[Politics] Brexit

[sydney]

Britain is currently the worst performing major economy in the world and among the EU28.

Good stuff

because it is overrun with benefit hogs.

 

[nicko31]

Britain is currently the worst performing major economy in the world and among the EU28.

Good stuff

Meanwhile some are talking about ending austerity. Brexit has pushed that plan back 5-10 years, if you voted for it I hope you have money

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Possible but not very likely. The Tories would crawl over broken glass to stay in power and keep Corbyn out of number 10 even if that means hanging on till 2022 (plus they can oversee Brexit).

You didn't bother reading back through all those posts then, we have definitely covered this before. See false equivalency. A government calling an election is hardly the same thing as the losing side in a referendum calling for another referendum before the first decision can be enacted with the purpose of thwarting/reversing that decision. Please note the post number for future reference.

We are in agreement on your first paragraph, although I may think it more likely than you do that the Conservatives will cut and run. We're both guessing to a certain extent.

Regarding the second paragraph, you and I have never discussed this before. In my view if a government doesn't like the result of a poll and decides to go back to the people and ask them again (obviously because it hopes for a different answer) then that is either the right thing or the wrong thing to do, and the sort of poll we're talking about makes little difference.

If a government is entitled to go back to the country for a second election because they are having a rough time in parliament then people are certainly entitled to ask for a second referendum when huge amounts of further information on the subject have become available.

So I don't agree that there is a false equivalency at all.

Either ignore, agree with or argue against me but it would be nice if you could avoid the sort of superior putdown you attempt with your last sentence.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

we are in agreement on your first paragraph, although i may think it more likely than you do that the conservatives will cut and run. We're both guessing to a certain extent.

Regarding the second paragraph, you and i have never discussed this before. In my view if a government doesn't like the result of a poll and decides to go back to the people and ask them again (obviously because it hopes for a different answer) then that is either the right thing or the wrong thing to do, and the sort of poll we're talking about makes little difference.

If a government is entitled to go back to the country for a second election because they are having a rough time in parliament then people are certainly entitled to ask for a second referendum when huge amounts of further information on the subject have become available.

So i don't agree that there is a false equivalency at all.

"Either ignore, agree with or argue against me but it would be nice if you could avoid the sort of superior putdown you attempt with your last sentence".

priceless
regards
DR

 

[JC Footy Genius]

We are in agreement on your first paragraph, although I may think it more likely than you do that the Conservatives will cut and run. We're both guessing to a certain extent.

Regarding the second paragraph, you and I have never discussed this before. In my view if a government doesn't like the result of a poll and decides to go back to the people and ask them again (obviously because it hopes for a different answer) then that is either the right thing or the wrong thing to do, and the sort of poll we're talking about makes little difference.

If a government is entitled to go back to the country for a second election because they are having a rough time in parliament then people are certainly entitled to ask for a second referendum when huge amounts of further information on the subject have become available.

So I don't agree that there is a false equivalency at all.

Either ignore, agree with or argue against me but it would be nice if you could avoid the sort of superior putdown you attempt with your last sentence.

A referendum and a general election are very different for numerous reasons which is why you favour one over the other. The motivation of the people calling for another vote is also important. Yours is to undermine and reverse the first vote before it comes into force which is inherantly undemocratic. If a government went for another election to reverse undermine the first election result then I could see your point but they wouldn't. The Government called the last election not because they were having a rough time in parliament in fact entirely the opposite was true.

Anyway it's a pointless argument anyway as we are leaving and there isn't going to be a second referndum before we leave.

I sometimes lapse into mirroring the style of the person I am arguing with my sincerest apologies.

 

[Baldseagull]

A referendum and a general election are very different for numerous reasons which is why you favour one over the other. The motivation of the people calling for another vote is also important. Yours is to undermine and reverse the first vote before it comes into force which is inherantly undemocratic. If a government went for another election to reverse undermine the first election result then I could see your point but they wouldn't. The Government called the last election not because they were having a rough time in parliament in fact entirely the opposite was true.

Anyway it's a pointless argument anyway as we are leaving and there isn't going to be a second referndum before we leave.

I sometimes lapse into mirroring the style of the person I am arguing with my sincerest apologies.

That is far from certain.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Anyway it's a pointless argument anyway as we are leaving and there isn't going to be a second referndum before we leave.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. Absolutely anything is possible with May in charge. And if a public vote enables her to get out of a difficult hole she will use it. This story has plenty of twists and turns to be played out.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

If a government went for another election to reverse undermine the first election result then I could see your point but they wouldn't. The Government called the last election not because they were having a rough time in parliament in fact entirely the opposite was true.

May and Davis called the last election because they weren't happy with the way people voted in the previous one, the result being a majority smaller than they wanted. They wished to replace the 2015 result with one that suited them better. It would be a slightly odd use of English, but it would not be wrong to say that they were hoping to 'undermine' the 2015 election result. The equivilency stands.

You say above that the government called the election because they were having the opposite of a rough time (a good time?) in Parliament. I don't agree (although I was actually referring to a possible future election). The 2015 Parliament was becoming fractious and May/Davis wished to deal with the problem.

I don't think a pre-Brexit referendum looks likely at the moment but much depends on how public opinion moves. If it moves against Brexit, someone more influential than the leader of the Liberal Democrats might think it worth offering one.

 

[Jim in the West]

As a remainer, and a proud Brit, I'm torn - do I want the economy to implode (which will cause me short term harm), or do I want things to be relatively OK in the short term, but then suffer the long term consequences of Brexit? After consideration, I've decided the former is much better. The worse things get, the more likely SOMEONE in power might realise this whole Brexit thing is an utter, utter disaster. Fortunately (given my choice), the UK economy is going to get a whole load worse in the coming months. The only thing that has kept our heads above water over the past year has been the willingness of the great British public to keep spending, furiously getting into more and more debt. There will inevitably be a turning point (it's probably already happening).

In summary, this is what we have:

The largest fall in real wages of any developed country aside from Greece since 2009;
A record wide productivity gap to the G7 average
Record credit card borrowing
Record high housing costs
A record current account deficit
Surging inflation
A record low saving rate as the populations borrows to cover spiralling living costs on their falling wages

All of the above is driven by a government with:

- no regional strategy,
- no economic development strategy,
- no industrial strategy,
- no Brexit strategy,
- no discernible strategy of any kind apart from the liquidation of the national balance sheet through a firesale of public assets overseas.

My advice to my fellow countrymen is to batten down the hatches, transfer your savings/investments overseas, and pray that we can somehow find a politician brave enough to stop the madness of Brexit.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I wouldn't be so sure about this. Absolutely anything is possible with May in charge. And if a public vote enables her to get out of a difficult hole she will use it. This story has plenty of twists and turns to be played out.

May is a very simple organism that has no belief system just a strong survival instinct and this does make anything possible. You could see a scenario in which; talks were going badly; she was under pressure to relax some of her red lines from her own back (and some front) benches; and pressure to stand firm from an increasingly desperate and deranged Brexit Taliban. Passing the buck to the public on a key element of negotiations might be seen as attractive and she would then be able to re-programme her position accordingly. I don't think it will happen not least because of the time it would take, and see a chaotic process developing with the EC increasingly calling the shots, but it could.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40461496

More back covering....

 

[JC Footy Genius]

May and Davis called the last election because they weren't happy with the way people voted in the previous one, the result being a majority smaller than they wanted. They wished to replace the 2015 result with one that suited them better. It would be a slightly odd use of English, but it would not be wrong to say that they were hoping to 'undermine' the 2015 election result. The equivilency stands.

You say above that the government called the election because they were having the opposite of a rough time (a good time?) in Parliament. I don't agree (although I was actually referring to a possible future election). The 2015 Parliament was becoming fractious and May/Davis wished to deal with the problem.

I don't think a pre-Brexit referendum looks likely at the moment but much depends on how public opinion moves. If it moves against Brexit, someone more influential than the leader of the Liberal Democrats might think it worth offering one.

Not true, May and Davis were delighted with the 2015 election result as were most other Tories because the more likely outcome seemed to be yet another hung parliament. I even remember some people saying one of the reasons Cameron offered a referendum was in the knowledge it would be dropped in any coalition deal. They called a new election because they thought it was a virtual certainity they would increase their majority (didn't we all). Any suggestion they called it seeking to reverse or undermine the previous result (your position on the referendum) is quite frankly ridiculous. There is no equivilency.

I would agree a big shift in public opinion would increase the calls by the usual suspects for another referendum. But even a shift in public opinion doesn't mean support for another referendum would be popular. May won't offer one, she can't as she is too weak. Any new Tory Leader won't/can't offer one because it will lead to immediate civil war in the party ending the government. I can't see Corbyn calling for one as he has just sacked numerous frontbenchers for saying we should stay in the single market let alone suggesting we should have another referendum. Plus of course there is the golden rule of referendums .. you should only call one if you know what answer you are going to get.

 

[neilbard]

[Tweet]880706249901432833[/Tweet]

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40461496

More back covering....

Jesus.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

[Tweet]880706249901432833[/Tweet]

Giving DUP homophobes minor influence on the UK government (cost £1Bn) = outrageous ... letting a German homophobe have a far greater influence on how this country is run via the EU (cost £8-10Bn every year) completely OK?

Well done to Deutschland for finally catching up with the UK though.

 

[Two Professors]

There was talk of it in the first couple of months 2016. Hows it panning out?
The reason they dont want them, is they dont see themselves the cause of the problem.

Well,must apologise for that.Perhaps my brother-in-laws french is not as good as he thinks!He mentioned it had been on French TV when I called to arrange our next visit,but I couldn't see anything myself.Fake News!!!!!

 

[Two Professors]

We've got family friends down near Pau in the same situation.

Perhaps they should do what normal people do,and consult the local authorities on their future status.They wouldn't be so worried then,and you could spare us yet more rubbish!

 

[Two Professors]

What on earth has that got to do with anything.

You might as well have said that virtually all of the Magna Carta was repealed from the statue book prior to any European Human Rights legislation!

What on earth has that got to do with anything?
You might just have well said that as you hate anything British,you will only obey EU laws from now on.

 

[Two Professors]

Britain is currently the worst performing major economy in the world and among the EU28.

Good stuff

Where did you read that?Socialist Workerlolol Weekly?Are the planes still taking off?I still have some holidays to take,and the ferries are so slow!

 

[Two Professors]

As a remainer, and a proud Brit, I'm torn - do I want the economy to implode (which will cause me short term harm), or do I want things to be relatively OK in the short term, but then suffer the long term consequences of Brexit? After consideration, I've decided the former is much better. The worse things get, the more likely SOMEONE in power might realise this whole Brexit thing is an utter, utter disaster. Fortunately (given my choice), the UK economy is going to get a whole load worse in the coming months. The only thing that has kept our heads above water over the past year has been the willingness of the great British public to keep spending, furiously getting into more and more debt. There will inevitably be a turning point (it's probably already happening).

In summary, this is what we have:

The largest fall in real wages of any developed country aside from Greece since 2009;
A record wide productivity gap to the G7 average
Record credit card borrowing
Record high housing costs
A record current account deficit
Surging inflation
A record low saving rate as the populations borrows to cover spiralling living costs on their falling wages

All of the above is driven by a government with:

- no regional strategy,
- no economic development strategy,
- no industrial strategy,
- no Brexit strategy,
- no discernible strategy of any kind apart from the liquidation of the national balance sheet through a firesale of public assets overseas.

My advice to my fellow countrymen is to batten down the hatches, transfer your savings/investments overseas, and pray that we can somehow find a politician brave enough to stop the madness of Brexit.

God,I am really surprised you haven't broken the strings on that harp.Do you only know one tune?