BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Keep 'em guessing! The Johnny Foreigners won't know where the UK attacks are coming from in the exit negotiations.
Guy would do better to ponder the irony of EU politics that gave rise to the Eurozone I think.
Guy is shaking his head at the sheer ineptitude of the arrogant morons in charge of Dumbkirk.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:A seriously good day for the majority of the population.
The majority of which population?
Probably the whole of Europe and especially the UK.
Why do you think that Parliament getting the final say on Article 50 will be a seriously good day for the majority of the UK? The only logical reason for folk wanting to get Parliament involved is to stop Article 50 being invoked as a majority of MPs favour remaining in the UK. Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave, so how would Parliament voting against the wishes of the people be good for them (or indeed democracy)? Sounds to me like you think the referendum gave the "wrong" result and that whatever means to reverse this result that can be used should be used.
Correct.
Correct that Parliament should represent the people?
Or correct that you just want the result reversed?
Both.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Guy is shaking his head at the sheer ineptitude of the arrogant morons in charge of Dumbkirk.
Indeed. But there's some arrogant morons on his side too if the design and operation of the Eurozone is anything to go by.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Correct that Parliament should represent the people?
Or correct that you just want the result reversed?
Both.
So how does Parliament represent the people, a majority of whom who could be bothered to vote indicated their desire to leave the EU, by preventing the legal step necessary to kick off the process to bring this about?0 -
Joelsim wrote:Democracy is the biggest threat to democracy.
Well that's helpful!
Or do you really mean that letting folk who don't share your views vote is the biggest threat to you getting your own way?0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Keep 'em guessing! The Johnny Foreigners won't know where the UK attacks are coming from in the exit negotiations.
Guy would do better to ponder the irony of EU politics that gave rise to the Eurozone I think.
Guy is shaking his head at the sheer ineptitude of the arrogant morons in charge of Dumbkirk.
Indeed. But there's some arrogant morons on his side too if the design and operation of the Eurozone is anything to go by.[/quote]
Undoubtedly, but they hold all the aces, whilst BoZo now has to go cap in hand to Turkey. bumblebees trying to get out of a window.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Democracy is the biggest threat to democracy.
Well that's helpful!
Clearly it is when people like Trump can get to a stage where he could win and the vote to make everyone poorer financially and socially through Brexit happens. The world simply can't allow it to happen.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Democracy is the biggest threat to democracy.
Well that's helpful!
Clearly it is when ... the vote to make Joelsim poorer financially and socially through Brexit happens. The world simply can't allow it to happen.
Edited to give appropriate weight to your overweening sense of entitlement.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Rolf F wrote:...I think it is important to always remain clear that the majority of the UK population are not in favour of brexit whatever the outcome of the vote was...
How do you (that's you personally) know what the non-voters wanted? They most likely were indifferent, as otherwise they'd have voted.
Indifferent doesn't equal in favour of brexit.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Democracy is the biggest threat to democracy.
Well that's helpful!
Clearly it is when ... the vote to make Joelsim poorer financially and socially through Brexit happens. The world simply can't allow it to happen.
Edited to give appropriate weight to your overweening sense of entitlement.
Don't forget the other 90% of the population who'll lose out. This isn't about me, the 'new reality' as suggested by Mark Carney. But if you can see a scenario where the UK would benefit economically then do let me know.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Indifferent doesn't equal in favour of brexit.
Indeed. It means indifferent. Why do you think I might think that indifferent means favouring one choice over the other?0 -
Joelsim wrote:Don't forget the other 90% of the population who'll lose out. This isn't about me, the 'new reality' as suggested by Mark Carney. But if you can see a scenario where the UK would benefit economically then do let me know.
I voted to stay. I think leaving will be somewhere between mildly and noticeably in the short term. Longer term who knows? Fortunately most people are more positive than you and there are a lot of resourceful businesses that will take advantage of whatever landscape is presented.
But the referendum was over three months ago. "Project Fear" that you're repropagating here failed to hit home. The remain side lost, and the result should be respected.
I really don't think we want to create the precedent of overturning the results of popular votes, whatever the reasons. Where would it stop? OK so there are potential merits on this issue, but what happens when a result that you favour is overturned? This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. How would you feel? What would you do?0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:But the referendum was over three months ago. "Project Fear" that you're repropagating here failed to hit home. The remain side lost, and the result should be respected.
I really don't think we want to create the precedent of overturning the results of popular votes, whatever the reasons. Where would it stop? OK so there are potential merits on this issue, but what happens when a result that you favour is overturned? This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. How would you feel? What would you do?
but we havent left, so we dont know what will happen and in any case, both side committed fraud, by lying to the electorate, how is that good for Democracy?
in a GE of course both sides will tell porkies or not make good on their promises BUT they are held accountable and we have at max 5 years to kick them out.
in this vote, with such wide ranging ramifications, it was imperative both sides tell the truth, they clearly didnt, nor has anyone been accountable for these lies, so how can the result be respected by anyone? both sides cheated.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:But the referendum was over three months ago. "Project Fear" that you're repropagating here failed to hit home. The remain side lost, and the result should be respected.
I really don't think we want to create the precedent of overturning the results of popular votes, whatever the reasons. Where would it stop? OK so there are potential merits on this issue, but what happens when a result that you favour is overturned? This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. How would you feel? What would you do?
but we havent left, so we dont know what will happen and in any case, both side committed fraud, by lying to the electorate, how is that good for Democracy?
in a GE of course both sides will tell porkies or not make good on their promises BUT they are held accountable and we have at max 5 years to kick them out.
in this vote, with such wide ranging ramifications, it was imperative both sides tell the truth, they clearly didnt, nor has anyone been accountable for these lies, so how can the result be respected by anyone? both sides cheated.
Can someone please explain on what the Remain campaign lied? If you're talking about an emergency budget, that was simply information on what the UK was forecast to lose which would need to be paid back. Clearly Cameron couldn't apply that as he'd resigned. The money we will lose if and when we leave (plus the damage that's been caused already) will have to be accounted for at some point.
Government have just been forced to release their legal defence. Based on prerogative and power of Crown, referendum legally irrelevant.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:...lying to the electorate, how is that good for Democracy?
It's not ideal, but it's more ideal (or less un-ideal) than ignoring the result.0 -
FWIW, assumptions on Brexit disaster were that Article 50 would be enacted as soon as the vote was counted.
As we are today, there has been no Brexit, so the forecasts of the time were wrong in the sense they assumed actual Brexit would occur in June.
Before everyone starts discrediting the 'experts' I would suggest waiting until Brexit actually occurs.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:FWIW, assumptions on Brexit disaster were that Article 50 would be enacted as soon as the vote was counted.
As we are today, there has been no Brexit, so the forecasts of the time were wrong in the sense they assumed actual Brexit would occur in June.
Before everyone starts discrediting the 'experts' I would suggest waiting until Brexit actually occurs.
Exactly. And even if it does occur the public should be given a forecast, straight, about how much they would lose from their disposable income. That'll focus their minds when they realise the average family will be several thousand pounds per annum worse off.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Can someone please explain on what the Remain campaign lied?
There was the prediction that on a vote to leave, the following would immediately happen:
1 - There would be an immediate recession
2 - The stock market would crash
3 - House prices would crash
These predictions were presented as things that would definitely happen. Whether this counts as lying I don't know, but it was certainly grossly dishonest.
There was also the Treasury's predictions that gave rise to the "£4300 per household claim" by Osborne. Firstly, the Treasury was instructed to use only pessimistic assumptions such as disregarding any action by the Bank of England. Obviously, if you plug in only pessimistic assumptions, you'll get pessimistic outcomes. Secondly, even from a range of scenarios that by choice of inputs were pessimistic, he selected the worst but presented it as the likely outcome.
Again, maybe not lying, but grossly dishonest, with the intention of deliberately misleading the voters. In some ways this is worse than the "£350m a week saving" claim. This claim is actually very easily disprovable by a quick Google search of EU publications and plenty of media sources provided such counter-claims, and floating voters do typically tend to make their decisions based on a variety of information sources. So maybe those that believed the claim were true believers and would have voted to leave anyway. In contrast, Osborne's predictions were based on complex models that aren't readily understood, so without making the Treasury available to run the Leave side's scenarios as well, the deck was stacked in favour of Remain.
One thing we can hopefully all agree on is that trying to scare the electorate into voting how you want them to vote is not a good tactic. A few positive messages might help!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:FWIW, assumptions on Brexit disaster were that Article 50 would be enacted as soon as the vote was counted.
Whilst I agree that the jury is out long term, there were a lot of predictions of immediate doom following a vote to leave with no reference to Article 50. The loss of confidence following the vote itself was apparently going to be enough to finish us off.
The caveat about Article 50 has generally been retrospectively added to spare the blushes of the forecasters of immediate doom who have clearly been proved wrong.0 -
David Cameron said he would enact A 50 immediately if we voted leave, he also said he would stay on as prime minister to negotiate our exit.
However we now know that he had no intention of doing these and he also refused to let the civil service plan for a leave scenario.
Do these count as lies?0 -
Joelsim wrote:Exactly. And even if it does occur the public should be given a forecast, straight, about how much they would lose from their disposable income. That'll focus their minds when they realise the average family will be several thousand pounds per annum worse off.
Hmmm...
Per my previous post, the Remain campaign chose to deliberately present "unstraight" forecasts to try and scare the voters into voting to remain. If they'd presented more "straight" ones i.e. less scary and more realistic, they might have had more success. I think the time for straight forecasts in respect of this issue is past, tbh.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:The caveat about Article 50 has generally been retrospectively added to spare the blushes of the forecasters of immediate doom who have clearly been proved wrong.
No.
Let's be clear.
There has been no Brexit.
There has been a referendum, and so far, nothing has been done about enacting the result.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:The caveat about Article 50 has generally been retrospectively added to spare the blushes of the forecasters of immediate doom who have clearly been proved wrong.
No.
Let's be clear.
There has been no Brexit.
There has been a referendum, and so far, nothing has been done about enacting the result.
Thanks, Rick. There was me thinking that we'd left the EU already. I was confused that my passport was still purple.
FFS, man. I'm not stupid. I'm referring to the predictions of doom following a vote to leave. Not the triggering of Article 50. Not leaving the EU. Just the f***ing vote. There were plenty of such predictions and they were wrong.
The predictions of doom if things drag on endlessly or when A50 is triggered or when we actually leave may indeed come true. But as these haven't happened, I'm not commenting on the events or predictions made about them.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Exactly. And even if it does occur the public should be given a forecast, straight, about how much they would lose from their disposable income. That'll focus their minds when they realise the average family will be several thousand pounds per annum worse off.
Hmmm...
Per my previous post, the Remain campaign chose to deliberately present "unstraight" forecasts to try and scare the voters into voting to remain. If they'd presented more "straight" ones i.e. less scary and more realistic, they might have had more success. I think the time for straight forecasts in respect of this issue is past, tbh.
Well, IMF and Warren Buffet both said similar figures, as the average of their best/worst case scenarios. But by this time listening to experts had been poo-pood. To be honest any side that says ignore the experts needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.0 -
Our disagreement is unsolvable since we have a fundamental understanding of what the facts were.
I'm quite friendly with a number of people who worked on the BoE analysis, and they said that for them, the leave vote and enacting article 50 were, as far as they were concerned, interchangeable in their models.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:The caveat about Article 50 has generally been retrospectively added to spare the blushes of the forecasters of immediate doom who have clearly been proved wrong.
No.
Let's be clear.
There has been no Brexit.
There has been a referendum, and so far, nothing has been done about enacting the result.
Thanks, Rick. There was me thinking that we'd left the EU already. I was confused that my passport was still purple.
FFS, man. I'm not stupid. I'm referring to the predictions of doom following a vote to leave. Not the triggering of Article 50. Not leaving the EU. Just the f***ing vote. There were plenty of such predictions and they were wrong.
The predictions of doom if things drag on endlessly or when A50 is triggered or when we actually leave may indeed come true. But as these haven't happened, I'm not commenting on the events or predictions made about them.
No, they weren't wrong. We had a shock initially after the vote and then the BofE intervened to steady the ship and it became apparent that there was an awful lot to discuss before leaving could be activated. As Rick says, we haven't left yet, if we do the markets will go into freefall again. Boom!0 -
It's far far too early to say that Project Fear were wrong. We are only three months post-vote and a large slug of that was summer holiday.
There was a stock market crash, the pound is still performing weakly.
The prospect of lower for longer interest rates has been pushed out indefinetly. What does that mean? It means your savings aren't making any money. It also means that banks aren't making any money either. Which is bad if you happen to want to borrow from those banks or believe that banks play a crucial part in keeping the wheel's of the economy oiled.
Oh and there's a lot of jobs moving overseas. Yes, it's those bankers again, but let's not forget that financial services are our biggest industry.
So whilst it may not feel like everything has gone to hell in a hand basket, let's revisit the conversation in a year's time.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:The caveat about Article 50 has generally been retrospectively added to spare the blushes of the forecasters of immediate doom who have clearly been proved wrong.
No.
Let's be clear.
There has been no Brexit.
There has been a referendum, and so far, nothing has been done about enacting the result.
Thanks, Rick. There was me thinking that we'd left the EU already. I was confused that my passport was still purple.
FFS, man. I'm not stupid. I'm referring to the predictions of doom following a vote to leave. Not the triggering of Article 50. Not leaving the EU. Just the f***ing vote. There were plenty of such predictions and they were wrong.
The predictions of doom if things drag on endlessly or when A50 is triggered or when we actually leave may indeed come true. But as these haven't happened, I'm not commenting on the events or predictions made about them.
i think most people thought that we d leave via triggering A50 (or stay) in the EU following the vote and the predictions were based on that, Cameron said he d lead the exit and trigger A50......... what we didnt know was he meant his exit, stock and currency markets thought so too and gave us a taste of what might happen, when or if, we do leave, once it became clear we werent leaving, they went back to making money......
after all, we have an GE and the very shortly after, a new Gov steps in, doesnt take 18months or sometime never, so not an unreasonable position to take.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm quite friendly with a number of people who worked on the BoE analysis, and they said that for them, the leave vote and enacting article 50 were, as far as they were concerned, interchangeable in their models.
Well I'd say your friends dropped a bit of a clanger in their assumptions setting. Cameron resigning and his successor stalling for time were clearly possibilities.
Anyway, the sky hasn't fallen in yet. It might do in the future. I think that's about a good place to leave this particular issue.0 -
Thigh_burn wrote:It's far far too early to say that Project Fear were wrong.
If you mean the medium to longer term predictions in Project Fear then yes.
Clearly Project Fear failed as it was aimed at scaring folk into voting to stay, which really ought to give some political strategist somewhere food for thought!0
