Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

andrewf75

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.

That basically is why we're in such a mess and why some remainers are unable to accept the result. If we had kept all options on the table then almost everyone would have accepted the result. The biggest mistake the Tories made was ruling out the Norway option which had they come straight out with it wouldn't have upset that many people.

No-one should have read more into the result than what it actually was. Leave means leave the EU, it doesn't mean anything other than that.

Arklight

Workshy Brexiters will never get a good result from Brexit, because there are few rewards for the idle.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

Are you saying we can go into EEA and ditch 4 freedoms.

You are just going over the referendum arguments again and people have voted on those.

As I've said before if Majority of MPs didn't want to leave they should have voted against referendum bill now they have they should accept the result. There was always a very strong chance leave would win so if they are that sure it will be a catastrophe why risk it.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

Are you saying we can go into EEA and ditch 4 freedoms.

No I'm saying we can go into the EEA and satisfy the "Leave the EU" mandate without ditching the 4 freedoms.

As I've said before if Majority of MPs didn't want to leave they should have voted against referendum bill now they have they should accept the result. There was always a very strong chance leave would win so if they are that sure it will be a catastrophe why risk it.

I agree entirely, but our MP's being crap isn't a good justification for Brexit.

Herzlos

mrginge wrote: »

And then you make the strange conclusion that they have said they can’t make it work. I see no such statements being made.

If they could make it work, there'd have been a proposal by now instead of already rejected fudges.

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 I'm saying that if it can't get a good solution, they either need to admit that, or give the public the chance to choose which of the bad solutions they should take.

Utterly bizarre. Do you want shut of the Tories or not?

I absolutely want rid of them.

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's not perfect but since we can't get rid of them we need them to sort it out as best they can.
And you can be assured that if the referendum went the other way Brexiteers wouldn't have shut up about it either. Even Farage said that he'd be marching on parliament if he lost 52/48.

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

I fully support Parliamentary sovereignty, which is why I don't believe it should be hamstrung by an inconclusive non-binding referendum to do something which is so serious.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

No I'm saying we can go into the EEA and satisfy the "Leave the EU" mandate without ditching the 4 freedoms.



I agree entirely, but our MP's being crap isn't a good justification for Brexit.

The first sentence sums up your stance and if you think that would satisfy leave voters you are disillusioned.

andrewf75

ukcarper wrote: »

The first sentence sums up your stance and if you think that would satisfy leave voters you are disillusioned.

Of course it wouldn't satisfy all leave voters, but most importantly it would satisfy the referendum result 100%. No matter how much some people talk of "Brexit in name only" or similar, the fact is you are either a member of the EU or you aren't! Norway is 100% not a member. Sure, there would be a lot of voters unhappy with freedom of movement continuing, but a competent government could have said look we understand your concerns and announced measures to discourage immigration even within the constraints of being part of free movement. Adjustments to the benefits system, stricter requirements on language to encourage employers to recruit locals wherever possible - all things that other EU countries do anyway! We could probably have reduced immigration more under free movement than we are likely to without, but the government are more concerned about the political toxicity of being in freedom of movement than actually reducing immigration, if you see what I mean!

At the end of the day a lot of people won't be happy whatever we do, so its about minimising that number and a Norway style Brexit would have done that. You only need a small proportion of the leave side to favour that approach (which after all was argued by many leave campaigners) to make a majority with the remainers. Add to that it would have a huge majority in parliament which would make things a great deal easier to sort out.

Thrugelmir

The UK is not comparable to Norway in many many ways. Over simplification of the issues yet again.

andrewf75

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK is not comparable to Norway in many many ways. Over simplification of the issues yet again.

I'm not advocating precisely a Norway model, just using it as a term for a close relationship to the EU. Had the government expressed the desire to remain close the negotiations would have already advanced to the details.

ukcarper

andrewf75 wrote: »

Of course it wouldn't satisfy all leave voters, but most importantly it would satisfy the referendum result 100%. No matter how much some people talk of "Brexit in name only" or similar, the fact is you are either a member of the EU or you aren't! Norway is 100% not a member. Sure, there would be a lot of voters unhappy with freedom of movement continuing, but a competent government could have said look we understand your concerns and announced measures to discourage immigration even within the constraints of being part of free movement. Adjustments to the benefits system, stricter requirements on language to encourage employers to recruit locals wherever possible - all things that other EU countries do anyway! We could probably have reduced immigration more under free movement than we are likely to without, but the government are more concerned about the political toxicity of being in freedom of movement than actually reducing immigration, if you see what I mean!

At the end of the day a lot of people won't be happy whatever we do, so its about minimising that number and a Norway style Brexit would have done that. You only need a small proportion of the leave side to favour that approach (which after all was argued by many leave campaigners) to make a majority with the remainers. Add to that it would have a huge majority in parliament which would make things a great deal easier to sort out.

It's sounds to me like you are just looking for a way out it obvious that people didn't want to leave but be subject to all rules of EU. It's impossible to make everybody but people on both sides have to accept that can't have everything they want.