Brexit...

[holystove]

It is all bollocks anyway. The vote is over, lets get on with it and see what happens, nobody knows yet as it has never happened before.

 

That's the point though isn't it? The vote is over, the UK is going to leave. So isn't it logical that some people are trying to foresee what will be the consequences (maybe should have been done before the vote, but hey..)

 

There's ten different ways this can play out. Right now it looks like a hard break which could have some adverse effects on the working class (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/12/11/ten-reasons-why-brexit-is-bound-to-be-costly-for-ordinary-people/). Maybe May could choose a more soft approach, but that could anger the more rabid brexiteers and loose her votes ..

[Matt]

 

Rubecula said parliamentary elections in the UK are held every five years .. so 5 years?

 

In a parliamentary democracy people choose representatives to make decisions on the many things that need to be decided but they don't have the knowledge (or time to acquire the knowledge - or access to the knowledge) to make an informed decision.

 

how many years have gone by thus far where they haven't asked the question if everybody wants to pay 1000£ less taxes every year? I can just see it on the side of a bus : "Why are you sending 1000£ to elitist London when you could be spending it on yourself?"

I'm sure there would be a bigger victory in that referendum than 52-48.

I.e How Democracy actually works

 

 

That's the point though isn't it? The vote is over, the UK is going to leave. So isn't it logical that some people are trying to foresee what will be the consequences (maybe should have been done before the vote, but hey..)

 

There's ten different ways this can play out. Right now it looks like a hard break which could have some adverse effects on the working class (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/12/11/ten-reasons-why-brexit-is-bound-to-be-costly-for-ordinary-people/). Maybe May could choose a more soft approach, but that could anger the more rabid brexiteers and loose her votes ..

I'd phrase it differently. The non-leaglly binding referendum is over, it's now down to the democratically elected MPs to do their job and have the vote on the final say - as you pointed out, it's what they're paid to do on our behalf.

[johnh]

I.e How Democracy actually works

 

I'd phrase it differently. The non-leaglly binding referendum is over, it's now down to the democratically elected MPs to do their job and have the vote on the final say - as you pointed out, it's what they're paid to do on our behalf.

Where in the guidelines (that the taxpayer paid for) on the referendum did it say that MP's should have a vote on the final say? The vote was for 'in' or 'out' and Cameron said the result was binding. End of.

[MikeO]

Where in the guidelines (that the taxpayer paid for) on the referendum did it say that MP's should have a vote on the final say? The vote was for 'in' or 'out' and Cameron said the result was binding. End of.

 

And the out camp said the NHS would get £350m extra a week, should that not be binding also? Lies on both sides, Cameron is currently down the Job Center so what is his word worth?

 

There's no doubt it'll happen sadly (for me), but the whole thing stinks; not as much as the fracas across the pond admittedly but it stinks all the same.

[Cornish Steve]

 

Rubecula said parliamentary elections in the UK are held every five years .. so 5 years?

 

In a parliamentary democracy people choose representatives to make decisions on the many things that need to be decided but they don't have the knowledge (or time to acquire the knowledge - or access to the knowledge) to make an informed decision.

 

how many years have gone by thus far where they haven't asked the question if everybody wants to pay 1000£ less taxes every year? I can just see it on the side of a bus : "Why are you sending 1000£ to elitist London when you could be spending it on yourself?"

I'm sure there would be a bigger victory in that referendum than 52-48.

 

A big majority of people vote based on a combination of things. Welfare policy, healthcare policy, defence policy, economic policy - all these things trump membership in the EU. It's well established that a majority of the population support some policies that MPs always ignore. When i was growing up in Britain, it was capital punishment: About 70% of the population wanted it, and MPs always voted against it. But they could do this because, in the overall scheme of things, it's a minor issue.

 

On the EU, Britain voted decades ago to join a Common Market. Then, also decades ago, they voted to remain in the European Economic Community. Britons never, not once, had any say in becoming part of a political union - a United States of Europe. To my mind, once the dust has all settled, this was a fundamental reason for the Brexit vote. We want to be part of a common market, but we don't want to be a cog in a federated wheel.

 

As for believing the EU when they demand we must keep open borders and pay to be part of the free trade region...If anyone believes this, then do I have a wonderful used car to sell to you. Of course they'll make outrageous statements in public, especially when they want to frighten other nations from leaving. Behind-the-scenes negotiations are something entirely different. Only then can they not worry so much about losing face.

[Matt]

Where in the guidelines (that the taxpayer paid for) on the referendum did it say that MP's should have a vote on the final say? The vote was for 'in' or 'out' and Cameron said the result was binding. End of.

cameron lied (maybe just wrong but I doubt it), just like most of those on both sides. The definitions of the referendum and legality of it are well documented, as is the legal precedent for challenging the decision.

 

MPs are elected to make decisions on our behalf. There is literally no point in having them if not for this. if every change to the country and it's laws we're to come down to a referendum, we'd be a mess

[Palfy]

Cornish how bizarre to suggest that whether someone is executed or not is a trivial matter that people don't care about, to be fair I don't remember that particular vote and I'm 57, had a look at you profile to see how old you are, but it doesn't show, when I voted I consulted my children as even at my age I considered it was more their future than mine, fortunately for me the 3 of them were going to vote to stay in which was perfect cause that's the way I wanted to vote, but there grandparents all chose to vote out and there all in their late 70s and early 80s, I think there should have been an age restriction on if you were given a vote, because the younger generation voted to stay in by over 70% but that was taken away from them by people who may have died from old age before we even leave.

The vote should have been for people of 16-65 and if you're older than that tuff what difference is it really gonna make to them.

[johnh]

cameron lied (maybe just wrong but I doubt it), just like most of those on both sides. The definitions of the referendum and legality of it are well documented, as is the legal precedent for challenging the decision.

 

MPs are elected to make decisions on our behalf. There is literally no point in having them if not for this. if every change to the country and it's laws we're to come down to a referendum, we'd be a mess

Well we had a referendum 40 years ago over joining, so why are some people complaining about having one to leave? I guess its because they lost. If remain had won we wouldn't be hearing all this talk about the legalities and the rights of MP's etc., It will all get sorted in time and we will leave. Remainers are just making things difficult which will extend the completion date (to the disadvantage of the country) but it will happen.

[Matt]

Well we had a referendum 40 years ago over joining, so why are some people complaining about having one to leave? I guess its because they lost. If remain had won we wouldn't be hearing all this talk about the legalities and the rights of MP's etc., It will all get sorted in time and we will leave. Remainers are just making things difficult which will extend the completion date (to the disadvantage of the country) but it will happen.

whos complaining? People are just making sure the law is followed. That's not making it difficult, it's adhering to British law - isn't that what Leave voters wanted???

 

We wouldn't have heard anything if Remain had won because nothing would've changed!

Edited December 15, 2016 by Matt

[MikeO]

Well we had a referendum 40 years ago over joining, so why are some people complaining about having one to leave? I guess its because they lost. If remain had won we wouldn't be hearing all this talk about the legalities and the rights of MP's etc., It will all get sorted in time and we will leave. Remainers are just making things difficult which will extend the completion date (to the disadvantage of the country) but it will happen.

 

How are "remainers" extending anything? They've been left to instigate the thing because the brexiteers have run for cover because they have no idea what to do, so people who were in the remain camp are having to negotiate the shitstorm left by Farage, Gove. Johnson etc.

 

Whoever is doing the deals I hope (if necessary) they extend them as much as they can to get us the best result; but I can't see any result that will be advantageous to us however long it goes on for.

[Cornish Steve]

Cornish how bizarre to suggest that whether someone is executed or not is a trivial matter that people don't care about

 

The point I'm making is that virtually no-one votes for a party based on its policy on capital punishment, whereas plenty vote based on economic policy, foreign policy, healthcare issues, and so on. I agree that capital punishment is a big moral issue, but it doesn't decide elections. Because of this, MPs feel free to ignore what the voters think.

[Cornish Steve]

I'm 57, had a look at you profile to see how old you are, but it doesn't show

 

And I'm not going to reveal my age. Care to guess?

[Palfy]

Sorry Cornish miss interpreted what you were saying.

 

Haven't got a clue.

[Cornish Steve]

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/12/15/the_year_that_may_decide_europes_fate_112146.html

[holystove]

Cornish how bizarre to suggest that whether someone is executed or not is a trivial matter that people don't care about, to be fair I don't remember that particular vote and I'm 57, had a look at you profile to see how old you are, but it doesn't show, when I voted I consulted my children as even at my age I considered it was more their future than mine, fortunately for me the 3 of them were going to vote to stay in which was perfect cause that's the way I wanted to vote, but there grandparents all chose to vote out and there all in their late 70s and early 80s, I think there should have been an age restriction on if you were given a vote, because the younger generation voted to stay in by over 70% but that was taken away from them by people who may have died from old age before we even leave.

The vote should have been for people of 16-65 and if you're older than that tuff what difference is it really gonna make to them.

 

That's an interesting suggestion. I think Cornish Steve made the same suggestion earlier in the thread.

 

I wouldn't take the right to vote away from 65+ as a general rule (after all, America just elected a 70 year old to lead them the next four years), but in this case where everyone who is 70 or older is unlikely to see the UK completely free of the EU, and because the vote has a lot more impact on young people who might want to work or live in other places than their parochial-minded grandparents, it would have been a good idea to ban the 65 or 70 plussers. For the same reason I think it would have been better if all expats would have been allowed to vote seeing how leaving the EU has a big impact on their situation.

 

I read an article not long ago written by a statistician that if you held the vote today, the margin of victory of Leave would be smaller because of the number of (old) people that have died since June 23rd. If you look at the evolution of demographics it is very likely that by the time Brexit is fully implemented, the majority of the UK citizens will be against it.

[Matt]

 

That's an interesting suggestion. I think Cornish Steve made the same suggestion earlier in the thread.

 

I wouldn't take the right to vote away from 65+ as a general rule (after all, America just elected a 70 year old to lead them the next four years), but in this case where everyone who is 70 or older is unlikely to see the UK completely free of the EU, and because the vote has a lot more impact on young people who might want to work or live in other places than their parochial-minded grandparents, it would have been a good idea to ban the 65 or 70 plussers. For the same reason I think it would have been better if all expats would have been allowed to vote seeing how leaving the EU has a big impact on their situation.

 

I read an article not long ago written by a statistician that if you held the vote today, the margin of victory of Leave would be smaller because of the number of (old) people that have died since June 23rd. If you look at the evolution of demographics it is very likely that by the time Brexit is fully implemented, the majority of the UK citizens will be against it.

That one of the biggest travesties, around 1.2m (nearly 1.7% of the population) had no say and are massively impacted. But, yeah. Democratic.....

Edited December 16, 2016 by Matt

[holystove]

 

As for believing the EU when they demand we must keep open borders and pay to be part of the free trade region...If anyone believes this, then do I have a wonderful used car to sell to you. Of course they'll make outrageous statements in public, especially when they want to frighten other nations from leaving. Behind-the-scenes negotiations are something entirely different. Only then can they not worry so much about losing face.

 

If you only make "outrageous" statements in public but then only a couple of years later do give a deal to the UK that's more beneficial to them than full membership, isn't that a very short term way of frightening other nations? What would be the point?

 

I don't think frightening other countries is part of it.. what union would last if the only thing that is keeping it together is fear? when in the brexit debate they talk about frightening, I think it relates to frightening populists and their fan base. If you show that the EU does work and that it does have a positive impact, then you take away a lot of ammo from the demagogues.

The best deal for the UK would be to cherry-pick all the positives of EU membership, of couse other nations would be inclined to also want that. But the union wouldn't survive for long if everyone is just taking stuff out and noone is contributing. Therefor even outside the EU, if the UK wants the benefits of the EU it has to pay for access and allow free movement. I don't think they will budge on this, not even in the "behind-the-scenes" negotiations.

Edited December 16, 2016 by holystove

[Palfy]

When the prime minister said yesterday that it will take about 10 years to sort a trade deal out with the E.U, do you think she was lying, just to appease the E.U elite, when we were excluded from a meeting with all the other members to discuss our exit do you think that was just for show to keep the natives quite.

 

I think we are going to have a real tough time a head of us, the Germans, French and Italians will make sure of that, they won't want an exodus on their hands so will make sure we are made an example of.

[EFC-Paul]

We've had our worst recession and record highs of unemployment whilst within the EU its hardly been a beacon of thriving prosperity for us, that said the lack of foresight and planning and what is potentially around the corner is slightly worrying

[holystove]

When the prime minister said yesterday that it will take about 10 years to sort a trade deal out with the E.U, do you think she was lying, just to appease the E.U elite, when we were excluded from a meeting with all the other members to discuss our exit do you think that was just for show to keep the natives quite.

 

I think we are going to have a real tough time a head of us, the Germans, French and Italians will make sure of that, they won't want an exodus on their hands so will make sure we are made an example of.

being made an example of is much too strongly worded imo. the EU will however negotiate with only its interests at heart, future policy will be decided without any care for the negative effect it might have on the UK, etc... and rightly so.

 

I do hope this get sorted quickly. People on the continent are also suffering the consequences of the uncertainty at the moment. Friend of mine has a software company and 20% of his turnover comes from the UK. His margins were low to begin with but now with the pound being worth less than usual, he's actually close to running a deficit. I'm sure there are many many more examples seeing how the region where I live is a major exporter to the UK.

[Cornish Steve]

The EU will suffer if it casts aside the fundamental principle of free trade. (So will the US if Trump begins to abandon trade deals). Free trade, more than anything, has been the engine behind the world's most successful economies. Free trade does not mean forcing other countries to pay to trade with you. That's just another form of protectionism. If the EU insists on going this, it will be cutting its own throat, as they say. In the long-term, so long as it embraces free trade, the British economy would win.

[johnh]

When the prime minister said yesterday that it will take about 10 years to sort a trade deal out with the E.U, do you think she was lying, just to appease the E.U elite, when we were excluded from a meeting with all the other members to discuss our exit do you think that was just for show to keep the natives quite.

 

I think we are going to have a real tough time a head of us, the Germans, French and Italians will make sure of that, they won't want an exodus on their hands so will make sure we are made an example of.

 

Er, it wasn't the prime minister who said it would take 10 years to sort a trade deal out, it was a civil servant. Sir Ivan Rogers, Britain's permanent representative in Brussels, just a little bit of 'vested interest' wouldn't you say.

[MikeO]

 

Er, it wasn't the prime minister who said it would take 10 years to sort a trade deal out, it was a civil servant. Sir Ivan Rogers, Britain's permanent representative in Brussels, just a little bit of 'vested interest' wouldn't you say.

 

I'd say he was someone who has a better understanding of the situation rather than someone who has a "vested interest". Sure he won't struggle to find a job elsewhere when it's all done.

 

PS Is anyone in the leave camp going to address the bus logo or are you just going to pretend it didn't happen?

[Cornish Steve]

What number bus was it MikeO. ?

 

It has to be a number 10. Both Britain and Everton need a strong and consistent #10.

[holystove]

The EU will suffer if it casts aside the fundamental principle of free trade. (So will the US if Trump begins to abandon trade deals). Free trade, more than anything, has been the engine behind the world's most successful economies. Free trade does not mean forcing other countries to pay to trade with you. That's just another form of protectionism. If the EU insists on going this, it will be cutting its own throat, as they say. In the long-term, so long as it embraces free trade, the British economy would win.

 

There is a big difference between free trade and a single market. Ofcouse the EU is open to free trade, they just did a deal with Canada.

 

The single market however offers much more, and therefor requires a fee if you want to join it and it brings with it certain elements that everyone within the single market has to accept, such as freedom of movement. This is different from a free trade agreement where there is obviously no fee or something similar.

 

I don't think there is any question that there will eventually be a free trade deal between the EU and the UK if the UK chooses to be outside the single market.

[MikeO]

What number bus was it MikeO. ?

 

3,500,000.

[Cornish Steve]

 

There is a big difference between free trade and a single market. Ofcouse the EU is open to free trade, they just did a deal with Canada.

 

The single market however offers much more, and therefor requires a fee if you want to join it and it brings with it certain elements that everyone within the single market has to accept, such as freedom of movement. This is different from a free trade agreement where there is obviously no fee or something similar.

 

I don't think there is any question that there will eventually be a free trade deal between the EU and the UK if the UK chooses to be outside the single market.

The Soviet bloc was a single market, and look how well that worked. Singapore, with no natural resources other than tropical fish, is a free market economy with per capita income that exceeds any country in Europe.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Cornish Steve

[holystove]

Soviet Russia = bad. Soviet Russia had a single market. Conclusion: single market = bad.

 

They wore hats in Soviet Russia. So are hats bad? They drove cars, are cars bad?

 

The UK on itself is also a single market, so is the US, so is basically every country.

[MikeO]

Mikel I know what your saying but when it comes to elections or a referendum you don't listen to what comes over from the party's they all tell lies.

You have to decide on your own feelings of what's right or wrong.

There's lies everyday about unemployment rates there's thousands or even millions on zero hours contracts it's an absolute disgrace.

 

I appreciate what you're saying but I think that lie was without doubt the biggest and most most blatant I've ever come across; most of the other stuff is people just massaging figures to support their argument, being selective with their stats and optimistic with their predictions.

 

This was something different which was dropped like a hot potato the moment the result was in. Shameless.

[johnh]

Soviet Russia = bad. Soviet Russia had a single market. Conclusion: single market = bad.

 

They wore hats in Soviet Russia. So are hats bad? They drove cars, are cars bad?

 

The UK on itself is also a single market, so is the US, so is basically every country.

 

I agree that the single market analogy is not a good one. A better one would have been the absence of democracy.