UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Austerity measures were taken directly after the financial crisis and before the referendum was even a real possibility, so of course it is a separate issue.

It is a false assumption to say austerity was a direct result of the financial crisis. The financial crisis put the UK under pressure but it was a conscious decision by the government to implement an austerity campaign to avoid raising taxes and keep their jobs.

Fast track a couple of years and along comes brexit and suddenly a blank cheque becomes available, where was the blank cheque following the financial crisis, by definition they are available at any point in time.

How the taxpayers money and government borrowing is spent is a single issue, tossing some crumbs around the deserving causes, apart from brexit which is now demanding more and more.

The reality is that brexit, like the 'lunches', is far from free. Taxes will rise and jobs will be lost, but of course there is that good old scapegoat lurking in the wings.

[rixalex]

Just 11 Times Leave Campaigners Said That Brexit Would Be Easy

 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/nobody-said-it-was-easy

Carefully selected and edited soundbites is all that is. Read or listen to the full interviews.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[rixalex]

And here's something rather more recent:

Brexiters say 'nothing to fear' about crashing out of EU with no deal

Leading Brexiters have pushed back at claims that their campaign to “chuck Chequers” is going off the rails as they endorsed an alternative proposal that would result in the UK crashing out of the European Union without a deal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chair of the pro-Brexit European Research Group, said there was “nothing to fear” from a no-deal scenario after the pro-Brexit economist Patrick Minford claimed it could boost Treasury revenues by £80m a year.

Mogg said, however, that he would prefer the government to strike a Canada plus-style free-trade deal with Brussels to retain the benefits of leaving on “the most friendly terms we can manage”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/11/brexiters-jacob-rees-mogg-no-deal-chuck-chequers

Post referendum you have to remember that some of what is being said is part of a strategic public negotiation, and view it in that context.

Remainers would have us declaring how terrifying leaving the EU with no deal is, as our negotiators sit down with EU bureaucrats, seemingly oblivious to the fact that such a declaration hands total advantage to the other side of the table. A weak and pathetic approach such as that, guarantees a bad deal. Of course that is exactly what remainers want. Then they can declare how right they were and have us returning, cap in hand, to the EU.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nauseus]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Just 11 Times Leave Campaigners Said That Brexit Would Be Easy

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/nobody-said-it-was-easy

If you look at all of these, none of them are actual promises. They are all statements or comments of what could be achieved and I agree with most of them. But these achievements would require some common sense and pragmatism from the EU, which is, if it exists, needs to be let out from under their survival blanket.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

Who promised it would be painless and beneficial? Be specific.

....
 

 

 

So if it wasn't going to be beneficial, where was that £350 million a week for the NHS coming from?

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is a false assumption to say austerity was a direct result of the financial crisis. The financial crisis put the UK under pressure but it was a conscious decision by the government to implement an austerity campaign to avoid raising taxes and keep their jobs.

Fast track a couple of years and along comes brexit and suddenly a blank cheque becomes available, where was the blank cheque following the financial crisis, by definition they are available at any point in time.

How the taxpayers money and government borrowing is spent is a single issue, tossing some crumbs around the deserving causes, apart from brexit which is now demanding more and more.

The reality is that brexit, like the 'lunches', is far from free. Taxes will rise and jobs will be lost, but of course there is that good old scapegoat lurking in the wings.

Wrong, the crisis hit most of the "developed world fast and hard. It was another EIGHT years until the referendum. You talk as though we are a net beneficiary from the EU budget. What is this fantastic blank cheque anyway?

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, tebee said:

 

 

So if it wasn't going to be beneficial, where was that £350 million a week for the NHS coming from?

Aha! I was waiting for square one! 

[sandyf]

If you do not understand problems they can be shrugged off as irrelevant or branded project fear. This type of problem will hit many industrial sectors.

 

British manufacturers currently use the EU system of registration that took 14 years to develop and runs to 200 pages, but the NAO report said: “[Defra] has not yet started to consider in detail what the future regulatory function will look like nor how it will be managed.”

The report warns that UK chemical manufacturers would simply no longer be able to export their products to the member states without a negotiated settlement, because registrations of products would cease to be recognised by the EU, while re-registering products in Europe is a “lengthy process”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-exports-uk-eu-whitehall-industry-food-environment-nao-a8533411.html

[nauseus]

21 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is a false assumption to say austerity was a direct result of the financial crisis. The financial crisis put the UK under pressure but it was a conscious decision by the government to implement an austerity campaign to avoid raising taxes and keep their jobs.

Fast track a couple of years and along comes brexit and suddenly a blank cheque becomes available, where was the blank cheque following the financial crisis, by definition they are available at any point in time.

How the taxpayers money and government borrowing is spent is a single issue, tossing some crumbs around the deserving causes, apart from brexit which is now demanding more and more.

The reality is that brexit, like the 'lunches', is far from free. Taxes will rise and jobs will be lost, but of course there is that good old scapegoat lurking in the wings.

You have just misquoted me. Please desist.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, tebee said:

 

So you're telling me that if the leave side had said in the run up to the referendum that you can have Brexit but most of you are going to be poorer after, foods going to be more expensive, there will be fewer NHS staff  and a good number of you will lose your jobs half the country would still have voted for them?

 

Your words - not mine.

[tebee]

4 hours ago, tebee said:

 

So you're telling me that if the leave side had said in the run up to the referendum that you can have Brexit but most of you are going to be poorer after, foods going to be more expensive, there will be fewer NHS staff  and a good number of you will lose your jobs half the country would still have voted for them?

 

 

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Your words - not mine.

My point was that if leave had not made rosey promises, people would not have voted for them.

 

If a politician says "I'm going to reduce your council tax" maybe you will vote for him.

 

If a politician says "I'm going to reduce your council tax by burning your house to the ground and making you live on the streets "  then I think it's highly unlikely you will vote for them!

 

Leave only got their majority by promising things would be better - people just don't vote to make themselves poorer. Trying to say they did, is trying to re-invent history.

 

All leave options are going to make us worse off - there will be no £350 million for the NHS, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

 

Brexit as promised is not an available option anymore - indeed it never was. If a majority of the people are happy to vote for a brexit that will make them worse off, I will give up opposing brexit, until then I'll annoy brexiers everywhere by trying to stop it 

 

 

 

[Henryford]

40 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is a false assumption to say austerity was a direct result of the financial crisis. The financial crisis put the UK under pressure but it was a conscious decision by the government to implement an austerity campaign to avoid raising taxes and keep their jobs.

Fast track a couple of years and along comes brexit and suddenly a blank cheque becomes available, where was the blank cheque following the financial crisis, by definition they are available at any point in time.

How the taxpayers money and government borrowing is spent is a single issue, tossing some crumbs around the deserving causes, apart from brexit which is now demanding more and more.

The reality is that brexit, like the 'lunches', is far from free. Taxes will rise and jobs will be lost, but of course there is that good old scapegoat lurking in the wings. 

I don't think the so called "austerity" has ever been explained to the British public. If you look at Government spending it has gone up considerably every year. We are still borrowing tens of billions every year.  Yet it seems that our Police, NHS, roads, Armed Forces have been cut back. So where is the money going?  In my definition austerity means spending less (as i am doing with the low Pound) not spending billions more.

[sandyf]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Wrong, the crisis hit most of the "developed world fast and hard. It was another EIGHT years until the referendum. You talk as though we are a net beneficiary from the EU budget. What is this fantastic blank cheque anyway?

So you are saying the UK government were not responsible for introducing the austerity measures or that there were no other options on the table..

 

"The austerity programme included reductions in welfare spending, the cancellation of school building programs, reductions in local government funding, and an increase in VAT."

 

David Cameron made this statement before conceding the Referendum Bill.

 

"In a speech in 2013, David Cameron indicated that his government had no intention of increasing public spending once the structural deficit had been eliminated and proposed that the public spending reduction be made permanent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

 

DC could not be trusted, brexit could not be carried through without increasing public spending. If nothing else, brexit has highlighted how UK politics is in greater need of reform than the EU.

[sandyf]

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You have just misquoted me. Please desist.

I don't think so.

 

"Austerity is a separate issue and it resulted directly from the 2008 global financial crisis,"

[rixalex]

 
 
So if it wasn't going to be beneficial, where was that £350 million a week for the NHS coming from?

It's not that Brexit isn't going to be beneficial. Brexit could be a roaring success. It all depends on what type of Brexit we end up with.

If Brexit is a success, and extra money becomes available to the Treasury, it will then be up to the government of the day whether or not they pump 350 million a week into the NHS.

Again, I think you need to credit the voting population with a bit more intelligence, assuming that nobody would have understood that fact.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[billd766]

12 hours ago, baboon said:

What, before March next year? <deleted>. And by Johnson, who promptly fled after the referendum when he realised he was on the winning side? Jesus Christ.

Brexiteers! The EU has many, many faults. But can't you see that these snollygosters are leading you down a bad road. You will suffer and take casualties along the way but your saviours won't. Please, think!

 

An interesting snippet from the BBC News website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45488136

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

I don't think so.

 

"Austerity is a separate issue and it resulted directly from the 2008 global financial crisis,"

But that's not what you wrote.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

 

My point was that if leave had not made rosey promises, people would not have voted for them.

 

If a politician says "I'm going to reduce your council tax" maybe you will vote for him.

 

If a politician says "I'm going to reduce your council tax by burning your house to the ground and making you live on the streets "  then I think it's highly unlikely you will vote for them!

 

Leave only got their majority by promising things would be better - people just don't vote to make themselves poorer. Trying to say they did, is trying to re-invent history.

 

All leave options are going to make us worse off - there will be no £350 million for the NHS, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

 

Brexit as promised is not an available option anymore - indeed it never was. If a majority of the people are happy to vote for a brexit that will make them worse off, I will give up opposing brexit, until then I'll annoy brexiers everywhere by trying to stop it 

 

 

 

And I don't believe what you describe as "promises" were the reason for the leave vote. I believe that most leave votes were set way before the referendum campaigns and that most of the balance of leave voters were savvy enough to discount the propaganda from BOTH sides. You don't know what funding the NHS might receive in the future and you don't know what EU exit options will be available come the day.

 

Your prophecies are just as bad as the so-called "promises" that you decry.

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Looks like there are many systems with advantages and disadvantages. Goodness knows which would be best for UK. Current system doesn't work for me.

 

As is so often the case, the Germans will have thoroughly investigate this so MMP may be the way to go. What system was proposed when this was voted on during the Con / Lib Dem partnership ( was it an actual coalition?)

that Germany finds MMP OK does not mean that it might be suitable for UK

Germany is composed very differently from UK, very.

 

find out your priorities,

fair geographical representation? fair political party representation? fairness for Scotland  Wales NI?

 

compose your constituencies with the above in mind

 

look for and pick electoral system, tune it to your needs

 

 

[tebee]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

It's not that Brexit isn't going to be beneficial. Brexit could be a roaring success. It all depends on what type of Brexit we end up with.

If Brexit is a success, and extra money becomes available to the Treasury, it will then be up to the government of the day whether or not they pump 350 million a week into the NHS.

Again, I think you need to credit the voting population with a bit more intelligence, assuming that nobody would have understood that fact.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

And I don't believe what you describe as "promises" were the reason for the leave vote. I believe that most leave votes were set way before the referendum campaigns and that most of the balance of leave voters were savvy enough to discount the propaganda from BOTH sides. You don't know what funding the NHS might receive in the future and you don't know what EU exit options will be available come the day.

 

Your prophecies are just as bad as the so-called "promises" that you decry.

 

I don't believe the voting population is stupid, but it's unreasonable to expect the man in the street to have a deep understanding of macroeconomics, so many people rely on what politicians say  - talking of which I remember one saying "Brexit has only a considerable upside".

 

If the monetary gains from Brexit were so unimportant to the leave campaign, why was it a central plank of the platform? - indeed why did someone plaster it  in five foot high letters on the side of a bl00dy bus!

 

If everyone was so well informed about the possible downsides of Brexit before the referendum, can you find me one instance of a leave politician explaining to people that they might be financially worse off  before the vote ? 

 

I know some people on our side did, but hey, that was project fear and not to be believed. 

 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

40 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

An interesting snippet from the BBC News website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45488136

a good read, thanks

 

in that snippet it is said:

Under current rules, a Conservative leadership contest is triggered either if the leader resigns, or if 15% of Tory MPs (currently 48) write to the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee, demanding a vote of no confidence.

 

Now;

if the lower house/parliament should conclude with a vote of no confidence - exit TM

would that not trigger a Conservative leadership contest?

would it trigger a PM contest open to all political parties?

or is the BBC text somewhat incomplete?

 

[rixalex]

 
I don't believe the voting population is stupid, but it's unreasonable to expect the man in the street to have a deep understanding of macroeconomics, so many people rely on what politicians say  - talking of which I remember one saying "Brexit has only a considerable upside".
 
If the monetary gains from Brexit were so unimportant to the leave campaign, why was it a central plank of the platform? - indeed why did someone plaster it  in five foot high letters on the side of a bl00dy bus!
 
If everyone was so well informed about the possible downsides of Brexit before the referendum, can you find me one instance of a leave politician explaining to people that they might be financially worse off  before the vote ? 
 
I know some people on our side did, but hey, that was project fear and not to be believed. 
 
 
 
 

There were many many instances of Brexiteers admitting that in the transition phase as we exit the EU and in the time it takes to establish new trading agreements, there would likely be an economic downturn and bumps in the road to be navigated. If you think that the voting population isn't capable of extrapolating from that sort of comment, that they could take a financial hit in the short term, well then I'd say you are calling them a bit dim.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

 

I don't believe the voting population is stupid, but it's unreasonable to expect the man in the street to have a deep understanding of macroeconomics, so many people rely on what politicians say  - talking of which I remember one saying "Brexit has only a considerable upside".

 

If the monetary gains from Brexit were so unimportant to the leave campaign, why was it a central plank of the platform? - indeed why did someone plaster it  in five foot high letters on the side of a bl00dy bus!

 

If everyone was so well informed about the possible downsides of Brexit before the referendum, can you find me one instance of a leave politician explaining to people that they might be financially worse off  before the vote ? 

 

I know some people on our side did, but hey, that was project fear and not to be believed. 

 

 

 

 

The answer is that, as I have explained so many times, is that economics was not the main reason for the leave vote.

[billd766]

11 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

a good read, thanks

 

in that snippet it is said:

Under current rules, a Conservative leadership contest is triggered either if the leader resigns, or if 15% of Tory MPs (currently 48) write to the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee, demanding a vote of no confidence.

 

Now;

if the lower house/parliament should conclude with a vote of no confidence - exit TM

would that not trigger a Conservative leadership contest?

would it trigger a PM contest open to all political parties?

or is the BBC text somewhat incomplete?

 

 

IMHO it would only trigger a Tory leadership contest, UNLESS there is no overall majority or a coalition as there is currently.

 

It could but not necessarily would lead to a general election.

 

Who would win the GE I have no idea but a coalition of the LibDems, Greens, SNP, Welsh Nats. NI parties and also rans wouldn't get off the ground.

 

The Tory party like the Labour party is seriously split though for different reasons.

 

That leaves ?????? UKIP who have never recovered after their sort of win at Brexit time.

 

Where is Screaming Lord Sutch when he is really needed?

 

It will be the biggest cluster <deleted> and buggers muddle this century and probably the last one too.

[SheungWan]

16 hours ago, aright said:

It's not paranoia if all your fears are justified it's common sense but that concept eludes you.

It can be paranoia if you can't accept, explain or disbelieve a question. It's called being a piss prophet.

In Brexitland, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you. ?

[SheungWan]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The answer is that, as I have explained so many times, is that economics was not the main reason for the leave vote.

Well, fancy that!

[SheungWan]

11 minutes ago, rixalex said:

There were many many instances of Brexiteers admitting that in the transition phase as we exit the EU and in the time it takes to establish new trading agreements, there would likely be an economic downturn and bumps in the road to be navigated. If you think that the voting population isn't capable of extrapolating from that sort of comment, that they could take a financial hit in the short term, well then I'd say you are calling them a bit dim.
Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

"Bumps in the road" Drive straight at them. ?

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

But that's not what you wrote.

Of course not, it was you that wrote

 "Austerity is a separate issue and it resulted directly from the 2008 global financial crisis,"

 

and I wrote 

"It is a false assumption to say austerity was a direct result of the financial crisis."

 

Now show me what misquote you are complaining about.

[bristolboy]

Just now, sandyf said:

Of course not, it was you that wrote

 "Austerity is a separate issue and it resulted directly from the 2008 global financial crisis,"

 

and I wrote 

"It is a false assumption to say austerity was a direct result of the financial crisis."

 

Now show me what misquote you are complaining about.

You're misquoting what he meant, not what he wrote.  Next time, use telepathy.

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, Henryford said:

I don't think the so called "austerity" has ever been explained to the British public. If you look at Government spending it has gone up considerably every year. We are still borrowing tens of billions every year.  Yet it seems that our Police, NHS, roads, Armed Forces have been cut back. So where is the money going?  In my definition austerity means spending less (as i am doing with the low Pound) not spending billions more.

You are right to a certain extent but it is more about the deficit than the level of borrowing, it is the interest on the national debt that eats away at the tax revenues. To be fair the deficit was reduced by a significant amount under the austerity measures between 2010 and 2016.

DC effectively gambled with the gains made the day he agreed to the referendum. If leaving the EU results in the deficit reaching the 2009 level, it will mean the gains from the austerity years have been thrown away, that was never explained to the British public.

Edited September 12, 2018 by sandyf