Politics, politics, politics

[Parklaner81]

You also don't need to impose degrowth - you just give people money for not having to go to work and doing the social things that they are passionate about instead. It's not a hard sell once people grasp the concept.

Sorry Gutterboy. I agree with a lot of your recent input into this thread, but I can't go along with this.

You see, I sometimes feel as if my neighbourhood must be involved in some sort of pilot scheme for what you're suggesting. The big drawback, as far as I've seen, is that the "social things" that a lot of the people involved are obviously "passionate" about don't appear to go much further than drinking, drug-taking and general nuisance-causing.

 

[the dza]

I think there might be a 2nd referendum on the final deal, but the government can't say that because it undermines negotiations (i.e. the EU would simply offer us the worst terms possible knowing that the country would probably vote to stay instead of take a bad deal).

 

[DTA]

I think there might be a 2nd referendum on the final deal, but the government can't say that because it undermines negotiations (i.e. the EU would simply offer us the worst terms possible knowing that the country would probably vote to stay instead of take a bad deal).

I thought about this... But in a different way... what if we use that as a negotiation tactic in its self. Ie. We will have a second referendum on the condition that we have already negotiated a mutually beneficial deal. Ie worse then what we have now (which if we are leaving is fudging inevitable) but something that won't dump us off s cliffs edge (hard brexit)

 

[DTA]

The root cause of either is irrelevant to our discussion. The point is that such happenings, were they to occur, would very likely swing UK public opinion back toward leaving, if it had indeed gone the other way.

On the migrant crisis, Merkel and others undertook actions that had implications for the rest of the EU. It's an enormous issue and will continue to be so for some considerable time, including during any future UK-based debates on membership where it would, as I've already said, almost certainly exert a strong overall influence on opinion toward leaving. Just look at the recent German elections. Despite elements of the media doing their level-best over recent months to paint a picture of the EU 'having the wind back in its sails', this issue isn't going away anytime soon...

Regarding the example of a financial crisis, I didn't actually refer specifically to the 2008 global financial crisis. One financial crisis is rarely the same as the previous one, and in any case there are plenty of examples of EU-specific financial instability (sovereign debt issues, Greece, Italy...) from recent years to list. Any repetition is again only going to feed leave opinion, which was my original point.

Is your first point... people are ill informed and easily swayed, and won't know the route causes of things... therefore we should leave the EU?

As for Merkel and the refugees, she took a great political risk to do the right thing. Saving countless of lives... as have countries like Lebanon and Turkey.

 

[the dza]

I thought about this... But in a different way... what if we use that as a negotiation tactic in its self. Ie. We will have a second referendum on the condition that we have already negotiated a mutually beneficial deal. Ie worse then what we have now (which if we are leaving is fudging inevitable) but something that won't dump us off s cliffs edge (hard brexit)

I don't think the government are strong enough domestically to put that forward, the wing-nuts would end May if she tried it, so she wouldn't. But by 2019, she'll be coming to the end anyway (if they haven't already binned her by then). By that point, if there is no deal, then she would have nothing to lose by offering the country a 2nd referendum. Likewise, if there is no deal and someone like Johnson is in charge of the Tories, Labour could say they'll offer a 2nd referendum at that point, which would likely bring the government down and force a General Election (imo).

I really do think it's highly likely there will be a 2nd vote, but it will be more specific than the last as a deal (or lack of one) will be on the table. It won't be such a leap in the dark like the last vote.

 

[SpurMeUp]

If you don't mind tell me how you will be better off?

I keep asking this to leave voters but none have given me an answer that has any kind of substance.

So I thought I will ask you a remainder to see some upside.

It is all guess work...Brexit is one term but it could play out in any number of ways. If the City of London loses financial services (some jobs have already gone, others are earmarked) then my company will be able to employ programmers in London without having to compete with wealthy banks. Brexit will also likely downgrade the UK economy making Conservative types - biz owners - better off relative to others in the UK. I've never voted conservative incidentally. They secretly, or even publicly, would like a world with an elite and working class trades people sweeping their chimney (shame @Danishfurniturelover doesn't read my posts . If we follow a harder Brexit path and the UK embraces free trade and low corporate taxation (the opposite of what Corbyn represents) then that will also benefit business as Corporation tax is reduced. However, if exiting the EU hits hard, then business will suffer too, and there won't be scope to cut corporation tax. There will be complex knock on effects for all. So it is very hard to model, especially when we have to guess what our trading setup will look like. The other thing is there is opportunity when things are shaken up. If you were smart, you might look at what we import from the EU now, and setup new suppliers in emerging markets etc etc I also quite like anarchy. Shake things up, for example let the buy to let millionaires who've done little to gain their wealth see their fortunes dissolve. I'd like that. Young people can't find a place to live while others cream in the money while not maintaining the homes they let - because they can. I grew up in a London where there were lots of empty houses. You could squat them quite easily. Lose the city jobs and house prices would reset. Yet ultimately, I see Brexit as a backward step. Everything we know about economics tells us that wealth is created with free trade, and we're leaving the worlds largest trading union. It's also a union built out of war to ensure Europe stays unified and peaceful. And these trade partner countries who contain our genetic cousins, are the most culturally advanced, historically rich nations on Earth.

These are exciting times, and despite how it might appear I'm not blindly in favor of Remain. There is opportunity in leaving the EU, the question is at what cost? There are plenty of shades of grey. Leaving is certainly more exciting, even if it doesn't make sense rationally. What's a shame is that with this opening since the vote, I've seen no vision, nothing to galvanize people, or get them excited about a new national drive towards a fresh goal for the UK. UKIP disappeared, they had no vision or creativity. Despite his tomfoolery Borris probably has a sprinkling of vision and leadership and could motivate the nation and get people to believe in something. Just a shame that what that something is, is likely to be regressive. imo.

 

[Parklaner81]

Is your first point... people are ill informed and easily swayed, and won't know the route causes of things... therefore we should leave the EU?

No. My first point is that just because the 'root cause' of something lay outside of the EU, does not mean that membership of the EU cannot directly bring with it consequences related to those events.

Is your point that any issue not solely and exclusively confined to the EU should be disqualified from the debate?

 

[DTA]

No. My first point is that just because the 'root cause' of something lay outside of the EU, does not mean that membership of the EU cannot directly bring with it consequences related to those events.

Is your point that any issue not solely and exclusively confined to the EU should be disqualified from the debate?

Oh ok fair enough, could you tell me how the UK being in the EU lead to a worsening of either of those Crisis for us.

One could argue for instance that being part of the largest trading block on the planet during the financial crisis was beneficial to us for very obvious reasons.

But I really am open to learning how being part of the EU has had negative consequences in relation to those two crisis (for the uk)

 

[Parklaner81]

Oh ok fair enough, could you tell me how the UK being in the EU lead to a worsening of either of those Crisis for us.

One could argue for instance that being part of the largest trading block on the planet during the financial crisis was beneficial to us for very obvious reasons.

But I really am open to learning how being part of the EU has had negative consequences in relation to those two crisis (for the uk)

I have already pointed out to you that I did not in fact specifically refer to the global financial crisis, as you appear to be suggesting.

I mentioned the possibility of 'a' future financial crisis, by implication within the EU, and that such an event would be likely to sway UK public opinion toward leave (you know, after you get your second referendum and win it with a thumping 60% remain vote). Such as the episode that affected the eurozone circa 2010, that was entirely distinct from the crisis of 2008. Use of the term 'financial crisis' does not automatically refer to 2008, as you seem to think; it appears that you not only misunderstood my original post, but also missed me clarifying that point to you when I did it the first time.

You seem to be arguing in such a way as to suggest that you feel that any adverse consequences at all, from either hypothetical future scenario, would be utterly impossible. I'll leave you to your opinions in that case.

 

[parklane1]

is exit

If the country had now changed their mind and 60% wanted to remain. Would you deny them that right?

?

Why do we not do that after general elections when we see the mess the goverment are making of running the country, just think we could over turn every election when ever we feel like it. Brilliant idea

 

[parklane1]

I think we all have to accept that we are leaving the EU and just get on with whatever the final deal is. No need for any more referendums. We simply have be positive and make the best of it.

Far to much sense in that post for some. There seems to be a small minority who because they lost a vote think its unfair and we should all vote again.

 

[the dza]

is exit


Why do we not do that after general elections when we see the mess the goverment are making of running the country, just think we could over turn every election when ever we feel like it. Brilliant idea

But a maximum of 5 years after a General Election, the country gets to vote again. If the government in power has ruined the country, they can get voted out. In some cases sooner.

The official date for leaving the EU is in March 2019, getting on for 3 years after the referendum result. At that point, we will (apparently) know on what terms we are to leave the EU. As a country, we will be better informed as a result of knowing those terms. It would seem fair enough, in my opinion, to ask the public if they wish to proceed with leaving on the terms set, or change their minds and stay in. Either that, or ask when the transitional period comes to an end, which would take us to about 5 years from the initial referendum vote.

This is nothing to do with that b0ll0cks of "oh, you just want to ask people again and again until you get the answer you want." No. When everyone knows the proper terms of leaving, a 2nd referendum is asking a different question to the first one. And it is fair enough to make sure that the public want to go ahead when the decision is such a major one. IMO.

 

[parklane1]

But a maximum of 5 years after a General Election, the country gets to vote again. If the government in power has ruined the country, they can get voted out. In some cases sooner.

The official date for leaving the EU is in March 2019, getting on for 3 years after the referendum result. At that point, we will (apparently) know on what terms we are to leave the EU. As a country, we will be better informed as a result of knowing those terms. It would seem fair enough, in my opinion, to ask the public if they wish to proceed with leaving on the terms set, or change their minds and stay in. Either that, or ask when the transitional period comes to an end, which would take us to about 5 years from the initial referendum vote.

This is nothing to do with that b0ll0cks of "oh, you just want to ask people again and again until you get the answer you want." No. When everyone knows the proper terms of leaving, a 2nd referendum is asking a different question to the first one. And it is fair enough to make sure that the public want to go ahead when the decision is such a major one. IMO.

If you believe that fair enough, personally i would disagree and i know many who would say the same.

 

[scaramanga]

I think there might be a 2nd referendum on the final deal, but the government can't say that because it undermines negotiations (i.e. the EU would simply offer us the worst terms possible knowing that the country would probably vote to stay instead of take a bad deal).

That was essentially Cameron's hand that he massively underplayed with the EU before this all started.

His job was to go there and explain that the Leave vote was a runaway train over which he had no control. That he had to return with concessions that the UK could trade with the EU without having to play their silly little socialist games, or Leave would be a foregone conclusion.

He failed. If remainers want to point the blame anywhere, it should be at him.

 

[the dza]

@parklane1

Why would you object to a final vote when the terms of leaving are fully laid out? If those terms are acceptable to most people, then we leave, if not then we don't. And then it really is final, because nobody can say that they didn't know what they were voting for, or that other people didn't know what they were voting for.

As I said, it would likely be 3-5 years after the initial vote, a similar time frame that we get to change governments.

I am not so much pro-remain, as pro not going nuts and phucking things up. If we can leave on good terms, great. If not, I think the country should be asked if we really want to do this. To deny people that opportunity is, imo, very undemocratic.

Hopefully, we can leave on good terms that don't plunge the country into chaos. But if we really can't, are we just supposed to say "well, we made the decision 3-5 years ago and now we know more facts and it looks like it might not go well, we just have to stick with it." That seems like a crazy way to think, though again I understand why neither of our major parties have said we can have a 2nd referendum (for the purposes of the negotiation).

 

[the dza]

That was essentially Cameron's hand that he massively underplayed with the EU before this all started.

His job was to go there and explain that the Leave vote was a runaway train over which he had no control. That he had to return with concessions that the UK could trade with the EU without having to play their silly little socialist games, or Leave would be a foregone conclusion.

He failed. If remainers want to point the blame anywhere, it should be at him.

I think Cameron is a real disgrace. His EU negotiations were poor, his campaign to remain was awful...but to just turn tail and run away from it all and leave it to others to clean up, that's just utterly pathetic. Joke of a man.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Far to much sense in that post for some. There seems to be a small minority who because they lost a vote think its unfair and we should all vote again.

But it's not about fairness, it's about transparency and honesty.

To put it in similar terms to the general election comparison you mention; if the main tenets of a party's manifesto turns out to be demonstrably false (the NHS money, Turkey joining the EU, immigration) then wouldn't we be within our rights to want that party removed, or for it to have to re-run on a campaign based in fact?

(For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think we should re-run the original referendum but I do think we should have a say on the final deal or lack thereof.)

 

[monkeybarry]

Haha; nice try.
If i don't like Theresa May or her Tory party i get to vote against her representative in my local constituency.
If i don't like Juncker and i (somehow) prefer another European Commission presidential candidate, how do i (attempt) to vote him out and vote the other candidate in?
In fact, can you tell me when it was that Juncker got voted into his role in the first place (whether by me, my MEP or other voters in mine or other UK constituencies)?

Naturally I googled when Juncker was democratically voted into the role by the European Parliament. I thought it was 2015, it was actually 2014.

I'm not a huge fan of the EU set up (if the vote were to join I'd have been firmly a no); my position is anti Tory and anti UK establishment. That was my point, that we should have got our own house sorted out and more functional before even entertaining the question.
I don't believe we have the set up (it's outdated and dysfunctional) and the personnel to do Brexit.

 

[DTA]

is exit


Why do we not do that after general elections when we see the mess the goverment are making of running the country, just think we could over turn every election when ever we feel like it. Brilliant idea

We do every five years

 

[DTA]

I have already pointed out to you that I did not in fact specifically refer to the global financial crisis, as you appear to be suggesting.

I mentioned the possibility of 'a' future financial crisis, by implication within the EU, and that such an event would be likely to sway UK public opinion toward leave (you know, after you get your second referendum and win it with a thumping 60% remain vote). Such as the episode that affected the eurozone circa 2010, that was entirely distinct from the crisis of 2008. Use of the term 'financial crisis' does not automatically refer to 2008, as you seem to think; it appears that you not only misunderstood my original post, but also missed me clarifying that point to you when I did it the first time.

You seem to be arguing in such a way as to suggest that you feel that any adverse consequences at all, from either hypothetical future scenario, would be utterly impossible. I'll leave you to your opinions in that case.

I get your point and your clarification. What i am asking from you is details, examples. How has being in the EU adversely effected us financially?

You don't want to use the 2008 crisis, fair enough you pick one and tell how being in the EU has had an adverse effect?