Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Calling a referendum with no idea what one of the options means
Calling a snap general election to strengthen a majority and losing it, requiring DUP support.
Triggering A50 with no idea what to do with it.
Defining red lines that give you no options.
Being unprepared at every stage.
Trying to play the EU separating game.
Repeatedly making proposals to the EU that were clearly not suitable, which would be obvious if any preparation was done
Making Boris Johnson foreign secretary.
Nor checking that Davis had actually done any work.
Trying to keep both wings of the party on side despite contradictory requirements.

There's probably plenty more but that's just off the top of my head.

Can you think of anything they've done right? At the moment I've got nothing.

Farage did a cracking job of shorting Sterling for his friends to make money. That was well executed despite being a horrible thing to do. Cameron also managed to fairly successfully kill off UKIP.

I think I've made my thought about calling Referendum quite clear and I don't think that she is any different to the other MPs that voted for it.

The Referendum created the Red lines unless you want to ignore result.

She has to try and keep both sides happy that's what compromise is and that is what most of those items were based on.

What would you cave in.

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

From today's news. Corbyn has made his U turn. Labour want an election. Not interested in the broader welfare of the UK population.

The exact opposite is the reason. Brexit is an act of self harm! Anyone with sense has been saying that.

Moby

Joan_number_1 wrote: »

That would be where we differ.

I'm English and I'm British and for me that comes before being European. Well before.
If it wasn't for the EU trying to make us all into in effect subservient clones, more of us might like you love being European too BUT the EU are putting the mockers on that.
Not just here but in Italy, Holland, Germany, Poland, Sweden and other countries too.

We know you like the word but that has nothing to do with xenophobia you know.
It is called patriotism and that is something the EU have been trying to eradicate from member countries throughout the EU with their indoctrination.
Quite successfully judging by the comments of some in here.

Just listen to yourself 'indoctrination'..... Come on.... you make the EU sound like a cult:rotfl:
I'm Welsh, British and European it's not a hierarchy except in your head. By the way some of us loathe the English ruling class more! Why should I feel any patriotism towards a ruling class that keeps me down? What do I possibly have in common with Farage, Mogg, Johnson etc? I abhor their politics. Most young people feel the same way and Brexit is a betrayal of their interests. Thousands of them are forcing Corbyn to change his position. This decision affects them most after all.

Enterprise_1701C

Moby wrote: »

Just listen to yourself 'indoctrination'..... Come on.... you make the EU sound like a cult:rotfl:
I'm Welsh, British and European it's not a hierarchy except in your head. By the way some of us loathe the English ruling class more! Why should I feel any patriotism towards a ruling class that keeps me down? What do I possibly have in common with Farage, Mogg, Johnson etc? I abhor their politics. Most young people feel the same way and Brexit is a betrayal of their interests. Thousands of them are forcing Corbyn to change his position. This decision affects them most after all.

So the eu are not suggesting mandatory lessons on the "upside" of the eu in all schools across the useu? I believe places like North Korea tend to do that sort of thing.

So they are not trying to get celebrities to wax lyrical about how wonderful, the eu is?

So they did not allocate themselves £3.9 billion propaganda fund.

The eu spends at least £500 million a year on propaganda. Institutions that are meant to be wonderful do not need propaganda, they can stand on their own, if something is wonderful it is seen as that.
Institutions that are so good do not need a propaganda unit.

The funny thing is that people that have been indoctrinated are not normally aware of the fact.

Herzlos

Do you feel the same about the Tories propaganda efforts?

Marketing is a fact of life. More so when it's yo counter disinformation.

ukcarper wrote: »

I think I've made my thought about calling Referendum quite clear and I don't think that she is any different to the other MPs that voted for it.

The Referendum created the Red lines unless you want to ignore result.

She has to try and keep both sides happy that's what compromise is and that is what most of those items were based on.

What would you cave in.

None of the red lines were in the ballot; they exist to keep the right wing happy and make her position impossible. Not just because they won'tbe acceptable to the EU but because they contradictory. That's why we have this cake and eat it approach.

In her shoes I'd spell out the 2 options (hard or soft) and put it to a qualified referendum to see what people actually want. But that involves ignoring the right wing rebels which makes any position hard yobachidve without a majority in parliament.
So most likely I'd just be moving on with a Canada style deal and get it over with.

I suspect there's an ulterior motive to her actions because that's what the Tory party does. I suspect it'll be to run us to the very edge of a hard brexit, drive down Sterling and the markets, make a fortune from buying stuff up and then pull the plug on it claiming the EU was unfair to us.
It's risky for those who aren't independently wealthy, will screw over the poor most, and destroy confidence in politics for the poor. Disenfranchised poor means less Labour voters.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you feel the same about the Tories propaganda efforts?

Marketing is a fact of life. More so when it's yo counter disinformation.



None of the red lines were in the ballot; they exist to keep the right wing happy and make her position impossible. Not just because they won'tbe acceptable to the EU but because they contradictory. That's why we have this cake and eat it approach.

In her shoes I'd spell out the 2 options (hard or soft) and put it to a qualified referendum to see what people actually want. But that involves ignoring the right wing rebels which makes any position hard yobachidve without a majority in parliament.
So most likely I'd just be moving on with a Canada style deal and get it over with.

I suspect there's an ulterior motive to her actions because that's what the Tory party does. I suspect it'll be to run us to the very edge of a hard brexit, drive down Sterling and the markets, make a fortune from buying stuff up and then pull the plug on it claiming the EU was unfair to us.
It's risky for those who aren't independently wealthy, will screw over the poor most, and destroy confidence in politics for the poor. Disenfranchised poor means less Labour voters.

Do you really think that people who voted leave didn't want to stop freedom of movement and not be subject to ECJ.

Define hard and soft brexit.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really think that people who voted leave didn't want to stop freedom of movement and not be subject to ECJ.

Immigration was the word most associated with the Leave campaign, so I think the bulk of leave voters wanted something done about the effects of immigration, whilst the xenophobes want rid of all foreigners. Unfortunately, that wasn't what was asked in the referendum.


Taking that people are not happy with immigration, I'd have attempted to find out why - do they not like people who speak funny? Are they worried about infrastructure? Housing? Schools? Jobs? Can we address any of those without hamstringing our economy?


Given that free movement is one of the intractable 4 freedoms, and we're not going to fudge around that, we realistically need to decide between restricting immigration (bad for everyone, keeps a few happy) or preserving the economy (good for everyone but gets a few upset).


Using the referendum alone gives us nothing meaningful to work with. About half of the voters want out is about as vague a mandate as it's possible to get.

Define hard and soft brexit.

Hard: We're no longer part of the EU (WTO or maybe Canada.)
Soft: We're still within the EU, but on the outer tier (EEA)


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37500140

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Immigration was the word most associated with the Leave campaign, so I think the bulk of leave voters wanted something done about the effects of immigration, whilst the xenophobes want rid of all foreigners. Unfortunately, that wasn't what was asked in the referendum.


Taking that people are not happy with immigration, I'd have attempted to find out why - do they not like people who speak funny? Are they worried about infrastructure? Housing? Schools? Jobs? Can we address any of those without hamstringing our economy?


Given that free movement is one of the intractable 4 freedoms, and we're not going to fudge around that, we realistically need to decide between restricting immigration (bad for everyone, keeps a few happy) or preserving the economy (good for everyone but gets a few upset).


Using the referendum alone gives us nothing meaningful to work with. About half of the voters want out is about as vague a mandate as it's possible to get.





Hard: We're no longer part of the EU (WTO or maybe Canada.)
Soft: We're still within the EU, but on the outer tier (EEA)


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37500140

No matter how you put it If May accepts a deal with FOM it goes against what pele voted for.

Yes those things should have been addressed but the time for doing that was before referendum then the result might have gone a different way.

So basically in or out

Herzlos

FoM with additional brakes or the existing government controls would satisfy almost all of the Leave voters without stuffing our economy, though.


Like I said; we've no real idea what the people actually want.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

FoM with additional brakes or the existing government controls would satisfy almost all of the Leave voters without stuffing our economy, though.


Like I said; we've no real idea what the people actually want.

I'm sure a compromise could be found that would satisfy a majority but it looks to me that not many people are looking for it. On one side you have people pushing for a hard brexit and on the other claiming they want a compromise but in reality want to leave in name only.