Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

qwert_yuiop

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

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

The difference being?

spadoosh

AlanP wrote: »

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.

Thats a deal on future relationships.

There is nothing you have put that is a requirement of the UK being a member of the EU or not.

The EU has had discussions on most of those topics without the need for discussion about someone being a member or not. The brexit specific one that is the people that have moved to either area is so easily solved the question shouldnt really need asking. Both sides agree to apply the rights they had on brexit day to that individual until they die. Anything else is just scumbaggery isnt it?

So you say

'right weve voted to leave, were puttin in articl 50 today and well be out in 2 years. Naturally weve got international law and trade policy to fall back on but generally were good mates who are fairly aligned on a lot of things so assuming we can avoid planes not flying.

Yeh sounds good so lets work out what works for us. You buy a lot of our cars and we buy a lot of ones you build, both industries are pretty stable so would you agree not much need for tariffs on cars?
Yeh, kool deal. Right what about agriculture. Our farmers are lsoing their jobs because we cant compete with yours on wages and our food imports are through the roof, as a consequence its got the potential to effect our national security. We need to do something about it other than the wages wed be quite competitive, anything you can do about that by increasing min wages or reducing subsidies?

No? Well we need to put a 10% tariff on agri imports then.

You leaving has left us in the lurch a bit with national security and intel. I get you cant share everything but wed love it if you could share information you might have about attacks against us naturally well do the same for you.

Right now the real big issue. Hard border. Its kind of just got to happen. We both need to check standards and legitimacy. But realistically theres just no need for queus at borders. How about we chuck as much in to security tech on the borders and have comprehensive supply chain paperwork that can be easily accessed by both sides should need be. Gibraltar and Spain have a good model but well try and avoid the throwing a hissy fit every few months when the spanish remember they dont own it.

Eire you good with that?
UK Work for you?

Deal!'

Jesus, i just negotiated brexit in less than 1000 words.

spadoosh

CKhalvashi wrote: »

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 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.



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.

There wasnt a mandate to join the EU in 1836 so we should never have joined then should we?

Alas its a majority. One which the only people who could enact it promised they would. They knew the risks and took them.

There was literally never an option of a deal. Cameron tried to get one and didnt. The options wher ebe a member of the Eu. Dont be a member of the EU. Point out where it said deal anywhere on the ballot?

Ill be honest, there isnt a politician i trust or like. Maybe a few would be fun to have a drink with but i just wouldnt ever be able to believe a word they said. Meniton JRM to me and im like yeh, hes a bell. Id assume if his stance has changed it is to suit his purpose?

The manifesto was contrary to the referendum no arguing that. BUt then did people really know what they where voting for from government? Did they want a hard tory or a soft tory? Or was it they didnt want JC? Did people actually vote because of the manifest or because TM can whack out some awesome dance moves? We just dont know do we? Maybe we need to re run the election. And everyone in history.

Ive got no real issues with the NHS just pointing out that MPs suggest they need to protect the economy hence the need for a deal that the people where never asked about which is why youre
(and others) wanting one now. Simple fact is i voted to leave the eu. Not to make a deal with them. I read and understood my ballot paper and now youre telling me that it doesnt stand because the people who brought about the ballot who said they would listen just didnt? Nahhh, you dont stand then.

The leave campaign was a campaign by a group of people who had literally zero power to enact what they where saying. Its the equivalent of Corbyn promising unicorns and tuition fees for all of santas elves.

THE_Terry_Urr

phillw wrote: »

Overturning democracy with more democracy is normal, grow up.

Not when a democratic vote decided to leave and that has not yet happened.
This isn't a playground game; there are no "best of three"s just because the outcome isn't what you wanted so "grow up" right back at you.
I after all am adult enough to accept the results of a democratic vote. Why aren't you?
Perhaps you think we should have a [STRIKE]monthly[/STRIKE] weekly vote until we get it right, in your opinion.

qwert_yuiop

You might not like it if the party you favour fails to get into number 10. You can always wait for the next election. This is very different. It’s probably for life.

andrewf75

spadoosh wrote: »

There was literally never an option of a deal. Cameron tried to get one and didnt. The options wher ebe a member of the Eu. Dont be a member of the EU. Point out where it said deal anywhere on the ballot?

I think you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a deal means. You seem to take it to mean a continued close relationship. But even the hardest of hard Brexits still needs a “deal” to iron out the terms of leaving and what to do about the Irish border issue etc. What about things like flights being able to continue, presumably you want a deal for that? It doesn’t just magically happen. So Many things that people take for granted will need sorting out. I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t want some form of relationship on some issues going forward, therefore we need “a deal”. What that is, we can argue about endlessly, but this talk of not needing a deal is just silly. Maybe it’s just the terminology, but you seem to be taking it literally!

spadoosh

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

You might not like it if the party you favour fails to get into number 10. You can always wait for the next election. This is very different. It’s probably for life.

No its not, you just set up a poltical party that will get enough people to vote for it or risk toppling the existing government who then pander to your wishes by holding a referendum.

spadoosh

andrewf75 wrote: »

I think you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a deal means. You seem to take it to mean a continued close relationship. But even the hardest of hard Brexits still needs a “deal” to iron out the terms of leaving and what to do about the Irish border issue etc. What about things like flights being able to continue, presumably you want a deal for that? It doesn’t just magically happen. I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t want some form of relationship on some issues going forward, therefore we need “a deal”. What that is, we can argue about endlessly, but this talk of not needing a deal is just silly. Maybe it’s just the terminology, but you seem to be taking it literally!

PLANES ARENT GOING TO STOP FLYING!

I dont have the negotiating skills of an MP or the EU but from my point of view its pretty simple.

Ask yourself who wants planes to stop flying?

If your answer is anything but "no one" youll have to explain further.

So no one wants planes to stop flying. Why will they? Because there needs to be a deal? The deal is already made because everyone i salready happy to keep the planes flying.

These are negotiation that happen every day and yes they are deals. What they are not though is negotiations on constitutional changes, which is what brexit is about.

You dramatise something that could be resolved in any pub in the country. Yet seems apparent cant be resolved by our MPs.

And thats the whole point people (the issue is mps) are arguing endlessly about a "deal" when people have never said theyve wanted one. Of course there are thigns to sort out, and i do think they magically happen. I mean i didnt worry at all about the deals that where in place on my recent visit to tenerife. I just assumed loads of us wanted to o there, an airline was willing to facilitate that and they had the relevant permission from the countries to do so, probably from a desire of both nations to promote tourism and generate money from it. But maybe its more complicated than that.

andrewf75

spadoosh wrote: »

PLANES ARENT GOING TO STOP FLYING!

I dont have the negotiating skills of an MP or the EU but from my point of view its pretty simple.

Ask yourself who wants planes to stop flying?

If your answer is anything but "no one" youll have to explain further.

So no one wants planes to stop flying. Why will they? Because there needs to be a deal? The deal is already made because everyone i salready happy to keep the planes flying.

These are negotiation that happen every day and yes they are deals. What they are not though is negotiations on constitutional changes, which is what brexit is about.

You dramatise something that could be resolved in any pub in the country. Yet seems apparent cant be resolved by our MPs.

And thats the whole point people (the issue is mps) are arguing endlessly about a "deal" when people have never said theyve wanted one. Of course there are thigns to sort out, and i do think they magically happen. I mean i didnt worry at all about the deals that where in place on my recent visit to tenerife. I just assumed loads of us wanted to o there, an airline was willing to facilitate that and they had the relevant permission from the countries to do so, probably from a desire of both nations to promote tourism and generate money from it. But maybe its more complicated than that.

I don't think planes will stop flying! But because a deal will be done. If it isn't then I imagine the leave date will be delayed until it is. Of course everyone wants them to keep going, but there are legal issues which need resolving, its not as simple as you make out. I'm not attempting to dramatise it, just saying that a deal needs to be done! You're trying to simplify something that is probably the most complex negotiation in our history. I imagine the planes is one of the simplest bits to sort by the way, but obviously one of the most important to keep things functioning.

No deal isn’t going to happen. If you want a fully hard Brexit, then that will need to be managed in some way (with a deal).

AlanP_2

spadoosh wrote: »

And thats the whole point people (the issue is mps) are arguing endlessly about a "deal" when people have never said theyve wanted one. Of course there are thigns to sort out, and i do think they magically happen. I mean i didnt worry at all about the deals that where in place on my recent visit to tenerife. I just assumed loads of us wanted to o there, an airline was willing to facilitate that and they had the relevant permission from the countries to do so, probably from a desire of both nations to promote tourism and generate money from it. But maybe its more complicated than that.

Yes and the deals in place allowed you to enter with minimal border checks and no need for a visa and so on.

If Spain doesn't have deals in place with your country its more difficult - it's why there's an EU and non EU queue at passport control in UK airports. We recognise EU citizens rights and lower our standard of checking.

If we didn't have deals to control things like that entry into the country would be down to whether the passport guy had got out of bed the right side that morning.