Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

andrewf75

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.

Define hard and soft brexit.

Most clearly did, but they were told they could have their cake and eat it, i.e freed from all the obligations with continued access to the single market.

"we could be like Switzerland"
"only a madman would propose leaving the single market"
etc etc

Soft and hard Brexit's are very simply defined, the trouble is people wanted the best of both worlds! People wanted hard in terms of the freedom from rules, but a soft in terms of our economic relationship and keeping an open border in Ireland. Even now, our government are STILL not making the choice, pretending there is some middle ground and that's why we're in the mess we're in.

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

"we could be like Switzerland"

Look at the angst between the EU and Switzerland currently. Explains the hard line towards the UK.

ukcarper

andrewf75 wrote: »

Most clearly did, but they were told they could have their cake and eat it, i.e freed from all the obligations with continued access to the single market.

"we could be like Switzerland"
"only a madman would propose leaving the single market"
etc etc

Soft and hard Brexit's are very simply defined, the trouble is people wanted the best of both worlds! People wanted hard in terms of the freedom from rules, but a soft in terms of our economic relationship and keeping an open border in Ireland. Even now, our government are STILL not making the choice, pretending there is some middle ground and that's why we're in the mess we're in.

I'm not sure that people thought they could have all the good parts of EU and none of the bad they just did not want the bad. Access to single market is not the same as being in the single market.

The referendum campaign was bad on both sides and many things that have come to light since were not brought up by remain in campaign they preferred to run a scare campaign.

Carl31

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.

Dave C already asked for that though, and was told "no", so its not really a suprise the referendum went the way it did. No one was kicking off when he went to ask for that, but now people have gone and got the result they wanted another way, everyone is

andrewf75

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure that people thought they could have all the good parts of EU and none of the bad they just did not want the bad. Access to single market is not the same as being in the single market.

The referendum campaign was bad on both sides and many things that have come to light since were not brought up by remain in campaign they preferred to run a scare campaign.

Agree, but I think the leave campaign left more things out, such as the minor issue of the Irish border.

What frustrates me most about Brexit (I'm a remainer but I accept the result) is the lack of acceptance for the implications of the vote. If you want a hard brexit that's fine, but you then have to accept a border in Ireland! You can't just say "nah we're not going to have one, if the EU want one that's up to them" That is incompetence of the highest order.

There have always been pros and cons, leave v remain, soft v hard. But while the remain/soft sides tend to accept the downsides of their choice (i.e adhering to regulations) the leave/hard side do not seem to accept the downsides!

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Herzlos View Post
FoM with additional brakes or the existing government controls would satisfy almost all of the Leave voters without stuffing our economy, though.

Have you been following events at all for the past few years?

Herzlos

Unfortunately, yes. I really should ignore the news and internet until about May when we'll see what's actually going on. What part of my statement do you disagree with?

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure that people thought they could have all the good parts of EU and none of the bad they just did not want the bad. Access to single market is not the same as being in the single market.

I don't remember anyone from the Leave campaign even implying there would be compromise on our side; it was very much a case of cherry picking on the basis that "they need us more than we need them", and people were being promised everything. No immigrants, more jobs, more money, no EU regulations.

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

There has been very little analysis of how to satisfy everyone without leaving, that's true. It's a shame because I think that would likely be the best option, albeit one that'd cause outrage in the right wing rags, the Tory rebels etc and would likely see the Tories losing power for a while (which I think will happen anyway - there's no clean way out of this).

But from what I can see there are 3 camps unwilling to compromise: The Eurosceptics (Farage, Mogg et al.), the diehard remainers (of whom there are precious little), and the EU (who at this stage, don't have anything to compromise on).

mrginge

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.

Remainers often trot out the ‘use existing powers’ line as a silver bullet to get leavers on side.

However, as I’ve stated before such a bullet doesn’t actually exist. And the reason I know that is because no remain-favouring politician has ever come up with what that actually looks like. Not before, during or since the referendum.

If it was such a simple solution surely *someone* would have put their name to it, made themselves PM material and saved us all from a leave result and/or two years of fall outs.
The ERG would have been trampled all over by the wave of leavers switching to remain.

Sorry herz, you’re clutching at a solution that never existed and never will.

Lungboy

The UK has always had the power to kick out anyone from the EU after 6 months if they didn't have a job. The government never chose to use those powers, but they were there. If they had been enacted, i think people would have been an awful lot happier.

To go back to what people were voting for, are Leavers really saying they voted us out of things like Euratom?

Herzlos

mrginge wrote: »

Remainers often trot out the ‘use existing powers’ line as a silver bullet to get leavers on side.

However, as I’ve stated before such a bullet doesn’t actually exist.

So there's no power to send home EU residents who've failed to get a job or support themselves within 3 months?


Nor were there any changes to the Citizens Rights Directive agreed on Feb 19th, 2016 (before the referendum)?


I must be mistaken then, sorry.


Here's an article explaining those fictional options, anyway: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-_b_13120104.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=Xw4PlYDJDTgEwfwD3b9f2A




Those powers should completely irradicate the "foreigners coming and taking all the benefits" narrative, but won't do much for the "and all our jobs" part. They'd still be allowed to come here if they managed to get a job that supports themselves., which will still be "bad news" for the people complaining that we're full, or houses prices are too high or the roads/busses/schools/hospitals are too busy.