Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Thrugelmir

Backbiter wrote: »

The electoral commission reported that the size of the electorate on referendum day was 46,500,001, and 72.1 per cent of that turned out to vote.

17.4 million is not "over half of the electorate". It's over a third, I'll grant you, but it's less than two fifths.

UK elections have been decided for decades in the same many. Why are we now questioning democracy? Same principles could be applied to the EU leaders that oppose the UK's view. Many of whom have been elected on even lower electoral support. Macron only polled 25%. Hardly a ringing endorsement when viewed from afar.

Herzlos

Very true. However people like throwing this 17.4m figure about because it's a big number without context. "How can you oppose 17.4 million voters?" Sounds a lot more dramatic than "How can you oppose 51.8% of voters?" or "How can you oppose a third of the electorate?"


It was a FPTP deal with 50% +1 "winning", but the result doesn't tell us of a nation united or any cast iron mandate.

ukcarper wrote: »

Is it that 54% includes EU states which accounts for 44 of that 54, so 56% of our exports go to non EU countries of which less than one fifth goes to countries with EU trade deals.

So most are in fact, to the EU or via EU trade deals then?

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Very true. However people like throwing this 17.4m figure about because it's a big number without context. "How can you oppose 17.4 million voters?" Sounds a lot more dramatic than "How can you oppose 51.8% of voters?" or "How can you oppose a third of the electorate?"


It was a FPTP deal with 50% +1 "winning", but the result doesn't tell us of a nation united or any cast iron mandate.





So most are in fact, to the EU or via EU trade deals then?

Yes but not to rest of world Which is the point.

Backbiter

Thrugelmir wrote: »

UK elections have been decided for decades in the same many. Why are we now questioning democracy? Same principles could be applied to the EU leaders that oppose the UK's view. Many of whom have been elected on even lower electoral support. Macron only polled 25%. Hardly a ringing endorsement when viewed from afar.

Noone is doing that. Just questioning incorrect claims.

Moby

Tromking wrote: »

I've acknowledged the Franco-German right to 'boss things' as regards the EU on more than one occasion here, what I won't acknowledge is that there has always been a place at the top table for the UK if only we acted differently toward our continent. Its a tad insulting to suggest that the UK did not take responsibility for Europe's future when we were a key part of the alliance that faced down the threat of the Soviet Union and won the cold war. In so far as were pre-occupied with Empire, that actually entailed the UK at the behest of the US in jettisoning our role as a colonial power. What will I concede is that the UK has never quite understood that the EU project was borne out of a Franco-German desire to end their periodic need to slaughter each other on an industrial scale.
The over riding simple fact is that Britons are suspicious of the federal endgame of the European project, the UK knows it and more importantly continental Europe knows it. France and Germany were never going to give up or dilute any part of their influence to a nation with that mindset.
Cameron called it a few years back when against the wishes of several smaller nations led by the UK, Merkel pushed for the selection of arch-federalist Juncker as President of the EU Commission and it resulted in another all to predictable humiliation for a UK Prime Minister. The usual suspects in Brussels revelled in that humiliation and Cameron quite rightly announced that that Juncker's appointment would not go down well with the British electorate. A few months later we voted to leave.
Brexit was inevitable.

Federation is the way of the future. It's inevitable. Juncker, Merkel, Macron know that. Also young people don't care about national sovereignty as much as the older generations and they are right. Many older Britons are suspicious of the federalist 'project' as you put it and do have a rather fixed mindset but that's not a good thing imo because they are living in the past and still have a whiff of British exceptionalism about them. This is an unhelpful hangover from our imperial past which is holding the rest of us back. The French and Germans learned humility during the war. For us Brits being on the winning side led to the illusion held by many that we were still a great world power instead of a bankrupt middle power.

cogito

Moby wrote: »

Federation is the way of the future. It's inevitable. Juncker, Merkel, Macron know that. Also young people don't care about national sovereignty as much as the older generations and they are right. Many older Britons are suspicious of the federalist 'project' as you put it and do have a rather fixed mindset but that's not a good thing imo because they are living in the past and still have a whiff of British exceptionalism about them. This is an unhelpful hangover from our imperial past which is holding the rest of us back. The French and Germans learned humility during the war. For us Brits being on the winning side led to the illusion held by many that we were still a great world power instead of a bankrupt middle power.

Bankrupted indeed. And by whom? And at least we paid our war debts unlike some.

gfplux

Getting back to Brexit.
A lot of rumour about extending the transition period by a year to allow more time to sort the Irish border and the trade deal.
IF AND A BIG IF
The withdrawal deal is signed.

It will also give large manufacturers more time to reposition themselves for the post Brexit world.

HornetSaver

The problem for me is relatively basic.



As someone whose primary opposition to Brexit was that there was no plan for what to do with the freedom of leaving, and therefore felt that the opportunities to be had were dwarfed by the challenges that were not being addressed, the idea of a long transition period appeals to me. But a transition period is exactly that. Transitional.



The idea of extending the period between 29 March and the point where our relationship with the EU is based on nothing other than what is, or isn't, agreed, before we've actually reached that agreement (or agreed to disagree), is absurd.

gfplux

France and Germany just like Britain are preparing parliamentary bills to cover the change in relationship with Britain post Brexit.
I only have a link to the French one.
http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html

While the media might make headlines out of this it is just everyone readjusting to the new relationship that Britain and the EU will have with each other.

I am assuming that all EU27 parliaments have to do something just as Britain has to do.

gfplux

HornetSaver wrote: »

The problem for me is relatively basic.



As someone whose primary opposition to Brexit was that there was no plan for what to do with the freedom of leaving, and therefore felt that the opportunities to be had were dwarfed by the challenges that were not being addressed, the idea of a long transition period appeals to me. But a transition period is exactly that. Transitional.



The idea of extending the period between 29 March and the point where our relationship with the EU is based on nothing other than what is, or isn't, agreed, before we've actually reached that agreement (or agreed to disagree), is absurd.

I agree that it is Horse before the cart.

However as UNCERTAINTY is damaging business the extra time, if it ever happened will give international Business more time to untangle itself from Britain.
There is a lot of shareholder value tied up in these company’s and they have to tread a delicate path between saying things in public and the contingency plans being put in place.
Some might be angry that they have not come out too heavily in public but that is business.