Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I do, because we've got absolutely no idea what the people want.

There's a clue in the result of the last one.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

That explains why he seems to want to take over the world and run it in communist form.

Which would be a valid point if he wanted to take over the world or turn everyone communist.
He has first hand experience of why communism is bad, and which is why he was offended that someone like Hunt (who has no real experience of anything) compared the EU to the USSR.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The thing is, if we had had a referendum when the eu decided it wanted to become a superstate then things would have been very different.

The eu has changed from the common market, which we voted to remain in, to a behemoth that wants to take over the world and swallow all countries in it's wake, about which we have only just had chance to vote.

The EU is moving slowly towards a Superstate (I guess), with the consent of it's members. It's not trying to take over the world or take away any identify, but it's trying to remove the barriers to prosperity.

The fact it has changed so much within that time has to make you wonder how much it will change in the next 45 years?

You could say the same for the UK. What will it be like in 45 years? The world moves on, things change. The question to ask is: Are we better facing that change as a member of the EU, or are we better facing that change on our own?

When Remain was asked about the eu army they told us that was ridiculous, yet a few months later tusk announced that was what he wanted. What else is coming.

It's still not an EU army as you claim, but the need for an EU organized military was increased by both the UK and the US turning themselves into unreliable partners and causing the EU to have to be self sufficient.


The thing is, I still don't get the object to a co-ordinated EU wide army. We're not talking about a private Militia run by the EU administration, we're talking about resource sharing across the EU states to save everyone a small fortune and give the best capability.

You say we have vetoes and that we will not be obliged to join things like the euro.

Both are true, no?

The eu is planning to stop countries using vetoes on things that normally require unanimous agreement, they instead want to go to qualified majority voting. So their attitude is that people may not agree so we will force it through anyway.

Also sort of true. The veto becomes a bit difficult as the group becomes bigger, so it makes sense to move to a qualified majority. I'm pretty confident that doing so requires none of the veto holders to veto it though.

What's to stop them forcing us to take the euro if we were to Remain?

Technically nothing. But if we were so opposed to the Euro we could always choose that point to leave, no?


They could also ask us to always wear pink hats. But there's no point speculatively leaving in case. There's no indication anyone is going to change the EU constitution to make a leading member of the group take on the Euro.

The attitude of the eu is what has changed my mind from Remain to Leave. I do not believe we would be Remaining in the eu, we would be in the United States of Europe in all but name. I don't believe a thing they deny anymore.

This baffles me. What EU attitude?
If the tables were turned, and this was Scotland leaving the UK, you'd be sticking by the UK doing the same.
If this was France leaving the EU, you'd be screaming that the EU wasn't being hard enough on them.


What would you, as the EU, do differently? Capitulate entirely to a stubborn ex member state and risk the downfall of the EU to keep them happy? Or would you do eseentially what you're currently proposing the UK does and say "well you had your chance, nice knowing you!"?

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

There's a clue in the result of the last one.

And what, exactly, can we take from: "51.9% of voters voted to Leave the EU". What does that actually mean in relation to the changes?
Single market?
Customs Uninon?
Freedom of Movement?
Euratom?
NI/Eire border?
Tariffs?
EEA model?
WTO?



All it actually tells us, though you'll deny it blind, is a pretty clear "dunno". Like I've said before, you wouldn't order a pizza off a 51.9% majority without asking follow up questions, so why should we change our entire economic system over it?

mrginge

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The referendum technically became binding when the government stated they would abide by the decision.

I suspect those that now dislike referendums would be fully in love with them if it had gone the other way.

The referendum result is now irrelevant. The ‘people’ have had their opinion heard on Brexit twice now.

I am behind gina Miller and jezza on this one. Parliament is sovereign.
If the parliament we voted for in 2017 is not doing things properly then we demand a general election.

As many remainers have pointed out on this thread, Brexit is a hugely complex issue affecting all areas of the economy and government. We simply cannot let a plebiscite continually reroute this process based on current whims and media influence. How can the average pot noodle troughing northerner understand the complexities of the Irish border. They can’t and they shouldn’t be asked to.

We need all parties to clearly set out their positions in their manifestos. No more leaving things on the table or fudging difficult decisions. If an existing or new political party believes this was all a mistake and we have to write it all off then they should say so and stand on that basis.

Herzlos

I wouldn't say that the public weren't qualified to have an opinion on it, but the whole point of having supposedly informed representatives is to let them decide what is best to do with the outcome of the non-binding referendum.


So the referendum should have triggered an outcome of investigating if it makes sense to leave the EU and how to do so, or to address the reasons the public are so unhappy, and not as an iron clad mandate for a hard brexit (that was never really discussed before the vote).


The government have now spent over 2 years and millions of £ assessing the situation and can't find a way to make it work, and have no clear mandate. That means the options now should be: announcing that it just won't work and rescind A50, or to hold another referendum with the various alternatives.


The problem here though is that none of this is about the people or the economy, it's an internal power struggle in the Tory party. What the people want and what the fallout will be have no bearing here, it's all about who controls the party and how the party stays in power. This will likely run to the wire are people are either backed into a corner, on the cusp of ascension, or have nothing to lose.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

And what, exactly, can we take from: "51.9% of voters voted to Leave the EU". What does that actually mean in relation to the changes?
Single market?
Customs Uninon?
Freedom of Movement?
Euratom?
NI/Eire border?
Tariffs?
EEA model?
WTO?



All it actually tells us, though you'll deny it blind, is a pretty clear "dunno". Like I've said before, you wouldn't order a pizza off a 51.9% majority without asking follow up questions, so why should we change our entire economic system over it?

From my observations it's only remain voters claiming they don't know what people voted for I don't see leave voters saying the same.

I think it's fairly obvious what the major reasons were and they are freedon of movement, sovereignty and EU courts. Staying in customs union and single market would not address any of them.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

From my observations it's only remain voters claiming they don't know what people voted for I don't see leave voters saying the same.

Only because Leave voters are treating it as a cast iron mandate that happens to match exactly what they want. Which is why there's so much confusion, especially since what they've always wanted seems to change to ignore any problems that come up.

I think it's fairly obvious what the major reasons were and they are freedon of movement, sovereignty and EU courts. Staying in customs union and single market would not address any of them.

So presumably you can back that up with some sort of evidence?


We've got pages of quotes from prominent Leavers stating unequivocally that no-one was suggesting leaving the Single Market.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

And what, exactly, can we take from: "51.9% of voters voted to Leave the EU". What does that actually mean in relation to the changes?
Single market?
Customs Uninon?
Freedom of Movement?
Euratom?
NI/Eire border?
Tariffs?
EEA model?
WTO?



All it actually tells us, though you'll deny it blind, is a pretty clear "dunno". Like I've said before, you wouldn't order a pizza off a 51.9% majority without asking follow up questions, so why should we change our entire economic system over it?

Herzlos wrote: »

Only because Leave voters are treating it as a cast iron mandate that happens to match exactly what they want. Which is why there's so much confusion, especially since what they've always wanted seems to change to ignore any problems that come up.


So presumably you can back that up with some sort of evidence?


We've got pages of quotes from prominent Leavers stating unequivocally that no-one was suggesting leaving the Single Market.

I'm not saying we need to satisfy exactly want they want but a compromise would have to accommodate some of them.

Are you saying we can stay in Customs Union and Single Market without being subject to above. You need to realise no matter how unpalatable to you voters don't want to be subject to four freedoms and if all remainers accepted that and some leave supporters also accepted we might have to compromise a bit we might get somewhere.

Herzlos

Yup, I'm saying we can stay in the CU and SM whilst still satisfying "Leave the EU", by going to the EEA.

I don't think that most voters necessarily care about the 4 freedoms.


We definitely need to find some compromise somewhere but we also need to remember that we can't split the 4 freedoms so someone needs to decide if we want all of them or none of them. We can keep most people happy by doing either if we can manage to mitigate the economic damage from losing the 4 freedoms.


Any trade deal we have will require deference to the ECJ for anything involving that trade deal.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

I wouldn't say that the public weren't qualified to have an opinion on it, but the whole point of having supposedly informed representatives is to let them decide what is best to do with the outcome of the non-binding referendum.

That was the 2017 GE.

So the referendum should have triggered an outcome of investigating if it makes sense to leave the EU and how to do so, or to address the reasons the public are so unhappy, and not as an iron clad mandate for a hard brexit (that was never really discussed before the vote).

Shoulda woulda coulda.
It didn’t. It was a mistake. It was two years ago. Any party could have proposed that in the 2017 GE. They didn’t.
I am quite happy for any party to now propose stepping back and replaying this whole thing in a more structured way through our normal parliamentary democratic process.

The government have now spent over 2 years and millions of £ assessing the situation and can't find a way to make it work, and have no clear mandate. That means the options now should be: announcing that it just won't work and rescind A50, or to hold another referendum with the various alternatives.

Hang on in this paragraph you have contradicted what you said in the previous one.

And then you make the strange conclusion that they have said they can’t make it work. I see no such statements being made.
But even more contradictory, you then declare that if they say they cannot make it work we, the electorate have to accept that decision, but if they say they can make it work then we get the opportunity to sanity check them.

No consistency at all.

The problem here though is that none of this is about the people or the economy, it's an internal power struggle in the Tory party. What the people want and what the fallout will be have no bearing here, it's all about who controls the party and how the party stays in power. This will likely run to the wire are people are either backed into a corner, on the cusp of ascension, or have nothing to lose.

Utterly bizarre. Do you want shut of the Tories or not?
You appear to do as you think they are useless, but then on the other you would be happy to see them implement the results of this second referendum (which we will only have if they have not agreed with you in the first place).

It sounds very much to me like you do not believe in parliamentary sovereignty at all. Gina will be furious.