Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Cakeguts

Daniel54 wrote: »

Let’s interrogate your views

I was there,for the reasons set out above.It was a good natured event by people concerned for ther future and their descendants future.Downright silly suggestions that we were manipulated into makiing the protest have to be ignored.Those who corralled the protest,which was largely a joint efforts on social media, had no personal gain to be made.

Yes vested interests of selfish people again. That is what protests for "their future and their descendents future" is. Selfish people who don't care about the interests of the people who voted leave only what they want. So there was personal gain especially on the part of the organisers who got "a good turn out" mostly of people who didn't know why they were there. How can people who didn't know why they were there or what the protest was about not have been manipulated by someone?

Arklight

Meanwhile Nigel Farage was holding a counter Brexit demonstration. Sadly a shortage of promised mobility scooter charging points and microwaves for Rustlers Burgers kept numbers low.

Cakeguts

melanzana wrote: »

If sixteen million had turned up it would still be ignored.

But was cathartic for those who attended. And all those who know them, so multiply the numbers.

Well it might have been but as we know that most of them didn't know why they were there they might have felt just as good if they had gone for a walk on a beach in Skegness.

Herzlos

prowla wrote: »

So, about today's march...


Of the 16,141,241 people who voted remain in the referendum, only 5% felt strongly enough to attend.


63,400,000 people (99%) did not participate in today's march in London.


Is something representing 1% of the population really a "people's vote"?

I counted 23 (twenty three) at the counter protest in Manchester. That must mean that Leave has 0.003% of the support of the people's vote, no?

Herzlos

Cakeguts wrote: »

The organisers are good manipulaters which is why they paid some people to go. I don't suppose that many of the people on the march realised that they were being manipulated.

Do you have any evidence that there was a significant number of paid protesters? This is a pretty common claim the right makes about the left.
Funding being given to provide busses isn't paying for protesters, and there's no weight behind people going for a day out in London; they'd get the bus and then not take part in the march.

Those busses cost about 2.8p per protestor, and likely only enabled 2000 people to attend (assuming £10 return each, and about 38 coaches). With a protest of that scale we're looking at a rounding error here.

The cost would be in the high tens of millions to fund enough paid protesters to make a difference, and at that spend level it'd probably be more cost effective to become a Tory party funder or buy a peerage Than paying people to does about London for the day.

Herzlos

Leaving is materially different in almost every way from what was proposed in the referendum. So we don't know if it's what people wanted. It's like ordering a new car only to discover the spec has changed and it comes with square wheels and no doors. We need the opportunity to stop and check we still want to go ahead with it.

We've gone from the easiest deal in human history, staying in the single market and just funnelingimaginary money into the NHs to stockpiling supplies and going down fighting with no upside for 2 generations. Can anyone honestly say that's what they voted for in 2016?

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Another vote? And what if that one was marginal for Leave, would you want another vote? If it was marginal for Remain it would almost certainly trigger rebellion among Leave. There is no way that you would get a large majority for Remain.

If that's the best you can come up with I suggest you've lost the argument. It's replace the previous vote as it'd be the current will of the people. Since it'll be based on what we know going into a deal it'll be more valid than the last one and the result will need to be interpreted accordingly.

I seriously think that another vote would be the worst thing we could do, no-one would be happy whatever the result.

No-one is going to be happy anyway, so we may as well try. You never know; you might win again and shut us traitors up for good. That's Farage suggested it whilst he thought he'd win again.

Even if Remain won I can see the eu putting certain restrictions up, we could have to join the euro, we could have to join Schengen, we could lose our rebate.

Only if we left and rejoin. Which is what'll happen if we don't have another vote.

Either way, if we stayed in it would end up costing us more and more, both fiscally and in other ways. More countries are lined up to join and I can't see any of them being net contributors.

Stop looking at cost and look at value instead.

The eu is too big for it's boots. It should really look at how it is run before it thinks about expanding further, if we ran our company like that we would have been bankrupt a long time ago, instead they just put up membership fees, and that seriously puts a dampener on the countries that are doing well. Within the eu countries seem to be rewarded for doing badly and punished for doing well.

Then we should lead the effort in fixing it rather than walking away. If it somehow does collapse then we can lead the formation of whatever takes it's place. From the outside we'll just need to watch and take what we're offered.

If we're unhappy with future EU ideas we can always legislate a trigger on them to leave automatically should they happen. Not that k actually think they are a concern, most of the proposals make sense and we were always capable of resisting them.

This feels a big like storming out of a golf club because someone was talking about painting the walls a colour you don't like.

cogito

melanzana wrote: »

There will never be another stay/go ref.

The march today was to grant people the right to vote on any deal/no deal agreed by May et al.

I get the feeling that the march today was misinterpreted as a demand for another ref. It wasn't, it was just ordinary people wishing to have a say on whatever is decided. I personally think that is reasonable. But I have no doubt that my view on that is not welcome here. I don't care.

How would they have their say if it wasn't through another referendum.

gfplux

Cakeguts wrote: »

The Schengen zone is dead. The refugee crisis did for it. There are borders in the East European countries. Borders everywhere in the EU will revert to how they were before the EU was invented it is already happening.



I don't know what friction free trading is but I do know that agriculture is dictated to by Brussels on how much it can produce and what.



Regarding the food and jobs laws what are zero hours contracts? I would suggest that you look at the article on just eat on the BBC about safety of food. That is happening when we are still in the EU. I also rather think that there have been some horse meat scandals involving EU countries so that is no benefit to us.


Number 4 is wrong unless you have a lot of money and don't need to work. At present France is a member of the EU. If you go to live in France you need to speak French to get a job. If you go there to retire you will have to take out private health insurance because France will not allow you to have their version of free health care if you are not paying all the French taxes. This has not changed since before the EU was invented. So no difference there then. No one wants to go to Poland because there are very few jobs which is why their citizens move to other countries to find work. So what you mean is that you can move to some countries if you happen to speak the language and don't need to work.



The answer to number 5 is no because the cost of living in most countries outways the reduction in university fees making it more expensive to study abroad.



No 6 No change people have always been able to work in European countries. They did it before the EEC had been invented and a long time before the EU had even been though of.


No 7 The Erasmus programme includes non EU countries. You can study in Iceland for example or Turkey.



Which means that there is no need to worry about Brexit.



The advantages are that we won't have the whims of non elected officials in Brussels imposed on us.

Your response to number 4 is SO WRONG that first it shows you know NOTHING about that subject and therefore suggests that your response to all the other points is probably driven by similar ignorance.

gfplux

Remainers on this board are STILL waiting for someone, anyone to list the positives of leaving the EU.

There is no shortage of posters who want to discuss anything BUT the advantages of Britain leaving the EU.

When a small list of the ADVANTAGES of the EU is posted by MELANSANA the only response is so flawed that it illustrates desperation.

There is no Brexit dividend.

ukcarper

People calling for another referendum are not being told the truth. It is no way clear that we can universally withdraw article 50 and go back to things as they were before referendum. The damage has been done and now I feel the majority just want to get on with it.