Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Takedap

SpiderLegs wrote: »

I am 99.9999% certain that if the first result had been the other way round then there would not be a (made up) million enraged temporary democrats shouting outside parliament.

You're probably right (even though Nigel stated that it would be "unfinished business")


The difference is that by continuing the status quo, people would have actually known what they were getting. Not relying on some vague ethereal promises.

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

So being tied to a protectionist, sclerotic, malign and undemocratic proto-empire will guarantee our future prosperity?

Some of us have far more confidence in the ability of the UK to prosper outside the EU. Unlike the pessimistic remainers like those who populate this forum.

It depends on how you look at it. If you look past your antipathy towards "the other side" for a moment, you might realise that a lot of Remainers arguments are that Brexit is a half baked con concocted by a cabal of hypocritical super rich demagogues to create an environment that further enriches them at the expense of the actual working class.

Sure let's hold the EU to account for its failings, of which there are many, but let's ensure those failings actually are Europe's failings, not our own.

The imminent grievances of Brexiters have far more to do with the kinds of governments English people keep voting for and very little to do with the glacial spread of an EU Superstate.

There is an important conversation about globalisation to be had. Brexit has boiled it down to a small army of red faced xenophobes shouting about foreigners, that no one else wants to be associated with. Which is a shame.

SpiderLegs

Takedap wrote: »

You're probably right (even though Nigel stated that it would be "unfinished business")

In the age of the Internet, selective quoting really is a modern day art form.
I bet if we put that particular Nigel quote alongside 99 others from him that we’d both agree that overall he is a crackpot. So let’s not try pretend that one comment is a threat to civilisation while all the others are nonsense to be ignored.

The difference is that by continuing the status quo, people would have actually known what they were getting. Not relying on some vague ethereal promises.

That’s not true though is it. Politically there’s no such thing as the status quo.
You think a second referendum resulting in us revoking article 50 is going to put us politically back to where we were three years ago?
Hardly. The eu has moved on, we have moved on.

The promise that was made was to leave the eu. That is the promise that must be kept.

Zero_Gravitas

SpiderLegs wrote: »

The promise that was made was to leave the eu. That is the promise that must be kept.

So define what “leave” means then? Because until we have a definition of leave that a majority can agree on, there’s no promise to keep...

Takedap

SpiderLegs wrote: »

You think a second referendum resulting in us revoking article 50 is going to put us politically back to where we were three years ago?

Absolutely not. The Genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back. Cameron in his stupidity has unleashed division & hatred which will make the miner's strike look like a picnic.
And for no reason apart from the historical splits in the Tory party.

SpiderLegs

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

So define what “leave” means then? Because until we have a definition of leave that a majority can agree on, there’s no promise to keep...

Nobody was asked to define what leave meant so it is completely irrelevant what any leave voter thought on that subject.

The electorate gave a very clear instruction. The politicians job is to implement.
The only majority that has to agree now is parliament.

Arklight

We can only be "free" of the EU if we abandon caring about our trading relationship with them. In the last three years there have been no obvious offers of trade deals that would be to our advantage from anyone else and it's obvious many people's livelihods is linked to EU free trade.

The only credible offer has come from the US which already pre-stipulates conditions related to food standards and the selling off of the NHS to American health companies, that already aren't acceptable to many people who voted Leave at the election.

No Rees-Mogg doesn't care about chlorinated chicken, because he won't be eating any and nor will any of his family. They'll just send the butler off to make an extra order from Harrods.

This wasn't apparent at the time of the referendum so it seems reasonable to have another one to vote on reality.

Zero_Gravitas

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Nobody was asked to define what leave meant so it is completely irrelevant what any leave voter thought on that subject.

The electorate gave a very clear instruction. The politicians job is to implement.
The only majority that has to agree now is parliament.

No. It’s absolutely front and central. Unless you can define what “leave” means, you have absolutely no idea what the politicians are supposed to implement.

Perhaps you’d like to try again - what does leave mean and is there a majority for the definition of leave that you come up with?

SpiderLegs

Takedap wrote: »

Absolutely not. The Genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back. Cameron in his stupidity has unleashed division & hatred which will make the miner's strike look like a picnic.
And for no reason apart from the historical splits in the Tory party.

I do agree with the point on Cameron. Stupid gamble really. With hindsight instead of an up-front referendum he could have promised a root and branch review of our eu membership and the alternatives, followed by a referendum based on all that.

Personally I would have accepted that, but he risked it on trying to kill the issue too quickly and underestimated the desire of people to protest.

Regardless though, the real failing for me has come after. Probably not a popular view but I actually have a lot of sympathy for the bulk of MPs. The leadership of both has been horrific and the real blocker to getting a sensible agreement through parliament. May’s control freak approach and Corbyn’s commit to nothing gameplay. Awful.

SpiderLegs

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

No. It’s absolutely front and central. Unless you can define what “leave” means, you have absolutely no idea what the politicians are supposed to implement.

Perhaps you’d like to try again - what does leave mean and is there a majority for the definition of leave that you come up with?

The problem with that is that those are just some rules that you have made up.

FWIW I am not against a follow up referendum to define what version of leave we take. What I am totally against is a remain option on there. It’s obviously quite hard though because two sets of indicative votes have failed to come up with the answer. Despite that though the people’s vote (marketing rebrand as ‘confirmatory’) seems to think the electorate that got it wrong last time can be trusted to provide the right answer second time around.

I would actually rather have a GE to be honest. Not because I expect one side to get a massive majority, but because it would force parties to come up with a manifesto, and that in itself would bring them closer together. Any resulting coalition would probably find it much easier to agree a common approach.