Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Filo25

Brexit in name only would be the Norway+ option, May's deal may be an unpopular mess which is unlikely to get through Parliament but it is Brexit and not just in name.

qwert_yuiop

LHW99 wrote: »

It would end the arguments about what sort of Brexit we ought to have. It might concentrate the minds of politicians on all sides of the House. It would definately end any uncertainty for business.....

Nothing like chaos to end uncertainty.

This is mad.

Wenlock

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

AKA crashing out. Why would anyone want to do a thing like that? What possible benefit would there be?

Psychiatrists call it self harm.

AKA leaving the EU fully as decided in a Referendum.

The benefit would be that we would have left the EU fully. We would be an independent democratic country.

CKhalvashi

Wenlock wrote: »

AKA leaving the EU fully as decided in a Referendum.

The benefit would be that we would have left the EU fully. We would be an independent democratic country.

There is no majority anywhere for such a deal (or no deal, as the case would be). You know that, as do I.

We are already an independent democratic country. We elect our MPs and MEPs, the government elects those at the top of the EU on our behalf.

I notice that in the MSE email this week there is an interesting piece about Brexit and rights. Having rights taken from us does not make us democratic by default as you are suggesting.

kabayiri

The only facts we know are that the clock is running down; there seems little political consensus that May's deal will get approval; and the vote on her deal can and will be pushed back.

It kind of leaves an 11th hour extension/rescinding of A50; or a default exit.

This is obviously how A50 is intended to work. You agree an alternative deal or else you exit without any arrangement.

Surely, the MPs knew all this when they chose to invoke A50?

spadoosh

CKhalvashi wrote: »

There is no majority anywhere for such a deal (or no deal, as the case would be). You know that, as do I.

We are already an independent democratic country. We elect our MPs and MEPs, the government elects those at the top of the EU on our behalf.

I notice that in the MSE email this week there is an interesting piece about Brexit and rights. Having rights taken from us does not make us democratic by default as you are suggesting.

There is a majority. It was 52% to 48%.

The issue is our MP's dont want to commit to a promise they made (they all made it, they all said they would enact the will of the people based on the referendum). There was never an option of a 'deal' on my ballot, did you have one on yours?

All this talk of mitigating any effect on the economy is moot, its exactly the reason why weve ended up supporting a murderous regime in the middle east, for the money. I mean we cant damage our economy just because a few children get blown to pieces with our bombs can we?! We cant take a hit on our economy in order to ensure were ecologically self sufficient? If its always about the economy theres little point in democracy, id suggest we start by getting rid of the NHS, costs a bloody fortune, you agree? But the NHS does harm our economy. O but that is a price worth paying?

Crashy_Time

It will be her deal (not going to happen without major change?) or No Deal, the narrative in the media is changing more and more towards No Deal (which isn`t a good description anyway) Time is tight, the EU is going to face upheaval in May, they can`t show any weakness now, although long run the EU as it stands is still finished.

AlanP_2

spadoosh wrote: »

There is a majority. It was 52% to 48%.

The issue is our MP's dont want to commit to a promise they made (they all made it, they all said they would enact the will of the people based on the referendum). There was never an option of a 'deal' on my ballot, did you have one on yours?

So are you saying there shouldn't have been any negotiations about how we leave and how things would work on Leave Day + 1?

No discussion / agreement about travel / visa requirements?

No discussion / agreement about goods / services / financial markets and institutions?

No discussion about the rights of UK citizens living and / or working in one of the remaining 27 member states?

No discussion about the rights of citizens from those 27 member states legally living and / or working in the UK?

And so on, and so on.


If YOU AREN'T saying that then there had to be a DEAL agreed.

CKhalvashi

spadoosh wrote: »

There is a majority. It was 52% to 48%.

For crashing out of the EU there isn’t. For leaving the EU there was in 2016.

52/48 is a knife edge in terms of majorities. If I was an MP with that small a majority I would be very scared.

If there was likely to be no deal, the vote needs to be put to the people as the facts are known. This is the only democratic way to deal with such a situation.

I seem to remember Jacob Rees-Mogg wanting a vote on the deal to be given to the public. For all his bluster now, that was a sensible thing to say and is a sensible thing to follow up on.

The issue is our MP's dont want to commit to a promise they made (they all made it, they all said they would enact the will of the people based on the referendum). There was never an option of a 'deal' on my ballot, did you have one on yours?

The manifesto at that time of the government was all about saying yes to the single market and free trade. Promises made at the time were about saying yes to a Norway or Switzerland-style agreement.

I would argue that it means a deal was on the table and it means one close to the EU with the ability to create our trade deals. Both countries therefore fit the bill perfectly.

All this talk of mitigating any effect on the economy is moot, its exactly the reason why weve ended up supporting a murderous regime in the middle east, for the money. I mean we cant damage our economy just because a few children get blown to pieces with our bombs can we?! We cant take a hit on our economy in order to ensure were ecologically self sufficient? If its always about the economy theres little point in democracy, id suggest we start by getting rid of the NHS, costs a bloody fortune, you agree? But the NHS does harm our economy. O but that is a price worth paying?

I’d argue sensible business is not selling weapons to such regimes.

I’d also argue the NHS provides value for money, much more than privatising it. I may or may not support some form of means testing, and definitely would support billing time wasters for the services provided by the NHS.

I have first hand knowledge of how overstretched the NHS is at the moment. Some middle managers do need to go IMO, and some cost cutting of admin services could be made in terms of automation, but for the most part it is efficiently run. Disasterous GP contracts should be brought back within public ownership to save money too.

The Leave campaign was partly about protecting our NHS, even if incorrect numbers were used on the bus. We must therefore follow the will of the people in doing so.

Moe_The_Bartender

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

AKA crashing out. Why would anyone want to do a thing like that? What possible benefit would there be?

Psychiatrists call it self harm.

Not crashing out at all. Leaving without a deal is what you may have meant.