changes, the outcome needs to change.

What the people wanted on 23rd June 2016 is irrelevant if they want something else now. That's kinda the whole point of democracy.

As to whether enough people will vote to rejoin, well it depends on how badly we leave, and how many people are disillusioned by how the UK government has handled it. It might still be the better option to re-join, if leaving is bad enough.

Remember that there was barely a 2% majority to leave, before all the lies were walked back on. If you'd had any clear victory, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Wasn't it Davis that said that it's not democracy if you can't change your mind later.

If you're clinging to tightly to the "will of the people", then you need to accept that if the will of the people changes, the outcome needs to change.

What the people wanted on 23rd June 2016 is irrelevant if they want something else now. That's kinda the whole point of democracy.

As to whether enough people will vote to rejoin, well it depends on how badly we leave, and how many people are disillusioned by how the UK government has handled it. It might still be the better option to re-join, if leaving is bad enough.

Remember that there was barely a 2% majority to leave, before all the lies were walked back on. If you'd had any clear victory, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Whether the majority was 1000 or 1.7m is neither here nor there. There was a majority and it's the job of the government to do what they said they would do, i.e. leave the EU and that includes leaving the CU, SM and ECJ.

The reason that the whole thing appears to be difficult is that remoaners are doing everything they possibly can to frustrate the process. If they were willing to accept the decision of the majority, our exit would be proceeding much more smoothly. As it is, if we leave the EU without a deal (and that prospect doesn't really bother me), the remoaners will only have to look in the mirror to see whose fault it is.