Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wortley

The new world

Recommended Posts

There will be no second vote and you don't base any long term policy on what the markets are saying either. At least unless you are the ludicrous Mark Carney - who should be told once and for all to shut up. Fact is politicians have always been more in love with the EU than Joe Public, rightly or wrongly, and I'll bet a fair few remainers voted for what they saw as the least worse option. I don't think the campaign, such as it was, influenced the result one iota the third-raters on show probably simply reinforcing existing views. When it comes down to it all the Commission does is to redistribute tax payers money as it sees fit, while running a huge 'snouts at the trough never knowingly under-staffed' operation at the same time. To me the benefits on balance outweigh the faults but anybody who thinks it's a stupid way to run things which they want out of is making a perfectly rational decision I think. It is quasi-federalism under another name and that is not what I was sold in 1972.

Sorry Millsy but I can't agree with you .

You can't base the future of the country on such flimsy a majority.

If there is no going back for a revote then the vote has to be large enough to endorse this.

In this referendum the Britexit vote was not large enough to reflect this and so there is a case for another referendum or leaving things as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will be no second vote and you don't base any long term policy on what the markets are saying either. At least unless you are the ludicrous Mark Carney - who should be told once and for all to shut up. Fact is politicians have always been more in love with the EU than Joe Public, rightly or wrongly, and I'll bet a fair few remainers voted for what they saw as the least worse option. I don't think the campaign, such as it was, influenced the result one iota the third-raters on show probably simply reinforcing existing views. When it comes down to it all the Commission does is to redistribute tax payers money as it sees fit, while running a huge 'snouts at the trough never knowingly under-staffed' operation at the same time. To me the benefits on balance outweigh the faults but anybody who thinks it's a stupid way to run things which they want out of is making a perfectly rational decision I think. It is quasi-federalism under another name and that is not what I was sold in 1972.

Sorry Millsy but I can't agree with you .

You can't base the future of the country on such flimsy a majority.

If there is no going back for a revote then the vote has to be large enough to endorse this.

In this referendum the Britexit vote was not large enough to reflect this and so there is a case for another referendum or leaving things as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
There will be no second vote and you don't base any long term policy on what the markets are saying either. At least unless you are the ludicrous Mark Carney - who should be told once and for all to shut up. Fact is politicians have always been more in love with the EU than Joe Public, rightly or wrongly, and I'll bet a fair few remainers voted for what they saw as the least worse option. I don't think the campaign, such as it was, influenced the result one iota the third-raters on show probably simply reinforcing existing views. When it comes down to it all the Commission does is to redistribute tax payers money as it sees fit, while running a huge 'snouts at the trough never knowingly under-staffed' operation at the same time. To me the benefits on balance outweigh the faults but anybody who thinks it's a stupid way to run things which they want out of is making a perfectly rational decision I think. It is quasi-federalism under another name and that is not what I was sold in 1972.

There may be a second vote of some kind - Referendum 2 or perhaps a General Election - before Article 50 is triggered.

 

Whilst you may not base an entire policy on what the markets say, you surely do take them into account if you want to have any reassurances for the public about employment, taxes and cuts in expenditure.

 

I think you are right in saying that some Remainers will have voted for the least worse option. Equally, some Brexiters will have voted with a heavy heart, quite unsure whether they were doing the right thing, and you have probably read that there were many Google searches of the "What is the EU?" kind AFTER the voting. Polls also reveal that a significant proportion of Leave voters now regret their choice. It is on the basis of changes of heart that I suggest that the most democratic way forward is to have a confirmatory second vote - hopefully based on the truth and the economic experience post Referendum 1 and pre-trigger.

 

To a large degree I think you are right in saying that voters mainly voted following their long-held feelings. In the case of part of the population, deep-seated prejudices formed the basis of the voter's decision, and I think we all know that it is very difficult to argue against prejudice. Good early education helps to fight this, and perhaps that is one reason why the young were apparently more aware of the real issues.

 

Your view of the Commission can be more or less dismissed as cynical. By the same reasoning, the Westminster parliament is also a device to determine how taxpayers' money is spent.

 

The costs of the respective administrations for the UK and the EU can be calculated in all sorts of ways, depending on what you include (civil service, etc). But I think that we can be fairly certain that the total costs of renegotiating with the 27 for at least two years, plus the costs of negotiating trade deals over perhaps ten years or more with dozens of other countries, will be eye-watering. And as has been pointed out earlier, the losses engendered so far, after a week or so, are already far, far more than what we were paying the EU. Heaven alone knows what the potential cost of war in Europe would be, and the EU has been making that much less likely.

 

A decision based on limited criteria may be sensible, but a decision based on consideration of ALL criteria is likely to be better. And a decision which ignores the advice of almost every expert body in the world would seem to me to require some serious justification. And a decision based on lies and misinformation cannot be reliable.

 

Your comment about Mark Carney really surprised me. Everyone I've spoken to has been of the opinion that he has been the most sensible one around!

 

Other contributors here have highlighted other reasons for my preference for a Remain result, so I won't say more. Everyone's probably nodded off already!

Edited by droopsnout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
There will be no second vote and you don't base any long term policy on what the markets are saying either. At least unless you are the ludicrous Mark Carney - who should be told once and for all to shut up. Fact is politicians have always been more in love with the EU than Joe Public, rightly or wrongly, and I'll bet a fair few remainers voted for what they saw as the least worse option. I don't think the campaign, such as it was, influenced the result one iota the third-raters on show probably simply reinforcing existing views. When it comes down to it all the Commission does is to redistribute tax payers money as it sees fit, while running a huge 'snouts at the trough never knowingly under-staffed' operation at the same time. To me the benefits on balance outweigh the faults but anybody who thinks it's a stupid way to run things which they want out of is making a perfectly rational decision I think. It is quasi-federalism under another name and that is not what I was sold in 1972.

There may be a second vote of some kind - Referendum 2 or perhaps a General Election - before Article 50 is triggered.

 

Whilst you may not base an entire policy on what the markets say, you surely do take them into account if you want to have any reassurances for the public about employment, taxes and cuts in expenditure.

 

I think you are right in saying that some Remainers will have voted for the least worse option. Equally, some Brexiters will have voted with a heavy heart, quite unsure whether they were doing the right thing, and you have probably read that there were many Google searches of the "What is the EU?" kind AFTER the voting. Polls also reveal that a significant proportion of Leave voters now regret their choice. It is on the basis of changes of heart that I suggest that the most democratic way forward is to have a confirmatory second vote - hopefully based on the truth and the economic experience post Referendum 1 and pre-trigger.

 

To a large degree I think you are right in saying that voters mainly voted following their long-held feelings. In the case of part of the population, deep-seated prejudices formed the basis of the voter's decision, and I think we all know that it is very difficult to argue against prejudice. Good early education helps to fight this, and perhaps that is one reason why the young were apparently more aware of the real issues.

 

Your view of the Commission can be more or less dismissed as cynical. By the same reasoning, the Westminster parliament is also a device to determine how taxpayers' money is spent.

 

The costs of the respective administrations for the UK and the EU can be calculated in all sorts of ways, depending on what you include (civil service, etc). But I think that we can be fairly certain that the total costs of renegotiating with the 27 for at least two years, plus the costs of negotiating trade deals over perhaps ten years or more with dozens of other countries, will be eye-watering. And as has been pointed out earlier, the losses engendered so far, after a week or so, are already far, far more than what we were paying the EU. Heaven alone knows what the potential cost of war in Europe would be, and the EU has been making that much less likely.

 

A decision based on limited criteria may be sensible, but a decision based on consideration of ALL criteria is likely to be better. And a decision which ignores the advice of almost every expert body in the world would seem to me to require some serious justification. And a decision based on lies and misinformation cannot be reliable.

 

Your comment about Mark Carney really surprised me. Everyone I've spoken to has been of the opinion that he has been the most sensible one around!

 

Other contributors here have highlighted other reasons for my preference for a Remain result, so I won't say more. Everyone's probably nodded off already!

Edited by droopsnout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peoples thoughts will, I'm sure, change over time. I originally thought that whoever was the new PM would be picking up a poison chalice but I've changed my mind. I can never remember a time when a PM has been able to totally disregard probably 80% of the population. Those that voted remain expect total disaster so anything less will be a bonus. Of those that voted leave a significant number, if they're telling the truth, don't particularly care what happens so long as we're out of the EU. The non voters can also be safely ignored. If they didn't think the referendum was worth a vote then they’re unlikely to vote at a general election. What luck, the next PM has been presented with a get out of jail free card.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peoples thoughts will, I'm sure, change over time. I originally thought that whoever was the new PM would be picking up a poison chalice but I've changed my mind. I can never remember a time when a PM has been able to totally disregard probably 80% of the population. Those that voted remain expect total disaster so anything less will be a bonus. Of those that voted leave a significant number, if they're telling the truth, don't particularly care what happens so long as we're out of the EU. The non voters can also be safely ignored. If they didn't think the referendum was worth a vote then they’re unlikely to vote at a general election. What luck, the next PM has been presented with a get out of jail free card.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your view of the Commission can be more or less dismissed as cynical. By the same reasoning, the Westminster parliament is also a device to determine how taxpayers' money is spent.

 

Your comment about Mark Carney really surprised me. Everyone I've spoken to has been of the opinion that he has been the most sensible one around!

 

Other contributors here have highlighted other reasons for my preference for a Remain result, so I won't say more. Everyone's probably nodded off already!

 

I vote for the UK govt. On Mr Carney I may take a contrary view but whatever his merits he should leave politics to the politicians, draw his salary and keep his own council. Beyond this I will also say no more except that BFE has once again shown how civlised and erudite it is as a forum. I am a remainer by the way!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your view of the Commission can be more or less dismissed as cynical. By the same reasoning, the Westminster parliament is also a device to determine how taxpayers' money is spent.

 

Your comment about Mark Carney really surprised me. Everyone I've spoken to has been of the opinion that he has been the most sensible one around!

 

Other contributors here have highlighted other reasons for my preference for a Remain result, so I won't say more. Everyone's probably nodded off already!

 

I vote for the UK govt. On Mr Carney I may take a contrary view but whatever his merits he should leave politics to the politicians, draw his salary and keep his own council. Beyond this I will also say no more except that BFE has once again shown how civlised and erudite it is as a forum. I am a remainer by the way!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On Mr Carney I may take a contrary view but whatever his merits he should leave politics to the politicians, draw his salary and keep his own council.

 

Surely he would only be being political if his advise was designed to sway opinion. If the same advise was given to inform debate then I would have thought that's a key part of his job discription.

Edited by G4rth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On Mr Carney I may take a contrary view but whatever his merits he should leave politics to the politicians, draw his salary and keep his own council.

 

Surely he would only be being political if his advise was designed to sway opinion. If the same advise was given to inform debate then I would have thought that's a key part of his job discription.

Edited by G4rth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are commenting on the impact of political events on monetary issues then it is very difficult to avoid accusations of impacting on politics. Mark Carney has a specific brief of independence and is entitled to call it as he sees fit as would anyone else appointed to his position. The politicians put him into a very difficult position as he is supposed to be above politics but anything he says will be seized upon in a political context. He can't win really, whatever he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are commenting on the impact of political events on monetary issues then it is very difficult to avoid accusations of impacting on politics. Mark Carney has a specific brief of independence and is entitled to call it as he sees fit as would anyone else appointed to his position. The politicians put him into a very difficult position as he is supposed to be above politics but anything he says will be seized upon in a political context. He can't win really, whatever he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I vote for the UK govt.

Indeed. You also vote for the European Parliament, and MEPs have to approve the choice of Commission President. This equates to you electing MPs who choose their PM. It is a bit more complicated than that, and there is a good, unbiased explanation here: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-democracy/.

 

 

On Mr Carney I may take a contrary view but whatever his merits he should leave politics to the politicians, draw his salary and keep his own council.

I tend to agree with G4rth and cvabishop here.

 

 

Beyond this I will also say no more except that BFE has once again shown how civlised and erudite it is as a forum.

Agreed. I have followed the discussion here with great interest, and it has certainly been more polite and thoughtful than other discussion sites that I have been reading. Thanks to everyone for that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I vote for the UK govt.

Indeed. You also vote for the European Parliament, and MEPs have to approve the choice of Commission President. This equates to you electing MPs who choose their PM. It is a bit more complicated than that, and there is a good, unbiased explanation here: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-democracy/.

 

 

On Mr Carney I may take a contrary view but whatever his merits he should leave politics to the politicians, draw his salary and keep his own council.

I tend to agree with G4rth and cvabishop here.

 

 

Beyond this I will also say no more except that BFE has once again shown how civlised and erudite it is as a forum.

Agreed. I have followed the discussion here with great interest, and it has certainly been more polite and thoughtful than other discussion sites that I have been reading. Thanks to everyone for that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard on the radio the assertion that our politicians are overinfluenced by such TV shows as GoT and "House of Cards"! Really! You could have fooled me! They don't seem to have learned much! If they've learned anything it's how to knife each other in the back. Just heard the suggestion Gove would be a security risk if he became PM because of his propensity to gossip especially after he's had a few! Needless to say this came from a supporter of Big Bad Boris!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard on the radio the assertion that our politicians are overinfluenced by such TV shows as GoT and "House of Cards"! Really! You could have fooled me! They don't seem to have learned much! If they've learned anything it's how to knife each other in the back. Just heard the suggestion Gove would be a security risk if he became PM because of his propensity to gossip especially after he's had a few! Needless to say this came from a supporter of Big Bad Boris!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took us 12 years from 1961 to join the EEC/EU. By the time we leave we will probably have been a member for 45 years. So leave end of 2018, 5 to 10 years for those left in the UK to realize what a terrible mistake they've made. 12 years renegotation to reapply. 2 more years to the sort out our place in the Euro and Schengen. So by 2042 at the latest we should be back in the EU again. By that time we should be one of the poorest countries in Europe so lots of lovely EU grants.

 

 

Farage joins those jumping ship.

 

Legal wrangles start.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-launched-businesses-move-to-block-eu-exit-without-act-of-parliament-a7118186.html

Edited by G4rth
Additions
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took us 12 years from 1961 to join the EEC/EU. By the time we leave we will probably have been a member for 45 years. So leave end of 2018, 5 to 10 years for those left in the UK to realize what a terrible mistake they've made. 12 years renegotation to reapply. 2 more years to the sort out our place in the Euro and Schengen. So by 2042 at the latest we should be back in the EU again. By that time we should be one of the poorest countries in Europe so lots of lovely EU grants.

 

 

Farage joins those jumping ship.

 

Legal wrangles start.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-launched-businesses-move-to-block-eu-exit-without-act-of-parliament-a7118186.html

Edited by G4rth
Additions
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It took us 12 years from 1961 to join the EEC/EU. By the time we leave we will probably have been a member for 45 years. So leave end of 2018, 5 to 10 years for those left in the UK to realize what a terrible mistake they've made. 12 years renegotation to reapply. 2 more years to the sort out our place in the Euro and Schengen. So by 2042 at the latest we should be back in the EU again. By that time we should be one of the poorest countries in Europe so lots of lovely EU grants.

 

 

Farage joins those jumping ship.

 

Legal wrangles start.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-launched-businesses-move-to-block-eu-exit-without-act-of-parliament-a7118186.html

Thanks for that Garth That is a very interesting article and shows that although the Britexiters want to railroad this uncertain result through,they might not be able to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...