Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Filo25

ukcarper wrote: »

Did I say people should be expected to get behind a hard brexit. People on both sides will have to compromise, Mays plan might not be great but it's better than a hard brexit and would probably command enough support with moderate leave and remain voters but instead of offering support Labour put forward some vague plan which is less likely to be accepted by EU than Mays especially if she had more support.

Sorry if it came across that I meant you said that, but from the moment that Theresa May put down her redlines that feels like the direction we have been pushed, now that she is obviously trying to backslide on the nonsense she said in the past, the predictable screams of betrayal are coming.

I don't have a clue what type of deal would get through Parliament at present, the Labour leadership is clearly going to oppose whatever May finally agrees (if anything) so she might b dependant on cobbling together some Labour rebels and hoping they can make up for losing either the hardcore Leavers or Remainers in the Tory party.

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

No-one has any proof, but common sense supports what Hamish says.
Its reasonable to assume that Remainers want a soft brexit, put together with those Brexit voters who want that kind of relationship it is almost certainly a majority.
The majority of parliament want it
Business overwhelmingly wants it
It solves the Irish border issue
Hard to come up with another route that pleases more people.

That's called cherry picking.

Back to square one.

Nonsense to suggest a relationship won't continue. Not that there's a visible one anyway.

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

I keep hearing this and the question I would like answered is if it was that easy and one of main concerns expressed by leave supporters was FOM why did the government not do it.

As if Cameron never asked the questions directly.....


Like being at a party and people turn up late after the food has been served.

Filo25

Obviously if you gave me the choice of any type of Brexit, it would be softest type of Brexit I could come up with.

The obvious problem is trying to sell it politically, because while it may minimise economic harm, it just ends up looking like having the obligations of the EU without actually having a say in what it does, and that is a pretty hard sell to both "sides" in the debate.

ukcarper

Filo25 wrote: »

Sorry if it came across that I meant you said that, but from the moment that Theresa May put down her redlines that feels like the direction we have been pushed, now that she is obviously trying to backslide on the nonsense she said in the past, the predictable screams of betrayal are coming.

I don't have a clue what type of deal would get through Parliament at present, the Labour leadership is clearly going to oppose whatever May finally agrees (if anything) so she might b dependant on cobbling together some Labour rebels and hoping they can make up for losing either the hardcore Leavers or Remainers in the Tory party.

The problem is we are not presenting a united front and if it looks like we will cave in and give up all our red lines why should EU move on any of theirs.

andrewf75

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What powers are these?

Stop companies deliberately recruiting overseas, require workers to speak English, revamp the benefits system so it favours locals. Plenty of things we could do to dissuade some of the people who want to come. Other countries already do. I doubt Id get a job as a cleaner in Poland.

andrewf75

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's called cherry picking.

Back to square one.

Nonsense to suggest a relationship won't continue. Not that there's a visible one anyway.

How is it cherry picking? That's precisely what it avoids.

StevieJ

ukcarper wrote: »

No I'm not sure but then I don't think Hannan's remarks from before referendum proves anything.

It proves that Brexiteer campaigners were suggesting that a Norway type deal was a possibility after Brexit.

Filo25

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem is we are not presenting a united front and if it looks like we will cave in and give up all our red lines why should EU move on any of theirs.

The risk of no deal is genuinely quite high if only because I don't see what type of deal we can actually get through parliament, so we now have a credible threat of leaving with no deal, if taking a hard line in negotiation would acheive our aims, then why isn't this working right now?

The problem remains that I think a lot of people had far too high expectations of what the EU was going to give us going into these talks, the final relationship is likely to be heavily based around one of the existing trade relationships the EU already has with other countries, there may be some give and take around the details but that is where we are liely to end up.

Of course the NI border adds a massive complication, but even that would be resolvable if Theresa May hadn't messed up the GE campaign so badly last year.

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

How is it cherry picking? That's precisely what it avoids.

I doubt that is the EU's collective view. The UK would be attempting to have a bespoke arrangement. In or out is the default position.