Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[dudalb]

Like politicians using inflated rhetoric is a rare occurance….

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There was a booklet posted to every household in the country by the government that promised, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." Do you think it's acceptable for the government to go back on a promise like that?


[qimg]https://moraymint.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fullsizerender.jpg?w=439&h=371[/qimg]

Note that it also promised that this was a 'Once in a generation decision.' Three and a half years isn't a generation - well it's more than a generation for rats, but much less than a generation for humans.

The government tried to implement the decision and the ERG, DUP and Bojo at al prevented them from doing so.

 

[angrysoba]

It's that old saying in the Catholic Church that the only person who should be pope is somebody who runs away when his name is suggested.

No, that’s down to a guilty conscience.

 

[SezMe]

Yeah. It's a slur against a powerful ethnic group ....

"German" is an ethnic group?

 

[SezMe]

If Putin's goal...and I think it was....was to throw the two oldest Western Democracies into chaos, mission accomplished.

Indeed, beyond his wildest imagination.

 

[Vixen]

deleted

 

[Vixen]

I find it incredible that some in the UK still refuse to admit the UK geographically is part of Europe and the days of "splendid Isolation" are over.

The British Isles have broken away from the main land.

Anyway, no such continent as 'Europe'. What we call Europe is on the continent of Eurasia.

 

[Vixen]

Because they don't normally spend taxpayers' money printing a booklet full of promises like, 'once in a generation', and, 'the government will implement what you decide', and then posting that booklet to every single household in the country. This was exceptional.

As to referendums not being binding, why the hell do they want another one? Will the next one be binding because they really really promise, with sugar on?

Only because Cameron was convinced the public would do as they were told.

He should have known Brits by nature are subversive.

 

[Mojo]

The best argument for not Corbyn in my view is that the caretaker PM (whose only tasks should be to get a brextension and call an election after that) should be essentially a technocrat who "doesn't want to be PM". Rather than the guy who wants to be the next PM. (I think it was you who made this argument)

But the other thing is that anyone is better than nobody, even Corbyn.

It's that old saying in the Catholic Church that the only person who should be pope is somebody who runs away when his name is suggested.

“To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.” ― Douglas Adams.

 

[Lothian]

You should understand the difference between the promises made by government and those made by campaigns.

Governments regularly break their own promises not mention promises of previous governments.

That said we don't know what people decided. You have constantly opposed deals which would have us leaving the EU. Clearly the referendum question was not clear if leavers like yourself would rather remain than leave on a deal.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As to referendums not being binding, why the hell do they want another one? Will the next one be binding because they really really promise, with sugar on?

Whether or not a referendum is binding is a legal issue. The first referendum was not legally binding. If it had been, then it would have been declared void due to the corruption in the Leave campaign: https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...t-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/

A second referendum could be made legally binding. Not only would that settle the matter once and for all, but it would prevent corruption like was seen in the first referendum.

 

[Samson]

Whether or not a referendum is binding is a legal issue. The first referendum was not legally binding. If it had been, then it would have been declared void due to the corruption in the Leave campaign: https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...t-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/

A second referendum could be made legally binding. Not only would that settle the matter once and for all, but it would prevent corruption like was seen in the first referendum.

Xi Ji Ping must be aghast at this democratic endeavour.

 

[BadBoy]

I read an interesting Article (which I cant find now :/ ) which made the point that referendums for things as complicated as Brexit is not a good idea because decisions need to be informed. It suggested the best people to decide on Brexit and the EU would be the people who legislate laws and understand the economics.

My stock answer for Brexit discussion is "can you answer the question to 'will the UK be better off outside of the EU - especially economically' - provide your working and any facts and figures you have.

For me the "free movement of workers" - i.e. EU migration into the UK was always a red herring and distraction and probably the single issue that swung the vote - idiots. The real question should be if UK residents will be better or worse off generally after leaving - and that goes for all people living there, migrants or not.

What I wanted to see in a referendum debate was a good and fair discussion on the probable economic outcome of leaving. I don't think this debate really happened, let alone presented with facts and truthful analysis. So, I was left unconvinced and voted to remain. Generally though, why would you want to be outside a trading club with your closest trading partners - it makes no sense to me why that would be better - but I was always prepared to be convinced otherwise.

Free movement of people I feel is an issue that should have been tackled within the EU itself.

One of Sam Harris 's podcasts interestingly talked about the Elephant Curve which suggests that over the last few decades the middle classes across the world have seen the least improvement in their standard of living, even compared with many populations in developing countries. The suggestion is that this very important and somewhat educated voting block is very dissatisfied and so you see the likes of Trump and Bojo swooping in on the back of Jingoism, fear and dissatisfaction of the status quo and the lazy blaming of immigrants for all their troubles and woes. The irony is that the likes of Trump and Bojo will probably just make things worse long term for this group of people (see Trumps tax break for the rich)

 

[ceptimus]

My stock answer for Brexit discussion is "can you answer the question to 'will the UK be better off outside of the EU - especially economically' - provide your working and any facts and figures you have.

That's pretty simplistic. First YOU should answer the question, 'Why are economics more important than anything else? Provide your justification of your assertion.'

 

[McHrozni]

That's pretty simplistic. First YOU should answer the question, 'Why are economics more important than anything else? Provide your justification of your assertion.'

Economy was on the top of the reasons to vote Brexit. There was that big bus advocating savings of 350 million pounds a week. I think you'd be fine just admitting that was all a lie and there would be no economic upside to Brexit and then describe how all other upsides make up for the downside.

You're free to start writing any time now.

McHrozni

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I read an interesting Article (which I cant find now :/ ) which made the point that referendums for things as complicated as Brexit is not a good idea because decisions need to be informed. It suggested the best people to decide on Brexit and the EU would be the people who legislate laws and understand the economics.

I think that a large number of people who did vote Leave believed themselves to have an understanding of the economics - the UK would have an extra £350m a week, which would be spent on the NHS.

Generally though, why would you want to be outside a trading club with your closest trading partners - it makes no sense to me why that would be better - but I was always prepared to be convinced otherwise.

The Leave campaign said that we would remain in the free trade zone, with zero tariffs:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. The heart of what we all want is the continuation of tariff-free trade with minimal bureaucracy.

It was Theresa May who torpedoed this idea.

Part of the problem of this debate, of course, is that it's framed in the wrong way. Right from the beginning it's been framed as "Leave" vs. "Remain". The problem with that, of course, is that "Leave" isn't a single position. It's a large range of positions. That's why "Leave" can have a majority but not get anything done - because what some Brexiteers were pushing and wishing for is emphatically not the same thing that other Brexiteers were pushing and wishing for.

And now, thanks to May, we're in the situation where what is seen as the Leave position is actually the most extreme version of that, and not what people actually voted for. And that's before Johnson took it further and put us where we are now where "Brexit" seems to mean "no deal whatsoever". It's a far cry from what was actually promised.

 

[Lothian]

That's pretty simplistic. First YOU should answer the question, 'Why are economics more important than anything else? Provide your justification of your assertion.'

Not necessarily more important than anything else but you need to apply some weighting. The leave campaign centred on two things, economics (£350m a week and better economic trade deals than the EU negotiated) and racism (immigrants, immigrants, immigrants)

I appreciate most brexit supporter think keeping the wogs (and krauts) out is more important but I thought you were better than that.

 

[Samson]

I read an interesting Article (which I cant find now :/ ) which made the point that referendums for things as complicated as Brexit is not a good idea because decisions need to be informed. It suggested the best people to decide on Brexit and the EU would be the people who legislate laws and understand the economics.

My stock answer for Brexit discussion is "can you answer the question to 'will the UK be better off outside of the EU - especially economically' - provide your working and any facts and figures you have.

For me the "free movement of workers" - i.e. EU migration into the UK was always a red herring and distraction and probably the single issue that swung the vote - idiots. The real question should be if UK residents will be better or worse off generally after leaving - and that goes for all people living there, migrants or not.

What I wanted to see in a referendum debate was a good and fair discussion on the probable economic outcome of leaving. I don't think this debate really happened, let alone presented with facts and truthful analysis. So, I was left unconvinced and voted to remain. Generally though, why would you want to be outside a trading club with your closest trading partners - it makes no sense to me why that would be better - but I was always prepared to be convinced otherwise.

Free movement of people I feel is an issue that should have been tackled within the EU itself.

One of Sam Harris 's podcasts interestingly talked about the Elephant Curve which suggests that over the last few decades the middle classes across the world have seen the least improvement in their standard of living, even compared with many populations in developing countries. The suggestion is that this very important and somewhat educated voting block is very dissatisfied and so you see the likes of Trump and Bojo swooping in on the back of Jingoism, fear and dissatisfaction of the status quo and the lazy blaming of immigrants for all their troubles and woes. The irony is that the likes of Trump and Bojo will probably just make things worse long term for this group of people (see Trumps tax break for the rich)

Thank you for bringing the threads of the debate together in a coherent fashion.
This Brexit show will never be forgotten.

 

[The Don]

More good news if there's a no-deal Brexit, travel insurance costs are going to rise because most EU countries will no longer accept EHIC cards.

European Health Insurance Cards let UK residents get medical care for free, or at a reduced cost, in 31 countries.

But if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, that will no longer be the case.

The government has asked all 31 countries to keep EHICs in use until 31 December 2020, no matter what happens with Brexit.

But only three have agreed to cover UK tourists if there's no deal.

The UK's largest travel insurance provider is warning that this would mean prices will go up, especially for people with health problems.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49989227

No possible downside, only a considerable upside

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You're lying again.

No for once I think that's true, I think both leavers and remainers agree that being in a trading group and hence having to follow the rules but not having a say in them is worse than being in the same group but having a say a say and a veto (although it's slightly confused by claims that we didn't have a say and were having laws imposed on us). The difference in opinion is over whether it's worse than crashing out.