Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

kabayiri

mayonnaise wrote: »

So because they're fed up with:

- UK government mandated austerity
- UK government failed housing policy
- UK government failed industrial policy
- and a UK state education system that leaves them unable to cope in an increasingly competitive world......

.....they voted to leave the EU.

Yep, makes sense.

You can't deny that Brexit is a dream move for your average anarchist can you?

I can't think of any single event which will change things more, outside global warfare of course.

Ballard

kabayiri wrote: »

There were 2 people on LBC last night, both very much Remain types, and one made the point that the Gina Miller decision made it more difficult for May's government to avoid a No Deal exit, not easier.

I only caught the tail of it, so didn't establish why, but it's an interesting take.

What we have right now is some weird democracy, where essentially internal party politics are constraining the options and chewing out time.

Very interesting and useful post. Thanks for sharing. Someone on LBC thought that Gina Miller was wrong for a reason that you’re not sure about.

Ballard

wunferall wrote: »

Firstly it's not all the MP's.
Quite a sizeable number are pro-Brexit and we all know the better-known ones, don't we?
You only have to mention JRM to see loads of remainers start frothing for example.


Secondly, maybe it's because MP's are worried about their future income? Many of them have jobs outside of the HoP - and their "opinions" (being polite) are without doubt influenced by what their employer requires of them in their duties.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44675842

So we’ve established that some/most MPs have alterior motives but I presume that JRM doesn’t. JRM being the guy who is involved with a fund that’s set up a European base so that they can continue trading unhindered post-Brexit.

Herzlos

Ballard wrote: »

Very interesting and useful post. Thanks for sharing. Someone on LBC thought that Gina Miller was wrong for a reason that you!!!8217;re not sure about.

It's a fair point. Had May continued with her "mandate" to make decisions on her own, she'd be free to form any deal at all without scrutiny, so would be able to settle on something.


However, because she has to find a deal that will be agreed by Parliament, with a minority government and a divided party, she runs the risk of in-fighting running out the clock and crashing out with default.


Because Brexit is to poorly defined, and there are too many internal party politics at play, along with her red lines, it's pretty much impossible to find something that will satisfy:
Businesses
The Economy

Brexiteers (public and Parliament)
Remainers (public and Parliament)
The EU.


As in, the demands are so contradictory I think only a "stay in the EU, but without contributing and with some supposed extra powers to stop the wrong kind of free movement" would do it. And we know the EU will never agree to do so because the 4 freedoms are inseparable, and why should we be part of a body without paying our share of costs?

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

As in, the demands are so contradictory I think only a "stay in the EU, but without contributing and with some supposed extra powers to stop the wrong kind of free movement" would do it. And we know the EU will never agree to do so because the 4 freedoms are inseparable, and why should we be part of a body without paying our share of costs?

A 2nd referendum with a major concession on FOM, perhaps a 5 or 10 year brake will be enough to end Brexit IMO.

ukcarper

Ballard wrote: »

Surely you realise that this was Cameron attempting to woo back the Tory voters from UKIP.

That doesn't explain why 544 MPs voted to have one.

Ballard

ukcarper wrote: »

That doesn't explain why 544 MPs voted to have one.

UKIP was taking voters from the main parties. The idea was to get rid of UKIP and regain their voters.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

A 2nd referendum with a major concession on FOM, perhaps a 5 or 10 year brake will be enough to end Brexit IMO.

A 2nd referendum with no concessions on anything would likely end Brexit too, any concessions (however practical they were) would remove any uncertainty about it. You can tell that by how much the Brexiteers froth at the notion.

Enterprise_1701C

Tromking wrote: »

A 2nd referendum with a major concession on FOM, perhaps a 5 or 10 year brake will be enough to end Brexit IMO.

It would have to be a permanent brake.

And there would have to be a lot of other concessions, ones that the rulers of the eu would never agree to because it would thwart the eu's ambitions for a USE.

And contributions would have to be decreased, the rebate Blair gave up for a revision of the CAP that never happened would have to be returned with interest.

And I want no part of a union that is so desperate for fiscal union but goes about it in a piecemeal manner. Even I realise that in a couple of centuries or so the world would have beeen likely to unite as one, but the eu has decided to put an early spanner in the works. The euro cannot work as it is, if it could not be brought in across the whole of the eu (which it could not until all the economies were compatible) then it should not have been brought in. The over ambition of the idiots trying to run the eu has created the PIGS problem, that will not go away for a long while because their reaction is to dig deeper holes for the countries concerned.

That very fact means I am out, and I cannot be the only one that has changed my mind from remain to leave.

As for the Italian's, isn't Italy permanently in crisis?

ukcarper

Ballard wrote: »

UKIP was taking voters from the main parties. The idea was to get rid of UKIP and regain their voters.

So the party is more important than country to majority of MPs and even though they believe leaving EU would be a disaster they supported a referendum. If they ignore referendum now what do you think that will do to UKIP and leave voters.