Politics, politics, politics

[monkeybarry]

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 kind of do have that right - the right to sack underperforming MPs, which I believe would trigger a bielection.
But like most things with UK politics, the electorate will blame someone else and accept the status quo rather than actually taking action.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

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.

IMO leaving was a more principal issue than practical.

We joined a trading bloc, not a political one. The EU has since become a vastly political animal with a manifesto of "ever closer union".

Many see that as a degredation to a nations ability to govern and lead itself, which certainly has some validity to it.

We managed to keep the pound, to keep the power of veto, to resist schengen - and yet the union moves "ever closer".

Now, we vote out. We have the opportunity to leave and consequently work things out for ourselves*.

IF we put in a vote at the end of the leave process (IF the EU would allow) we wouldnt be voting to "stay in like we were before". I am certain the EU would insist on a full buy in from us. Which would mean no pound, no veto etc.

And on THAT basis, I could see many voting leave again, many more joining leave even - because that original principal on which people wanted to leave the EU, or were "iffy" about it, would be even more aggressively attacked.

From a remainers perspective I think that would backfire on you massively. I can see you looking for a last chance to stay in and trying to convince its all about democracy. Democracy has already spoken - and I suspect would speak even louder against your view if were presented again.

The British are a belligerent bunch, we will say "fudge it" and leap into the unknown rather tan succumb to some sort of power over us. Its just how it is.


*I actually agree with you fully regarding our establishments ability to organise a tinkle up in a brewery. I voted remain, only because I didnt trust Cameron and co to make a decent job of leaving. Im no EU lover though, Im generally quite sceptical about it all. However, I do firmly believe leaving could be a incredible thing, in the right hands.

As has been pointed out now though - when May roosters it up we will have the chance to move her on and bring in someone we think will do better. And if they dont, guess what? We can change it again. I genuinely feel a leave vote could leave to some proper politics in this country again, people with genuine views and beliefs and agendas for whom it is possible to get power to make their plans happen. There will be no room for the complacency that has prevailed the last 20+ years.

 

[SpurMeUp]

IMO leaving was a more principal issue than practical.

We joined a trading bloc, not a political one. The EU has since become a vastly political animal with a manifesto of "ever closer union".

Many see that as a degredation to a nations ability to govern and lead itself, which certainly has some validity to it.

We managed to keep the pound, to keep the power of veto, to resist schengen - and yet the union moves "ever closer".

That is a perception you outline. How does the EU stop us governing ourselves in real terms, and how does this adversely affect you day to day? Genuinely interested.

*I actually agree with you fully regarding our establishments ability to organise a tinkle up in a brewery. I voted remain, only because I didnt trust Cameron and co to make a decent job of leaving. Im no EU lover though, Im generally quite sceptical about it all. However, I do firmly believe leaving could be a incredible thing, in the right hands.

As has been pointed out now though - when May roosters it up we will have the chance to move her on and bring in someone we think will do better. And if they dont, guess what? We can change it again. I genuinely feel a leave vote could leave to some proper politics in this country again, people with genuine views and beliefs and agendas for whom it is possible to get power to make their plans happen. There will be no room for the complacency that has prevailed the last 20+ years.

Why is it 2 politicians, Camron and May's, fault that Brexit is not going to plan, and not the challenging task itself that is the issue? Who would make a Brexit an 'incredible thing' in your opinion? Who are those 'right hands'? Could you do it? If all that is required is the right person, who are they and what do they bring to the party that will make the difference?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That is a perception you outline. How does the EU stop us governing ourselves in real terms, and how does this adversely affect you day to day? Genuinely interested.

Perception is incredibly powerful. Even in the workplace Ive come to understand its often more powerful than performance.

Obvious answer is that of borders. I think its a fundamental right of any country to be able to control them. Decide who does and who doesnt enter. We dont really have that within the EU, do we? Its been gone over in this thread countless times, so theres little worth in further regurgitation of the issues people have with the EU, its been done.

How does it effect me? Not a tremendous deal in my day to day. I think its fair to say the numbers of immigrants is impacting upon housing and public services, though its not the only issue there of course. Otherwise its no great bother to me directly.

However, this is where the point of prinicpal comes from - it doesnt need to be practical. Its like religion, any faith system, its the intangible isnt it?

Many dont like the idea of bods in Brussels making decisions that effect them. Many dont like the idea of a European superstate. Some view being so euro-centric as actually being somewhat inward looking. Some simply like the idea of independence, steering their own path...

Just as there are those whose faith in the European project is such they wont consider alternatives.

Why is it 2 politicians, Camron and May's, fault that Brexit is not going to plan, and not the challenging task itself that is the issue? Who would make a Brexit an 'incredible thing' in your opinion? Who are those 'right hands'? Could you do it? If all that is required is the right person, who are they and what do they bring to the party that will make the difference?

I dont know who the right person is, and I think thats a pretty loaded line of enquiry to be honest.

I have no faith in any politician. Not todays politicians anyway. Havent for years. The whole party divide is quite amusing because for 20 years Ive not really been able to tell any of them apart.

I think someone with genuine leadership can achieve anything they set out to. If that someone happened to be intelligent and with vision I think its a match made in heaven.

Most of all, my view is that politics should be a vocation, not a career. A politician should be there to serve, to do the best by their constituency/country. And not play power games and build a nice little nest egg for after the political career. Which is all we have right now, isnt it?

I feel like even if Brexit is a disaster, more "vocational" politicians will be able to come forth and actually be heard.

Maybe that situation is because of the EU. Not directly, but I think parsing so much over to them has made domestic politicians complacent. Blair started the whole spin thing and since then politics has been more like an episode of Xfactor than what it should be.

 

[DTA]

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/i-dont-like-this-brexit-but-i-will-live.html?m=1

fudge me. Scary scary stuff.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Did you read it all?

I dont think the end reads that badly at all.

The piece states things will get bad before they get better, and I dont think Ive seen anyone who promotes leaving as saying any different.

He does look at a very "worst case scenario", which is valid, though Im not sure thats exactly what we can expect.

 

[Parklaner81]

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?

Further to the suggestion that I made at the end of my last post I suspect there is very little point in me putting the effort into providing an answer to your question, based upon what I perceive to be the position of your opinion. To save us both the time therefore could you just clarify whether, as strongly appears to be the case from your argument, it is your belief that there is no conceivable way in which financial instability within the EU could adversely affect the UK as a member?

Unless that is your belief (or you acknowledge some possible threat, but consider it to be so minor that it should not properly enter the debate) then my original point, upon which you have made this entire argument, is valid.

 

[glorygloryeze]

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.

I think similarly re our own establishment, democratic and political issues in the UK. However, my belief is we should work on sorting those out rather than swapping them for an establishment which in my eyes would be even worse and much more difficult to take on.
The political system has suffered imo by a form of 'contracting out' decision-making and planning to the EU in too many areas imo. Hopefully this can be tackled properly after Brexit

 

[glorygloryeze]

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 @Sexagenarianlover 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.

Very interesting points

 

[DTA]

Further to the suggestion that I made at the end of my last post I suspect there is very little point in me putting the effort into providing an answer to your question, based upon what I perceive to be the position of your opinion. To save us both the time therefore could you just clarify whether, as strongly appears to be the case from your argument, it is your belief that there is no conceivable way in which financial instability within the EU could adversely affect the UK as a member?

Unless that is your belief (or you acknowledge some possible threat, but consider it to be so minor that it should not properly enter the debate) then my original point, upon which you have made this entire argument, is valid.

Oh what a surprise a Bexiter that doesnt want to give any substance or answer a direct question.

It's becoming a fudging cliche I'm open to learning how a likely (not the unicorn version) Brexit will be benificial to us economically or as a society but very few are putting anything of substance forward.... notable exception my remainder friend above.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Oh what a surprise a Bexiter that doesnt want to give any substance or answer a direct question.

It's becoming a fudging cliche I'm open to learning how a likely (not the unicorn version) Brexit will be benificial to us economically or as a society but very few are putting anything of substance forward.... notable exception my remainder friend above.

You're becoming a troll on this topic now tbh; lots of Brexiters have given you reasons as to why they voted the way they did. Economics isn't everything and it's not like staying in the EU automatically means we cannot suffer a downturn in future; in fact it could be argued that the contagion of recession spreads much quicker in such a big trading bloc fixed together by a 'one-size-fits-all' economic model. I think you should consider that maybe people think being outside the EU in the long-term will not be detrimental to the UK in the long-term.

@Parklaner81 was merely saying the a re-vote can hinge on a number of geopolitical factors that could happen at the time of a re-vote and that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that many Brexiters will change their vote to remain due to a change in Economic circumstances; a leave vote could again happen due to changes in the Geopolitical landscape that could be seen to either:
a) being due to the EU or
b) easier to tackle/solve/deal with if the UK is out of the EU.
I don't see what was so hard to understand about that point tbh.

 

[DTA]

You're becoming a troll on this topic now tbh; lots of Brexiters have given you reasons as to why they voted the way they did. Economics isn't everything and it's not like staying in the EU automatically means we cannot suffer a downturn in future; in fact it could be argued that the contagion of recession spreads much quicker in such a big trading bloc fixed together by a 'one-size-fits-all' economic model. I think you should consider that maybe people think being outside the EU in the long-term will not be detrimental to the UK in the long-term.

@Parklaner81 was merely saying the a re-vote can hinge on a number of geopolitical factors that could happen at the time of a re-vote and that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that many Brexiters will change their vote to remain due to a change in Economic circumstances; a leave vote could again happen due to changes in the Geopolitical landscape that could be seen to either:
a) being due to the EU or
b) easier to tackle/solve/deal with if the UK is out of the EU.
I don't see what was so hard to understand about that point tbh.

I'm sorry you think I'm trolling that's not my intention.
You are right economics are not everything... until you struggle to feed your family then it's pretty fudging important... I feel that specifically a Tory Brexit will be catastrophic for huge numbers in the UK.

What I have an issue is, within this thread I have been asked to give specifics... which I have done. When I ask Brexiters to do the same... I just don't get that back.

Anyway I'm going to bow out for a while and let you guys get on with it.

 

[parklane1]

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.)

To put it simple when was the last time you got any honesty or transparency from any winning party, if you really believe we have got that over the years then there is no point in carrying that on.

The vote was a simple one, do we want to stay in or leave? the majority voted out and never put any conditions on that. Those who are asking for a say on what is the " final deal" are generally those who voted remain and can not get over the fact that the were in the minority.

 

[parklane1]

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.

Bingo, the guy went over there saying he was going to get us a better deal and came back with his tail between his legs. Then he did a runner and left it for others to sort out.

@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 vote was a simple in or out and i do not remember anyone saying " under this condition or that condition". The majority of those who are wanting to re-run the debate are those who lost a majority vote. Nothing undemocratic about it at all, as i say the vote was a simple " in or out"

 

[monkeybarry]

I think similarly re our own establishment, democratic and political issues in the UK. However, my belief is we should work on sorting those out rather than swapping them for an establishment which in my eyes would be even worse and much more difficult to take on.
The political system has suffered imo by a form of 'contracting out' decision-making and planning to the EU in too many areas imo. Hopefully this can be tackled properly after Brexit

Same opinion, different views on resolution.

I don't think it's possible to say the contracting out has affected UK politics. If anything the evidence speaks the opposite - ie implementation of certain laws and then blaming them on the EU when actually it's a UK political choice.

But one thing I am certain of under a Tory govt is the outcome will be nothing more than a powergrab and move the country, esp public service, into private hands, feeding the political pockets.
Would it have been different under labour? Maybe - who knows.....who knows what labour are anymore

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

To put it simple when was the last time you got any honesty or transparency from any winning party, if you really believe we have got that over the years then there is no point in carrying that on.

The vote was a simple one, do we want to stay in or leave? the majority voted out and never put any conditions on that. Those who are asking for a say on what is the " final deal" are generally those who voted remain and can not get over the fact that the were in the minority.

Oh, sure - all politicians lie, but we were presented with fantasy. I think this was a level up from your common or garden spin and chicanery.

Re: the bolded bit. At what stage do we say, hmm, maybe that was a bit rash? Perhaps it would have been prudent to have a bit more detail on this?

It's like being offered a new job, being told the terms are brilliant and much better than your old job, but in reality you don't know the salary, who your colleagues will be, if you're working weekends and nights, what the benefits are or if there's any paid holiday or sickness or a pension.

Now, it *might* turn out to be the dream job and we're worrying unnecessarily, but for me, we leapt before we looked and now we have our fingers crossed.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Perception is incredibly powerful. However, this is where the point of prinicpal comes from - it doesnt need to be practical. Its like religion, any faith system, its the intangible isnt it?

Many dont like the idea of bods in Brussels making decisions that effect them. Many dont like the idea of a European superstate. Some view being so euro-centric as actually being somewhat inward looking. Some simply like the idea of independence, steering their own path...

I've chopped up your points apologies. I wouldn't make it as an academic. I agree with all of the above. A lot of excellent points.

The UK has had years of newspaper stories about the EU. The print media made a discovery, while articles about trade deals were dull, Jonny foreigner dictating the shape of our bananas, appealed to our natural human, mild xenophobia and were funny and entertaining. The real work of the EU is seriously boring (work that the UK will now have to do creating a big Customs Department, a Trade Department, Medical, Aviation Regulator etc and did you know the EU bureaucracy is the size of Birmingham council?) But all of these bodies help facilitate trade and international cooperation. ...yet as you say, reality is not always important in a democratic vote. Its all about perceptions and how you get your message across (Leave were illegally funded by Trumps money man helping to get a their desired message out). Maybe the reason Remainers feel so upset at UKIP publishing images of lines of Turkish immigrants or the cash for the NHS claim is a) that it worked and b) if you look into it there is only a tenuous link to the the real work of the EU. But that work is not interesting, and never will be. How could Cameron or whoever was up there present the grey EU successfully, when faced with clever, well researched, emotive images of immigrants and hospitals?

How does it effect me? Not a tremendous deal in my day to day. I think its fair to say the numbers of immigrants is impacting upon housing and public services, though its not the only issue there of course. Otherwise its no great bother to me directly.

The irony is, as with you, the EU doesn't adversely affect many people in the UK. Leaving the EU might though. Another irony is that Remoaners have been labelled with project fear, but there is a fear or distrust among Leavers of the foreign 'other', The foreign EU controlling things. Yet the EU conducts its works in our language, has many Brits working in it from all sides of the political spectrum, and things like the EU working time directive or laws on polluting etc, probably do protect most people in the UK.

Obvious answer is that of borders. I think its a fundamental right of any country to be able to control them. Decide who does and who doesnt enter. We dont really have that within the EU, do we? Its been gone over in this thread countless times, so theres little worth in further regurgitation of the issues people have with the EU, its been done.

Of course we have control of borders! What you on about? Have you come back from the EU and walked off the plane without showing your passport? We control our borders. We also have an opt out from Shengen so people who get a visa to visit the EU, can't visit the UK without applying directly to the UK for another visa. Just shows that you are spot on. Its all about perception. Not reality.

 

[the dza]

IF we put in a vote at the end of the leave process (IF the EU would allow) we wouldnt be voting to "stay in like we were before". I am certain the EU would insist on a full buy in from us. Which would mean no pound, no veto etc.

If that was the case, I would vote to leave in a 2nd referendum (I'm a lukewarm remainer). The EU would be silly to insist on that in the case of a 2nd referendum imo, as we'd never vote for it as a people (belligerent bunch, as you say).

If we leave and all the apocalyptic stuff comes true, and -- in 15 years or whatever -- we go back to them cap in hand and say "please let us back in the club" THEN I think they would insist on the Euro etc. This might be their thinking anyway, they might not even agree to a 2nd referendum or reversing Article 50, so it might all be moot.

I don't want a 2nd referendum because I "lost" or I simply want to "win" a vote. I'm ok with us leaving as long as it doesn't turn things upside down. But I think, once it becomes clear what our options are, we should be asked again as a nation so that we can make a definitive, certain choice, fully aware of the consequences.

 

[the dza]

The vote was a simple in or out and i do not remember anyone saying " under this condition or that condition". The majority of those who are wanting to re-run the debate are those who lost a majority vote. Nothing undemocratic about it at all, as i say the vote was a simple " in or out"

I totally agree, the vote was very simple. However, day by day the issue reveals itself to be more and more complex. I'd never heard of Euratom before, there are many other things coming out that make me think "Jesus, how are they going to smooth this over in 2 years?" My dad voted to leave, he keeps telling me "if people knew how complicated it was going to be, I don't think they'd have bothered." Many people may have known the complexities and voted however they did, but many did not appreciate the complexities -- in part, that is due to the terrible campaigns run by both sides of the debate, both full of dishonesty and hyperbole.

I also agree that the majority who want a 2nd referendum voted to remain in the first place. But that doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. There will also be people who voted to leave who might like a chance to review that decision IF it turns out that our options when leaving don't look that good, because of failed negotiations or whatever it is. In that instance, those people shouldn't be denied a voice just because the likes of Nick Clegg want a 2nd referendum to overturn a result he never agreed with. It's not about Nick Clegg anymore than it is about Farage, it's about our whole country.

 

[parklane1]

Oh, sure - all politicians lie, but we were presented with fantasy. I think this was a level up from your common or garden spin and chicanery.

Re: the bolded bit. At what stage do we say, hmm, maybe that was a bit rash? Perhaps it would have been prudent to have a bit more detail on this?

It's like being offered a new job, being told the terms are brilliant and much better than your old job, but in reality you don't know the salary, who your colleagues will be, if you're working weekends and nights, what the benefits are or if there's any paid holiday or sickness or a pension.

Now, it *might* turn out to be the dream job and we're worrying unnecessarily, but for me, we leapt before we looked and now we have our fingers crossed.

We are going around in circles mate and getting nowhere, you believe we were offered " fantasy " and i do not believe we were. Nothing you say will change my view and nothing i say will change yours.

As i say the majority of those i have met who want a rerun ( or whatever you want to call it) are those who voted remain, so i should not be surprised that they are calling for one.

Folks keep saying that we were mislead when the REAL truth is that many were upset that they thought they would win the vote and remain and they failed to see how many folks were sick to death of the EU and everything that they bought to the table.

Stop! Hammer time but they seem to be SOME remainer"s who can not accept that in a majority vote ( which was in or out, nothing more) they were outvoted.