Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

kabayiri

andrewf75 wrote: »

Still not sure what the issue is with that comment, sorry.

I think they are spot on that the government has forgotten what the real underlying reasons were for the leave vote.

There is this current trend to expect people to justify their vote to Leave.

I don't get this. The reasons can be many and varied. There was no stipulation that you had to have a valid reason.

The *one* thing voters should have been able to expect, is for the government to deliver on the option selected. If you can't, you are negligent for offering it in the first place.

I find this Brexit affair curiously reassuring in one aspect.

I think it has exposed the limitations of our politicians. They have gone soft, nestled under that EU comfort blanket.

I don't think our competitor politicians in China and SE Asia are soft at all. They have visions; plans; and commitment which our lot haven't had in decades.

It's best to learn this now rather than 10 years time IMO.

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

There is this current trend to expect people to justify their vote to Leave.

I don't get this. The reasons can be many and varied. There was no stipulation that you had to have a valid reason.

The *one* thing voters should have been able to expect, is for the government to deliver on the option selected. If you can't, you are negligent for offering it in the first place.

I find this Brexit affair curiously reassuring in one aspect.

I think it has exposed the limitations of our politicians. They have gone soft, nestled under that EU comfort blanket.

I don't think our competitor politicians in China and SE Asia are soft at all. They have visions; plans; and commitment which our lot haven't had in decades.

It's best to learn this now rather than 10 years time IMO.

I basically agree, especially with the last bit about China/SE Asia. Our politicians are extremely short termist.

I don’t expect people to justify their vote, I just expect the government to analyse the reasons why people weren’t happy with the status quo. And not just on a simplistic level, ie they don’t just want an end to free movement, they want lower immigration.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

The *one* thing voters should have been able to expect, is for the government to deliver on the option selected. If you can't, you are negligent for offering it in the first place.

Even if it was explicitly advisory? And split almost exactly down the middle?
I'd otherwise agree with you; the government should be expected to take the result and do something useful with it, though that might not involve actually leaving.

I think it has exposed the limitations of our politicians. They have gone soft, nestled under that EU comfort blanket.

That's the nature of outsourcing. It free's up time and energy to do other things.
Have I gone soft because I hire a man to tile my roof, or to do plumbing?


That said, our politicians are pretty lousy anyway, but we knew that before the vote. I'm not sure what Labours problem is, but it seems the Tories are struggling to find good politicians because of the rapidly dwindling membership; I fear we've got the best of what's left and it's only going to get worse as they die off.

andrewf75

Herzlos wrote: »

Even if it was explicitly advisory? And split almost exactly down the middle?
I'd otherwise agree with you; the government should be expected to take the result and do something useful with it, though that might not involve actually leaving.

Disagree. Leaving is the one thing they have to do. After that, every option should be on the table including a close relationship like Norway. The fact that it may have been technically advisory is irrelevant. If they weren’t going to take the advice, there was no point in asking. Having done so, the advice must be taken.

ben501

Herzlos wrote: »

Even if it was explicitly advisory?

in what way do you consider


This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.


to be advisory?


If anything I'd consider that explicitly the opposite.


I'm well aware that the UK has no legal framework for a mandatory referendum, but the government saying they will do it is not, in my understanding of the English language, advisory in any way.

scaredofdebt

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

You do know that Argentina is preparing to invade The Falklands if Corbyn gets in don't you?

They're probably planning to invade while we have no active carriers with aircraft on board, ie NOW.

Not a damned thing we can do about it either, 4 Eurofighters based at RAF Mount Pleasant is woefully inadequate due to TORY defence cuts.

I expect the invasion late Spring 2019, Corbyn or not.

May's "Falklands moment" is not going to be pretty.

Thrugelmir

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I expect the invasion late Spring 2019, Corbyn or not.

Argentina is in an economic crisis of it's own. Not the time to be wasting money on war one feels.

cogito

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Argentina is in an economic crisis of it's own. Not the time to be wasting money on war one feels.

It was precisely because the Argentine junta was going through an economic crisis in 1982 that they invaded the Falklands to distract attention at home.

Thrugelmir

cogito wrote: »

It was precisely because the Argentine junta was going through an economic crisis in 1982 that they invaded the Falklands to distract attention at home.

Is there still a junta in control?

Matt_L

ukcarper wrote: »

I can't be bothered to look a context of all quotes but I have Farage one and it's totally out of context

They are all completely taken out of context as has been proven many times here, its one of the reasons the remoaners lost the vote in the first place, so many lies, will they ever learn..