[Politics] Brexit

[El Presidente]

Well the chancellor lied and said there would be an emergency budget for a start.

The ex-chancellor!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

The ex-chancellor!

Well yes, obviously I was referring to the one who was incumbent at that time!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Just your opinion. I'd be fairly certain (again, just my opinion) there were lots of people scared off from voting Brexit because of the constant barrage of LIES from the remain side about the Armageddon coming our way if we had the audacity to vote out.

Constant barrage? I can think of Osborne's claim that he would have to have a budget the week after any Leave vote but generally it's far too early to know what the economic effects are going to be. The developing picture isn't encouraging though. But you know what? If Osborne had come up with 20 lies about the economy they'd be far less damaging than the hate and bile churned out by the Leave campaign's media wing.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

constant barrage? I can think of osborne's claim that he would have to have a budget the week after any leave vote but generally it's far too early to know what the economic effects are going to be. The developing picture isn't encouraging though. But you know what? If osborne had come up with 20 lies about the economy they'd be far less damaging than the hate and bile churned out by the leave campaign's media wing.

found a cheap flight yet
regards
DR

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The figures are clear since 2001 the estimated population was 59.1 million and by 2015 it was estimated at 65 million with 242 000 net migrants each year from the previous ten years, this has implications that needn't be validated by any individual having a derigitory story about any foreigner, it is just at unsustainable levels.

Worth also noting that our own population density, 90% of international migrants come to England, we have 410 people per square kilometre, twice as much as Germany and 3.5 times that of France.

I cannot fathom how you can not see that it needs reducing, it isnt xenophobic to see that it needs addressing.

You didn't attempt to answer my question. Can I ask another one? What do you mean by "90% of international migrants come to England"?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You didn't attempt to answer my question. Can I ask another one? What do you mean by "90% of international migrants come to England"?

you haven't answered his either
regards
DR

 

[studio150]

The European Central Bank is becoming dangerously over-extended and the whole euro project is unworkable in its current form, the founding architect of the monetary union has warned.
"One day, the house of cards will collapse,” said Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB's first chief economist and a towering figure in the construction of the single currency.

Clearly the Euro is in turmoil, so much infact that the GBP has fallen below €1.10 this afternoon.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Yes, interesting article taken from the remainers favourite rag:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...f-cards-ecb-single-currency-a7364826.html?amp

This was one of my main reasons for the strength of feeling I had for leaving the EU. I wonder why, to my recollection, although many many remain posters here have expressed great fear regarding the pound and a lack of confidence in our economy, none of them has been honest enough to mention the doubts surrounding the stability of the European economy and the possible destabilisation of the Euro. As someone who voted leave, I am always ready to accept that there would be and is uncertainty in the decision to leave. Why is it that the other side has this HUGE blind spot regarding the EU's economic protects?

I'd think that one of the reasons for Remainers liking the Independent is that it has the sort of even-handed approach that allows it to publish articles from people with different opinions to their own. I like The Times for the same reason. (Gove's piece this week was beautifully put together. Disagreed with almost all of it but it made me pause and think.) I know the Brexiteers prefer the Mail, Express and Sun but I'm not sure you could call those papers open-handed.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

you haven't answered his either
regards
DR

Given that he didn't ask a question this is spectacularly inane even by your standards.

 

[BigGully]

You didn't attempt to answer my question. Can I ask another one? What do you mean by "90% of international migrants come to England"?

I mean 90% of International migrants that come to the UK, choose to reside in England .....

 

[ManOfSussex]

I'd think that one of the reasons for Remainers liking the Independent is that it has the sort of even-handed approach that allows it to publish articles from people with different opinions to their own. I like The Times for the same reason. (Gove's piece this week was beautifully put together. Disagreed with almost all of it but it made me pause and think.)

For the benefit of those who don't read or subscribe to The Times:

Brexiteers don’t want a brick wall at our border

Michael Gove

Ignore the distortions of the Remainers — June 23 was a vote for democratic control, not for a blanket ban on migration

Take. Back. Control. Three short words. One clear mandate. But for many of those on the losing side in the EU referendum campaign the very clarity and force of that message are still too much to take.

The vote to leave the EU was the single most important political event of my lifetime. It was a victory secured against the weight of City money, the strength of the political establishment and the expectations of nearly every expert commentator in SW1. One might have thought that such a victory, against such odds, would have prompted a period of reflection, if not an outbreak of humility, among those who had got the country they profess to speak for so wrong.

But, with a number of honourable exceptions, that doesn’t seem to be the case. The attitudes that led so many to call the referendum wrong appear to have survived unscathed from collision with reality.

The brute fact that seventeen and a half million people reflected on the record of the EU, considered the costs of our membership and concluded that it was better to leave a dysfunctional, anti-democratic, growth-strangling, job-destroying, market-rigging, hope-shredding empire of failed dreams and make power accountable once more seems impossible to accept.

So the vote has to be explained away as an emotional spasm, an irrational cry of pain or a moment of populist anger. The public were seduced by post-truth politicians who manipulated the sense of alienation and dislocation felt by those who were economic “losers”. An appeal to xenophobia and nativism overwhelmed any rational judgment about what was in people’s economic interests. And so the country voted to become a teenager again — sullen, self-harming and sticking up two fingers to the rest of the world.

Now, as with any adolescent tantrum, the grown-ups in power have to manage and minimise the fallout from this exercise in self-indulgence and then, when passions have cooled, re-assert their authority.

For those determined to undo a result they did not anticipate, and still don’t understand, that means using the exercise of “parliamentary scrutiny” to delay or dilute the impact of the referendum verdict. It means continually seeking to delegitimise the people’s decision by attributing any manifestation of prejudice to the “xenophobia” allegedly unleashed by the campaign. It requires them to interpret any piece of adverse economic news as a Brexit-inspired blow to growth. And above all it means defining principled adherence to the mandate secured on June 23 as wild pursuit of a “Hard Brexit” which, like learning hard lessons, facing a hard landing or doing hard labour, is clearly only attractive to a deluded masochist.

My, humbly offered and sincerely meant, piece of helpful advice to those, from Tim Farron to Ed Miliband, Nicola Sturgeon to Owen Jones, intent on going down this path is, for your own sake, and the credibility of any other cause you hold dear, please don’t. Because you are repeating all the mistakes you made in the referendum campaign. Without the excuse that you couldn’t know better.

During the referendum, those thinking of voting Leave were told they didn’t understand what was in their own financial interests, that they should listen to the people who brought you the crash of 2008 because they were clearly experts when it came to avoiding economic instability, that they were associating with and/or legitimising racism and the sky would fall in if they didn’t do as they were told by the leaders of assorted organisations with acronyms for titles who’d said the same thing about staying outside the euro.

The British people, understandably, didn’t like being patronised or slut-shamed so they looked closely, and with increasing attention, to the arguments. They saw that the “reformed” EU we were being invited to stay in was fundamentally unchanged and this latest promise that the Union would mend its ways was, like all the other pledges of reform from Maastricht onwards, as empty as Jean-Claude Juncker’s burgundy bottle after lunch.

The Leave campaign advanced a series of clear arguments for an alternative course. We said Britain should take back control of the money we send the EU, take back control of our laws by ending the supremacy of European judges, and take back control of our borders so we could have an immigration policy based on skills rather than geography.

That necessitated, we explained, leaving the single market. We said it again and again. And just in case people didn’t hear what we’d said, the Remain camp spent millions reminding everyone of this supposed “gaffe”, suggesting, with perhaps less than total confidence in the British people, that such a course would turn our country into Albania.

So now, when people argue that the vote was “all about” blanket opposition to migration and a desire to see it cut come what may, I would politely refer back to our arguments for more and better qualified migrants with the skills our country needs. The public want democratic control of migration, not a brick wall. When people complain about the pound I would say, with respect, that the public made it clear their priority is to see the millions of pounds we give Brussels control over, every week, back in our own hands as soon as possible. And when people demand we stay in the single market I would, in my best dispatch box understatement, refer back to the answer a majority of my fellow citizens gave some moments ago.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for democratic scrutiny of the executive. It’s my job. I’ll try to get on any committee or participate in any debate which helps us shape Britain’s future outside the EU. But all the time we’ve been in the EU there have been laws we must accept, regulations we must submit to and directives we must apply which are scarcely scrutinised and can never be rejected. The public know that, dislike it and voted to leave. That’s democracy. Now can we have it honoured?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteers-dont-want-a-brick-wall-at-our-border-gpnpq87jq

 

[jakarta]

as empty as Jean-Claude Juncker’s burgundy bottle after lunch...

 

[Lincoln Imp]

as empty as Jean-Claude Juncker’s burgundy bottle after lunch...

That was a great line. You can always rely on Gove for this sort of thing.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I'd think that one of the reasons for Remainers liking the Independent is that it has the sort of even-handed approach that allows it to publish articles from people with different opinions to their own. I like The Times for the same reason. (Gove's piece this week was beautifully put together. Disagreed with almost all of it but it made me pause and think.) I know the Brexiteers prefer the Mail, Express and Sun but I'm not sure you could call those papers open-handed.

Personally I cannot stand any of the papers you mention. I suppose I read the guardian a little more and the times but those others are appalling including the independent which I once loved.

 

[Gwylan]

Gove's piece this week was beautifully put together. Disagreed with almost all of it but it made me pause and think.

It was well-written and persuasive. However I do find it hard to square "We said Britain should take back control of the money we send the EU" with the report in the FT today that we were going to continue paying billions to the EU so that our banks can continue trading with their European counterparts.

I think we can probably accept that's a true report - the FT doesn't go in for wild speculation - so I do wonder what else is going to be agreed.

 

[larus]

Which 'lies'? The ones about jobs being lost, and sterling collapsing against the Euro and the US dollar?

Well, how about the increased risk of WAR.
Or, from Mark Carney that interest rates would have to rise.
Or that there weren't any plans for a European Army.
Or that house prices would crash (actually, that would be a bloody good thing if some sense was restored to the housing market).
Or the emergency £30bln budget which would be needed.

Just a few little white lies I assume in your mind.

 

[larus]

It was well-written and persuasive. However I do find it hard to square "We said Britain should take back control of the money we send the EU" with the report in the FT today that we were going to continue paying billions to the EU so that our banks can continue trading with their European counterparts.

I think we can probably accept that's a true report - the FT doesn't go in for wild speculation - so I do wonder what else is going to be agreed.

How do you get from "being discussed" to "being agreed"? Bit of a leap there.

Anyway, there can be no soft Brexit as our "Friends" in the EU don't want such a thing to be made available.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Personally I cannot stand any of the papers you mention. I suppose I read the guardian a little more and the times but those others are appalling including the independent which I once loved.

I haven't seen the Independent for a while. What's wrong with it, Brexit-wise? The Times seems pretty balanced to me and has good writers on both sides of the argument. The Telegraph is a dear old thing and I enjoy it in small doses, rabid Brexiteering and all. It gives me a clue as to what my Outer friends might be thinking. I'm afraid we won't have the Mail or Express or Sun in the house. They are mendacious, xenophobic and biased propaganda tools.

 

[Gwylan]

How do you get from "being discussed" to "being agreed"? Bit of a leap there.

Not really. The Gove piece said that we were going to take back the money we send to the EU not, we're going to discuss taking back some of the money. The fact it's on the agenda is pretty much a climbdown

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Anyway, there can be no soft Brexit as our "Friends" in the EU don't want such a thing to be made available.

I think you know that Tusk's reported comment that Britain faced a choice between Hard Brexit and No Brexit was as a result of signals from senior members of the UK government's inner circle that they were not interested in a Soft Brexit and sod Parliament, their own backbenchers, half the cabinet, the Chancellor and anyone else who might want some input.