Politics, politics, politics

[Baleforce]

it's really not a question of sides, the fallout will effect everyone, whats wrong with wanting to ensure the damage is minimised?

 

[milo]

*and Bono

 

[StephenH]

*and Bono

Is that it?
Coz this list could be endless

 

[the dza]

They didn't. The polls online polls consistently showed a majority for leave, the telephone polls tended to show a remain lead. The YouGov poll released on the day of the referendum showed remain vote of 55%.

Ok... some polls showed remain was going to win

 

[milo]

Ok... some polls showed remain was going to win

Absolutely. I think that you just have to be careful how the narrative gets changed after the event. Saying that they beat the polls suits how the Brexiteers see themselves as plucky insurgents. What was expected was a squeeze in the leave vote as we got closer to polling and that never materialised.

 

[milo]

The consistently excellent Flip Chart Fairy Tales on yesterday's verdict

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/the-high-courts-ruling-means-a-better-brexit/

I really recommend this. It cuts through a lot of the flimflam and presents what has happened and why clearly.

 

[scaramanga]

But polling during and after the campaign showed that people did not put controlling immigration above their own financial security.

Leave won because they convinced enough voters that this was a cost free decision. If it becomes clear that it comes at a cost, then views may change with it. This is why hard Brexiteers are so keen on an early notification.

I think it will be cost free. Not in the short term obviously, but the experiment is bound to fail eventually and we will be far better off on the outside than in.

 

[milo]

I think it will be cost free. Not in the short term obviously, but the experiment is bound to fail eventually and we will be far better off on the outside than in.

I don't agree. Damaging trading terms with your nearest and biggest trading partner is lunacy. There is no evidence to suggest that lost trade from Europe can be made up from elsewhere. I also do not agree that the EU is ultimately destined to fail, it has been hit hard by the 2008 crash but the political will remains strong. In fact, without us complaining about everything, they may find it easier to find the road ahead.

The downside to us in this is that we will still have to abide by much EU legislation, we may end up with even more red tape to continue to trade with them but on worse terms and we have damaged out standing in the world.

Anyway. This argument has been done to death and I think that it is more positive to focus on what comes next and how we get there.

 

[scaramanga]

There will be a of voters who will consider free movement the status quo and going against the public will.

To answer your question I would consider a Status quo to go against the public will, I don't think that will happen. If it does happen you would think that the party would be unelectable and a party such as UKIP, who are promising to follow the public will then wins a majority.

Its a cluster F8ck due to poor planning, due largely to the fact no one envisioned we would be in this situation. Now we at this point are we have to follow due process as per our constitution and the rule of law. I do not want to be in a society where a Government can pick and choose when to follow this, its a dangerous precedence.

By rights all this should have been sorted pre vote, it was not and now we are here. We both have different view points on how to proceed (parliament vs Government), who is right or wrong is open to debate. What is not open to debate is how we are to proceed as this will be decided by the high court.

Just to reiterate this vote was not about blocking Brexit / Article 50- it was a vote on how the current laws state this should be done.

I agree with pretty much all of that except I have less faith in our MPs

 

[scaramanga]

If "Leave" was just one thing, then fine. Government go ahead with the mandate and deliver this one clear thing. But one term "leave" is highly complex. Leave could be many many many different things. Thus, we need transparency as the vote is actioned. Otherwise people on both sides will be angry with an outcome that doesn't represent them.

What better way is there to debate and pursue the best form of Leave than through our Democratic legislature?

So what happens when Parliament agrees on a form of Brexit that the EU refuses to accept?

Do we then return ticket discussions with the two year time bomb started or do we do what we always do in negotiations and leave it up to a small handful of Ministers with a few experts helping?

 

[milo]

Some Brexit good news

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aid-to-seek-common-brexit-plan-as-feud-abates

 

[milo]

So what happens when Parliament agrees on a form of Brexit that the EU refuses to accept?

Do we then return ticket discussions with the two year time bomb started or do we do what we always do in negotiations and leave it up to a small handful of Ministers with a few experts helping?

How is that any worse than if the executive chooses a form of Brexit that the EU will not accept? If anything, I think that parliament is likely to be more pragmatic.

 

[Robspur12]

But polling during and after the campaign showed that people did not put controlling immigration above their own financial security.

Leave won because they convinced enough voters that this was a cost free decision. If it becomes clear that it comes at a cost, then views may change with it. This is why hard Brexiteers are so keen on an early notification.

Doesn't most of the cost become realised when and after you trigger Article 50? That's when the negotiations start and we will find out what Brexit really means economically.

I think it is too simplistic to say that many leavers saw it as a risk free decision. It is difficult to appreciate the true economic cost if you don't have a good grasp of economics and the costs are not necessarily clear cut. Many understood there would be a short term cost but believed the long term benefit would be worth it; of course it is far to early to say if they are correct or not. Others didn't care "about the economy and wanted to " send a message" to the establishment. Then whatever the polls say there was a huge number of leave voters who were foaming at the mouth to get to the ballot box to send the immigrants home no matter what the wider societal effects might be. Risk was not even a consideration.

 

[milo]

Doesn't most of the cost become realised when and after you trigger Article 50? That's when the negotiations start and we will find out what Brexit really means economically.

I don't think it is too simplistic to say that many leavers saw it as a risk free decision. It is difficult to appreciate the true economic cost if you don't have a good grasp of economics and the costs are not necessarily clear cut. Many understood there would be a short term cost but believed the long term benefit would be worth it; of course it is far to early to say if they are correct or not. Others didn't care "about the economy and wanted to " send a message" to the establishment. Then whatever the polls say there was a huge number of leave voters who were foaming at the mouth to get to the ballot box to send the immigrants home no matter what the wider societal effects might be. Risk was not even a consideration.

I think that the people who wanted to send a message to the establishment would have been far less interested in doing that if they though it would come at a financial cost to them. Similarly, I think that many people who are concerned about immigration thought that it was a net drain on the economy rather than a net benefit.

The message that our public services are in a brick state because of under investment rather than immigration was not heard because the opposition is a shambles.

I think that it is true that the main impact of Brexit will be felt after A50 has been triggered but inflation is set to rise next year and that will be felt by everyone and the impact of stalling on investment until our relationship with the EU is clear will also become clearer.

 

[milo]

*and Katie Hopkins

 

[scaramanga]

How is that any worse than if the executive chooses a form of Brexit that the EU will not accept? If anything, I think that parliament is likely to be more pragmatic.

Parliament is cumbersome and not suited to negotiations with 3rd parties.

That's why we don't sent the whole government to them, we send a representative and some advisors - usually with a good bit of autonomy in terms of negotiating.

If I need to decide something quickly I'll do so myself. If I need to give the impression of consultation or a group decision I'll include 3 or 4 more people and get them to find their way to my decision. Any more than that and every other fudger wants to have their say, or feels the need to represent their special case or reasoning. It becomes thoroughly pointless.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I also do not agree that the EU is ultimately destined to fail, it has been hit hard by the 2008 crash but the political will remains strong. In fact, without us complaining about everything, they may find it easier to find the road ahead.

The Zollverein succeeded eventually, but only after Austria sort of Brexited. And there were cultural bonds between the states.

But the breakup of the USSR after 80 years of authoritarian control I think showed the enduring force of nationalism. All empires eventually fall.

 

[milo]

Parliament is cumbersome and not suited to negotiations with 3rd parties.

That's why we don't sent the whole government to them, we send a representative and some advisors - usually with a good bit of autonomy in terms of negotiating.

If I need to decide something quickly I'll do so myself. If I need to give the impression of consultation or a group decision I'll include 3 or 4 more people and get them to find their way to my decision. Any more than that and every other fudgeer wants to have their say, or feels the need to represent their special case or reasoning. It becomes thoroughly pointless.

What is being proposed is no different to how we approached the Maastricht Treaty. The government sets out its proposals, there is a vote on it and it comes back to parliament to ratify.

I fail to see how this is worse than giving David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and Theresa May a blank cheque.

 

[milo]

The Zollverein succeeded eventually, but only after Austria sort of Brexited. And there were cultural bonds between the states.

But the breakup of the USSR after 80 years of authoritarian control I think showed the enduring force of nationalism. All empires eventually fall.

The EU is not an empire, it is international cooperation (which involves compromise), something that we will have to do a whole lot more of in the years ahead.

I think that this is where so many Brexiteers get it wrong. They see everything through nationalistic eyes and as a conflict.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

The Zollverein succeeded eventually, but only after Austria sort of Brexited. And there were cultural bonds between the states.

But the breakup of the USSR after 80 years of authoritarian control I think showed the enduring force of nationalism. All empires eventually fall.

Not an empire but....
Empire of Japan: minimum 1743 years to date (see above)Byzantine Empire: 874 years (uninterrupted from 330 to 1204)Holy Roman Empire: 844 years (962-1806)Zhou Empire: 790 years (1046–256 BCE)Ethiopian Empire: 666 years (1270-1936)Khmer Empire: 629 years (802–1431)