Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

I reckon you are opening the door to right wing politics.

So basically your entire argument is to appease the far right by giving them exactly what they want.

That rather seems like a 'cunning plan' of Baldrickian proportions...

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

No one has tried to claim we could re-join on the same terms we left. It'll definitely be a worse deal

Let's see if any of our politicians are brave enough to tell the public this then.

Somehow, I doubt it.

They can't because they won't be in the driving seat. The EU will.

System

Lornapink wrote: »

In a further referendum, how would Remain be defined?

I keep seeing this question asked but it seems a little dishonest from people that voted leave with no idea for what that meant either. Why the sudden concern about the future now? We still don't know how leave will be defined.

It's almost like we should have asked this kind of question before the referendum, I guess that's a bit out there.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

They can't because they won't be in the driving seat. The EU will.

The EU are in the driving seat for our exit as well - in case you hadn't noticed.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Let's see if any of our politicians are brave enough to tell the public this then.

Somehow, I doubt it.

They can't because they won't be in the driving seat. The EU will.

When the public demand it the politicians will be happy to do it.

Enterprise_1701C

westernpromise wrote: »

In the wake of a Remain vote, the argument from the EU would have been that as the EU is all about abolishing nation states and replacing them with the EU, and we all knew that perfectly well, and as we had voted Remain, the UK would now be obliged to adopt the entire federalist agenda. This might include requirements for the UK to

• hand its UN security council seat over to the EU
• hand control of its armed forces and nuclear deterrent over to the EU
• return Gibraltar to Spain
• adopt the Euro and downgrade the BoE's remit to implementing ECB policy
• implement a Tobin tax on financial transactions in the City of London

No? In a world where we had voted Remain, how would those not have happened? several have already been proposed.

Herzlos wrote: »

When the public demand it the politicians will be happy to do it.

And end up with the above? Because that is absolutely what would happen.

We need to get out and stay out, we are fully capable of standing on our own two feet, we can make a success of this so long as people stop trying to talk it down. Talk is what makes the markets go up and down which has an effect on the rest of the economy.

gfplux

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

And end up with the above? Because that is absolutely what would happen.

We need to get out and stay out, we are fully capable of standing on our own two feet, we can make a success of this so long as people stop trying to talk it down. Talk is what makes the markets go up and down which has an effect on the rest of the economy.

Talk AGAINST membership for fourty years got Britain where it is today. Do you honestly think that remainers will not be talking AGAINST Brexit for the next fourty years.

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

Talk AGAINST membership for fourty years got Britain where it is today. Do you honestly think that remainers will not be talking AGAINST Brexit for the next fourty years.

Going back 45 years to when Heath [STRIKE]dragged[/STRIKE] took us into the Common Market, there was never an honest debate about the pros and cons of membership and herein lies the problem. Heath's lies are on record and the public has distrusted the whole experiment ever since.

Has we had that debate and been able to trust the politicians, we would either not have joined or would have signed up with the consent of the people. That we are now leaving, is merely the culmination of the arguments of those 45 years. There have been lies on both sides but the big one is that the UK would not be giving up any sovereignty and parliament would remain supreme.

Herzlos

Things evolve over time though, so even if this discussion had taken place* then you'd be complaining it changed on us anyway.
It's the same with anything else; was the current Lords what we agreed to when they started? Does parliament work like when it started? The police force? councils? and so on.


At each step, there have been mechanisms for people to object (elections, petitioning on MPs), but as far as I can see that never happened. From that we can assume that the public were on the whole, largely OK with it (or not sufficiently bothered about it).

That's kind of how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

*I'm 30 years too young to have any first hand experience of the joining the EEC debate, so I can only comment on what I find recorded about it, which largely misses the emotive / mood parts.

Moby

Herzlos wrote: »

Remain a full member of the EU, with a seat at the table guiding direction and taking advantage of the economic, scientific and security benefits of membership.

This will cost us about £167m (compared to £8.3bn in seamless trade) a week but gives us seamless trade with the EU and partner countries, shared costs for all of the agencies and security systems, VISA free access to the EU.


How would you define Leave at this stage?

Like you say........'remain' means stay in the EU with all the benefits we have enjoyed and the political security that goes with it and of course leaving means we are more likely to get a German dominated continent. 'Leave' on the other hand is not agreed especially within the cabinet. Also brexit is being implemented by a PM that doesn't believe in it. I don't remember any discussion about the Irish border issue during the referendum either.