Will Brexit happen?

phillw

Boris appears to be walking into the trap.

Not long to go now.

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So if there was a new ref. and remain won, but half the country disagreed with the outcome we would just have another ref.? I think I get where you are coming from now.

Yep. Just like Nigel Farage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Eventually we'd come up with a solution.

Green_Bear

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps they remember where they came from. A world where people worked hard to improve their lives. Not one driven by a sense of entitlement where the State simply "provided". Provision costs money and resources. People are generally far better off than they've ever been.

The guys I am speaking about would have been growing up in the 1960s and 70s.
Yes, they were hard working manual jobs, but job security, occupational pensions, social housing etc was at it's peak then. The working class had it much better in those days, but I agree that the welfare state, in terms of benefits entitlement is much more abused these days.

The country back then was better for the Working Class, but today it benefits the 'Benefit Class'. Social housing was available for working men with families back in the 1960s. Not any more.

Green_Bear

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So if there was a new ref. and remain won, but half the country disagreed with the outcome we would just have another ref.? I think I get where you are coming from now.

No, probably not.
Because I doubt enough MPs (backed by business money) would want to vote for another referendum. Once Remain won, that would be it.
It may not be fair or democratic - but that's how it is.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So if there was a new ref. and remain won, but half the country disagreed with the outcome we would just have another ref.?

Yes, it's called democracy.

In the same way that Labour lost the 2017 General Election we don't just say to Labour supporters "sorry, you lost, the majority have spoken and you losers don't get a say ever again."

What we actually do is allow them to vote again five years later to see if anyone has changed their mind since the last vote; indeed if circumstances change and warrant it we sometimes let the people vote again after only a couple of years.

Well guess what? Circumstances have changed and the utopia and simplicity of Leaving the EU has turned out to be nothing like everyone was told...

Malthusian

Green_Bear wrote: »

The guys I am speaking about would have been growing up in the 1960s and 70s.
Yes, they were hard working manual jobs, but job security, occupational pensions, social housing etc was at it's peak then. The working class had it much better in those days, but I agree that the welfare state, in terms of benefits entitlement is much more abused these days.

The working class in the 60s and 70s worked their arris off to afford homes that today would be rejected as unfit for human habitation for people not paying a penny to live there. Freezing cold homes with no indoor plumbing.

You don't need job security in a society which is rich enough that you can grow up, go to university, party, fall in love, raise a family, receive free medical care and die in your 70s or later without ever doing a stroke of work. If you want a job we have full employment.

Occupational pensions were crap. You could find yourself trapped in a job you hated because if you left the pension would become near-worthless. You could also lose your pension if your employer failed - your retirement dependent on a single business you had no control over, with no ability to diversify. That would never be tolerated today and became intolerable decades ago. They were only made desirable retrospectively by changes to the law, changes which also meant the end of them.

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

The working class in the 60s and 70s worked their arris off to afford homes that today would be rejected as unfit for human habitation for people not paying a penny to live there. Freezing cold homes with no indoor plumbing.

And now the working class are working their arris off to not afford homes. The standards have raised because we're 50 years on. I'm sure some would happily take freezing homes with no indoor plumbing in order to live somewhere, but they don't exist.

Green_Bear

Malthusian wrote: »

The working class in the 60s and 70s worked their arris off to afford homes that today would be rejected as unfit for human habitation for people not paying a penny to live there. Freezing cold homes with no indoor plumbing.

You don't need job security in a society which is rich enough that you can grow up, go to university, party, fall in love, raise a family, receive free medical care and die in your 70s or later without ever doing a stroke of work. If you want a job we have full employment.

Occupational pensions were crap. You could find yourself trapped in a job you hated because if you left the pension would become near-worthless. You could also lose your pension if your employer failed - your retirement dependent on a single business you had no control over, with no ability to diversify. That would never be tolerated today and became intolerable decades ago. They were only made desirable retrospectively by changes to the law, changes which also meant the end of them.

I was thinking about public sector DB schemes, where the employer cannot go bust (eg Prison Service, MoD etc). But yes, you may be right about private sector schemes.

westernpromise

MobileSaver wrote: »

Well guess what? Circumstances have changed and the utopia and simplicity of Leaving the EU has turned out to be nothing like everyone was told...

I don't really understand this claim. It was made very clear by Remain that leaving would be a fraught business.

From the government's Remain leaflet:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock would put pressure on the value of the pound, which would risk higher prices of some household goods and damage living standards. Losing our full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs.

and

Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.

and

Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.

"years"; "seven years"; ten years". What part of that wasn't clear? Leaving has turned out to be exactly like everyone was told. That leaflet went to every household in the country. Everyone knew.

It's just that the argument had no traction.

People who voted Leave considered the price worth paying. This idea that "we" didn't know has been made up by Remain after the fact. What it means is Remain objects that its killer argument failed and now demands that it succeed after all.

It's similar to the way people convicted of crimes appeal, on the grounds of this thing and that thing, and the appeal's rejected because all were already considered by the court previously. You might just as well argue that the 1997 election should have been rerun because "we" didn't know that if Labour won Tony Blair would be PM.

Green_Bear

Malthusian wrote: »

The working class in the 60s and 70s worked their arris off to afford homes that today would be rejected as unfit for human habitation for people not paying a penny to live there. Freezing cold homes with no indoor plumbing.

You don't need job security in a society which is rich enough that you can grow up, go to university, party, fall in love, raise a family, receive free medical care and die in your 70s or later without ever doing a stroke of work. If you want a job we have full employment.

Occupational pensions were crap. You could find yourself trapped in a job you hated because if you left the pension would become near-worthless. You could also lose your pension if your employer failed - your retirement dependent on a single business you had no control over, with no ability to diversify. That would never be tolerated today and became intolerable decades ago. They were only made desirable retrospectively by changes to the law, changes which also meant the end of them.

But the newly built council houses were not like this and were accessible to the workers they were built for. In many areas working men with families could even pick and choose which council houses they wanted.

The private houses you mention often needed work. But that could often be done by the owners. Also, many people had access to free or very cheap coal, so heating a house was cheaper (but more effort) than today. The drafts were actually good ventilation. A lot of the damp issues today are actually condensation due to all the changes made (eg double glazing, no open fireplace etc).

Green_Bear

Malthusian wrote: »

The working class in the 60s and 70s worked their arris off to afford homes that today would be rejected as unfit for human habitation for people not paying a penny to live there. Freezing cold homes with no indoor plumbing.

You don't need job security in a society which is rich enough that you can grow up, go to university, party, fall in love, raise a family, receive free medical care and die in your 70s or later without ever doing a stroke of work. If you want a job we have full employment.

They were only made desirable retrospectively by changes to the law, changes which also meant the end of them.

That is a society that is / has come to an end.
Many people in the UK don't realise it, or just can't bring themselves to accept it. They are burying their heads in the sand and think they can act in the same care free way as their parents (or grandparents now!) did.