Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

mayonnaise

westernpromise wrote: »

You need to straighten all that out with phillw, who is gung ho for the superstate.

When you have agreed among yourselves one single version of what Remain actually means, reconcilable to every account previously given, and guaranteed never to change in perpetuity, maybe you could get back to the rest of us.

Meanwhile it is plain that Remainers don't know or agree on what Remain means any more than Leavers agree on what Leave means. Hence there is no case for Remaining. Sound familiar? It should.

Remaining meant continuing on the same path as we have done for the past 45 odd years.
Some stuff we go along with, in other areas we chose to opt out. It's not that complicated really.

mayonnaise

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm not a Brexiteer, I'm a neutral.

Apart from the bits where you regurgitate the same old discredited Brexiteer gumpf, you're a neutral, yes. :rotfl:

westernpromise

mayonnaise wrote: »

Remaining meant continuing on the same path as we have done for the past 45 odd years.
Some stuff we go along with, in other areas we chose to opt out. It's not that complicated really.

It's just that it's the polar opposite of what your fellow Remainer said, which is that Remain means we drift into a federal superstate, and that will be a good thing. You're saying we don't because we'll opt out.

So to Remainers Remain means status quo, but you can't actually agree amongst yourselves what the status quo even means. At least some of you think it means a state of continuous change.

So which is the Remain position? That we end up part of a superstate, or that we freeze UK integration at - when?

Bear in mind that whatever you think Remain means needn't be what it does mean. You might figure we needn't sign up to anything we disagree with. In fact we have signed up to many things I both agreed and disagreed with, but at no stage do I remember any public debate about whether we should do them or not.

For example, Nigel Lawson unilaterally had us constructively join the ERM in 1988. This was an utter disaster from which the economy took nearly ten years to recover. When was that debated? How did he win? Who could I have voted for in 1992 who could have taken power and reversed it? Then there was the Social Chapter. We signed up to that in 1997. We got nothing back for doing so. How do we reverse that?

Your idea of what the status quo means may not be same as what gets implemented. This is the precise logical counterpart of Leave having no consistent, coherent, agreed-upon plan. If that flaw undermines Leave, it undermines Remain too.

westernpromise

mayonnaise wrote: »

Apart from the bits where you regurgitate the same old discredited Brexiteer gumpf, you're a neutral, yes. :rotfl:

You flatter yourself. Not only haven't you discredited anything I've put to you, but with your People's Front of Judaea / Judaean People's Front stuff, you've actually underscored what I have said. On this very page we have multiple mutually contradictory versions of what Remain means. Remainers cannot agree and do not know what Remain means. Leavers likewise don't know what Leave means. So who makes the better case, Remain or Leave?

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

However unpleasant to Brexiters, the fact remains (forgive the pun…) that leave has always meant different, incompatible things to different people, with an entire spectrum ranging from the hardest no-deal Brexit to the softest Brexit-in-name-only. By contrast, remain has always meant one thing only: the status quo.

I am not responsible for what other remainers say and do.

Remainers can't agree what the status quo means. That's Remain's trouble. Some think it means no further integration, some think it means à la carte integration, and others insist it means inevitable further integration. It's every bit as disingenuous to pretend this isn't a problem for Remain as it is for Leave to pretend the same.

The two sides resemble each other very much more than they know. Both claim it's obvious what their cause means, when to studied neutrals like me, it's only obvious to the person speaking and it's further obvious that taken as a whole neither faction has any consensus around a clue. Remain points at the money as though this is a killer argument, and Leave points at sovereignty as though that's a killer argument. But what if both are wrong? From work I've done in trading risk management, the exam question is never "How much is the copper trading desk making?", it's "Is the copper trading desk making enough given the risks it's taking?" Hence, and analogously, how much money should we squander to keep sovereignty? Are we making enough of a mess of pottage out of EU membership to justify selling what we have?

Then there's the tone. Both are extraordinarily unpleasant, the Remainer coming over as smug and supercilious and the Leaver as stroppy and obtuse.

The final point of uncanny similarity is that if you present a Leaver or a Remainer with a question s/he can't properly answer, they snigger, insist they have answered when they haven't, and conclude you must be a Remainer / Leaver. This of course excuses them from honest consideration.

It is unedifying.

gfplux

I just wonder why our resident Brexiteers are so concerned with who will head up the EU Parliament and Commission and Central Bank etc...

We're guaranteed to be out on 31/10. Do or die. Because Boris said so. And Boris is a man of his word.

Thank you Mayonnaise

SpiderLegs

gfplux wrote: »

I just wonder why our resident Brexiteers are so concerned with who will head up the EU Parliament and Commission and Central Bank etc...

We're guaranteed to be out on 31/10. Do or die. Because Boris said so. And Boris is a man of his word.

Are you and mayonnaise the same person?

mayonnaise wrote: »

I just wonder why our resident Brexiteers are so concerned with who will head up the EU Parliament and Commission and Central Bank etc...

We're guaranteed to be out on 31/10. Do or die. Because Boris said so. And Boris is a man of his word.

movilogo

However unpleasant to Brexiters, the fact remains (forgive the pun…) that leave has always meant different, incompatible things to different people, with an entire spectrum ranging from the hardest no-deal Brexit to the softest Brexit-in-name-only. By contrast, remain has always meant one thing only: the status quo.

Status quo always seem easy with almost everyting. But doing nothing is not necessarily the best thing.

The referendum has very clear choices - Leave or Remain.

All these hard/soft/medium Brexit terms were introduced by a political class who did not like the result.

If UK leaves now and a referendum is offered whether to re-join EU, there will be exact same situation, people can't agree what kind of re-join people want.

Status Quo is not exactly a static thing. EU is changing - new people means new strategies, new candidate countries, new rules etc.


Cameron did say leaving means leaving the single market.

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/

gfplux

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Are you and mayonnaise the same person?

No, just two people who are taking Johnson at his word.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,

Johnson and his word. That is called an oxymoron. Ha ha ha ha.

adindas

movilogo wrote: »

Status quo always seem easy with almost everyting. But doing nothing is not necessarily the best thing.

The referendum has very clear choices - Leave or Remain.

All these hard/soft/medium Brexit terms were introduced by a political class who did not like the result.

If UK leaves now and a referendum is offered whether to re-join EU, there will be exact same situation, people can't agree what kind of re-join people want.

Status Quo is not exactly a static thing. EU is changing - new people means new strategies, new candidate countries, new rules etc.


Cameron did say leaving means leaving the single market.

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/

The remoaners should be ashamed, they use every single opportunity to scaremonger people.

- They have full backing and funding from big business
- They have full backing from CBI beside getting funding from big business CBI, CBI still get money £1 million from the EU. https://twitter.com/leavemnsleave/status/955788614096613377?lang=en
- They are using taxpayers money to campaign
- They got former US president to scare monger "UK will be back in the queue"
- They are using IMF to scaremonger the UK economy. How many time now we have seen IMF will need to revise their prediction about UK economy.
The battle is between remainers and leavers just like "David" and "Goliath"
1. Yet they lost on the referendum

Not satisfied, they try to challenge it in the court (Gina Miller) case
2. Yet they lost again

The case was brought into UK parliamentary voting
Yet, they lost with unprecedented case where Vast majority of MPs voted to leave EU. The sam MP is now wanted to reverse it ??
3. Lost again again

They know that Bojo with his diehard mission (do or die) will take UK out of the EU and try to challenge it with 350m spend on the EU.
4. Lost again again again.
But as repercussion people could now comfortably shout it loudly that UK indeed pay 350m a week to the EU. It will depend how you see it e.g before the rabate and the small percentage come back to the UK.

They try to take personal affair matter of BoJo.
5. Lost again again again again

In the European Election Labour / Conservative under TM were punished,Change UK die or will die soon, Brexit party win majority.

Now Wait October 31, 2019 "do or die"
Losers again ??