Forum menu
Those who got us into this mess need to be held to account and face the consequences.
Putin style show trials for Arron Banks?
Boris and Gove ceremoniously run over by a bus with lies painted down the side of it?
Moggy paraded through the streets in sack-cloth?
David Cameron fired into the sun?
Disenfranchise 48% of the electorate and devastate the country.
Disenfranchise 52% of the electorate and not devastate the country.
No one is disenfranchised they all got the right to vote.
Are we to thus disenfranchise 17m voters?
No, they will be able vote whichever way they want when we vote to either accept the real deal, or Remain. But so will 18 year olds, 19 year olds and even many 20 year olds… all of whom are currently being told they are not part of "the people" who's will is immutable.
What did we say to 20 year olds in 1978, 1988, 1998 or even 2008?
What did we say to 20 year olds in 1978, 1988, 1998 or even 2008?
Your point being?
If we have a referendum soon, on excepting the "real deal" or remaining, every one who is entitled to a vote will get one. That will include those too young to vote in 2016, but now of voting age. More people will get a say than in 2016, not fewer. No one will be newly disenfranchised by us having a vote before we just walk into the "real deal" situation. That was my point.
Now more people are digesting what May's proposed all UK backstop requires, I'm afraid it's looking less and less likely to be accepted. It looks like it would give signatories of future trade deals with the EU access to the UK market, without reciprocal access for us. A big negotiating plus for the EU, at our expense. Now, many will see that as part of a big price worth paying for staying under the wing of the EU 'till we have our own new trade deal with them (however long that takes), but I suspect many more will start to see just how much control we're ceding to the EU. Quite the opposite of the campaign clarion call.
Admit it – had it been 52-48 the other way, YOU would be saying ‘we won, you lost etc’ – and you’d have solid ground upon which to do so.
No, I'd be saying the same thing I've been saying for the last two years - we are demonstrably a country divided and we need to do something to address that.
It also doesn’t help to keep bleating ‘advisory’ at people, because the executive made it quite clear that even though this was an ‘advisory’ vote they would treat it as if it wasn’t, even though it was.
Does that sound particularly legal to you?
First of all, government didn't have the authority to make that promise, it would require parliament.
Second, lots of things were "made quite clear." It was made quite clear to me that Cameron - himself, personally - would see things through whatever the result. That went well, didn't it. His comment post-referendum (from the link someone posted a couple of pages back) was "I don't see why I have to do all the hard shit."
We don’t ‘accept’ the result of 2016 – we are to remain in the EU
Are we to thus disenfranchise 17m voters?
See, this is what I can't accept. That 17m voters is "the will of the people" and 16m voters is "shut up, you lost." I don't particularly want another referendum, but if we were to have one it would at least stand a chance of countering the line of thinking that a statistically insignificant majority can ride roughshod over everyone else.
No one will be newly disenfranchised by us having a vote before we just walk into the “real deal” situation.
"So you want to keep having votes until you get a result you like?" argument coming in 3... 2...
If we have a vote on accepting the "real deal", will it be the last ever vote on our place in Europe? I doubt it, whichever way the vote went, and no matter what the margin. Why? Because our 2 main parties always seem to fight elections with the same or close positions on this issue in modern times.
“So you want to keep having votes until you get a result you like?” argument coming in 3… 2…
I'd be happy to see more votes in the future, indeed any party could put "leave the EU" in their manifesto for a general election and see how they get on. I'd advise them to come up with some sort of plan for this course of action first though...
If we have a vote on accepting the “real deal”, will it be the last ever vote on our place in Europe? I doubt it, whichever way the vote went, and no matter what the margin.
So be it. The one we've just had wasn't the first.
I would think the gammons would be too embarrassed to try for a good while, but that's up to them. It's a democracy, people can campaign for whatever they want.
we have a draft text!
Hopefully Jacob Rees-**** will hate it and go into a cured pork based rage.
I’d advise them to come up with some sort of plan for this course of action first though…
This is, well, one of many things that irks me. The fact that we triggered A50 with nothing at all in place.
As regular readers will know, I work with computers. When we have to make a major change to a system, we first have a meeting with everyone who needs to be involved in order to thrash out an overview of what we're doing. We then appoint a lead engineer who completes change control documentation. Amongst other things this documentation explains step-by-step what we're going to do, lists everyone involved and their responsibilities, performs a risk assessment detailing the likelihood of something going wrong and the severity of any consequences if it does, what related systems might be impacted, and our rollback / recovery plan if it all goes irrevocably tits-up. This document is then peer reviewed by other engineers to agree or suggest amendments. Finally it gets pushed under management's nose for a sign-off.
What we don't do is charge into the server room, type "shut down in 30 minutes" on the server, then turn to everyone else and go "right, now, anyone know how are we going to do this?"
yeah, but that's complicated stuff.
This is the easiest deals in history.
I've just stuck a bet on Mays deal getting voted through.
I think that most MPs are going to back at as the least worst option as they're all cowards. Rees Mogg, and the rest of the Hard Right Tory Headbangers will vote against it, but we've now seen how many of them there actually are. Less than 48.
I can't see Corbyn being able to whip this one for a vote against if the alternative is chaos. And by the time the vote comes (2 weeks?) I think it'll be close enough to squeaky bum time that MPs of both parties are going to hold their noses and vote it through, just because the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.
I think all this French/Spanish nonsense today is just a bit of drama so that May can loo like she's come back with a victory.
The draft text is leaking out now and is so fudged and ambiguous, in order to please both sides that I have a deep sense of foreboding that it'll get voted through. I'm sensing a build up of momentum that way and hope I'm wrong.
My wish, call me fantasist, is that the deal gets blocked and we get to no Brexit after a bit more fannying about
I’ve just stuck a bet on Mays deal getting voted through.
My gut feeling is that it's got no chance of being voted through. But I think there is one thing in your favour:
As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the leaders of all the EU27 countries also have to agree to it. So our shambolic lot can cheerfully vote it through safe in the knowledge that someone like France can say "on your velocipede" and then we get to point the finger at those dirty foreigners who are punishing us again.
What we don’t do is charge into the server room, type “shut down in 30 minutes” on the server, then turn to everyone else and go “right, now, anyone know how are we going to do this?”
Not even on a Friday after a pub lunch? Come on, you know you have.
My wish, call me fantasist, is that the deal gets blocked and we get to no Brexit after a bit more fannying about
I sincerely hope so.
Moggy paraded through the streets in sack-cloth?
Have you seen his suit? He is already doing that. How a man with so much money can dress so badly is completely beyond me.
Its mad, isn't it? Each one of those suits probably cost the same as the GDP of Portugal, yet he looks like a child who's dressing up in his dads clothes.
I'm still absolutely loving his ongoing humiliation since his battle cry for his vote of no confidence. Somebody's just been taught the difference between how influential they think they are, as opposed to how influential they actually are.
I only wished that May had faced these lunatics down two years ago instead of now. She's run scared and pandered to them for this whole process and now it turns out they can't even muster 48 letters, yet they've been dictating policy this whole time
Not even on a Friday after a pub lunch? Come on, you know you have.
I deny everything. (-:
Admit it – had it been 52-48 the other way, YOU would be saying ‘we won, you lost etc’ – and you’d have solid ground upon which to do so.
I'll admit it.
I currently say that 52-48 for Leave is too close to push this stuff through. I would also say had it been 52-48 for Remain that I would be saying "that is decided for ever now, no second vote".
That's the certainty that comes with being right.
That’s the certainty that comes with being right.
Problem is, that's what almost everyone believes.
Admit it – had it been 52-48 the other way, YOU would be saying ‘we won, you lost etc’ – and you’d have solid ground upon which to do so.
Farage said we would have to have another referendum in the event remain won narrowly
I only wished that May had faced these lunatics down two years ago instead of now. She’s run scared and pandered to them for this whole process and now it turns out they can’t even muster 48 letters, yet they’ve been dictating policy this whole time
yep and by pandering to them, communicating in soundbites promising golden unicorns, she has failed to explain the reality of the situation, and the ill informed brexiters have taken it as a rallying cry to double down on stupidity.
The draft document could not be more vague , no use whatsoever.
It has taken 2 years to get there it is going to take 20 years to get through all the details.
Because of this, Brexit will only exist in name only or not at all
The alternative no Mays deal is no brexit - she knows this and so do most folk. She has said this publicly as has Rudd - this is an attempt to get the Rabids on side.
No chance at all of it going thru unless the usual spineless suspects in labour vote for it ( flint etc) - and if they do labour is finished for ever certainly in Scotland and many other places. Any labour MP voting for Mays deal needs to be thrown out of the party. They can go to the tory party where they belong.
I cannot understand how any labour MP could vote with the toris on something so obviously damaging to the country and thus help the tories stay in power.
The alternative no Mays deal is no brexit
That would take an action of withdrawing article 50, I have yet to see anybody (among those currently making decisions) state that is an option. So the alternative to Mays deal is a no deal brexit.
Your point being?
There are always people who are bound by actions of previous generation or within the same generation.
Does that sound particularly legal to you?
Yes
First of all, government didn’t have the authority to make that promise, it would require parliament.
Yes they do or did, and no it doesn't/didn't.
When we have to make a major change to a system, we first have a meeting with everyone who needs to be involved in order to thrash out an overview of what we’re doing.
Which is all fine and dandy, but irrelevant because one major party (the EU) refused to enter into any discussions until Article 50 was triggered.
Which is all fine and dandy, but irrelevant because one major party (the EU) refused to enter into any discussions until Article 50 was triggered.
They didn't need the EU to make a plan of action, analyse the possibilities and realities, and act on facts instead of fantasy's.
MSP, just because they haven't said it yet, that doesn't mean that everyone isn't thinking it. It's the obvious outcome of this whole shitshow once it's played out a bit longer. The only risk (and I admit it's a genuine possibility, though unlikely) is that enough MPs get scared enough to vote through the agreement as it is. But with 75 Tories already vowing to vote against, is hard to see where the votes for are coming from.
MSP - both May and Rudd have said it - rejecting mays deal risks no brexit.
Why do you think they have fought so hard against the scottish case looking to clarify if the UK can withdraw a 50 unilaterally? They have lost this case in every court in the UK - it now gets an opinion from the EU court on the 27th
Can anybody tell me why we are bothered about a hard border with Ireland? I thought the whole point of leaving the EU was to stop foreigners just strolling in without so much as a by your leave. Ireland is part of the EU so surely we should be putting up as solid a border as is physically feasible?
I appreciate that this will have deleterious economic consequences but I thought that Brexit was all about prioritising #takebackcontrol over economic advantages.
A border in NI would be a focus point for terrorism.
That would take an action of withdrawing article 50, I have yet to see anybody (among those currently making decisions) state that is an option.
It is an option. Barnier mentioned that we could choose not to leave and May also mentioned it as an option. I think the EU would happily less us revoke A50 and continue as we are. I would put money on that happening but can't find any odds on it.
A border in NI would be a focus point for terrorism.
Why should we care, we're in England, it's a price worth paying. Them in NI are kinda foreign anyway.
I seem to recall that the implementation of a hard border with Eire would contravene part of the Good Friday Agreement and, as such, would be illegal. I could be wrong about that, but the big thing there would be going back to the days to The Troubles. We don't want that.
Farage said we would have to have another referendum in the event remain won narrowly
Well he certainly said it would be "unfinished business" and on that basis I don't feel minded to leave the EU on the basis of the current result.
I could be wrong about that, but the big thing there would be going back to the days to The Troubles. We don’t want that.
Its truly staggering how many brexiteers either don't care about this, or consider it a price worth paying for their delusional fantasy.
They really are that ignorant and small-minded. Yet another depressing thing we've discovered about the people who we share this sceptic isle with
We made a law that there can be no infrastructure at the border after brexit that isn't there now.
Thats a British law made in our parliament.
The G.F.A is an internationally binding treaty. We can't just rip it up.
Can anybody tell me why we are bothered about a hard border with Ireland?
Aside from being illegal, it's a fundamental part of the peace treaty. Most of us here are old enough to remember the bombings and murders.
I seem to recall that the implementation of a hard border with Eire would contravene part of the Good Friday Agreement and, as such, would be illegal.
I seem to recall that the implementation of a hard border with Eire would contravene the Withdrawal Act we passed into law recently and, as such, would be illegal.
Most of us here are old enough to remember the bombings and murders.
Yes, they made the sporadic islamic fundamentalist stuff look amateur (with exception of 9/11)
<span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> a statistically insignificant majority can ride roughshod over everyone else.</span>
But it's not even that. What we are ending up with isn't what a majority wanted. Because the question was stupidly phrased. That's why we are in this mess - that and May getting trigger happy with A50.
MSP – both May and Rudd have said it – rejecting mays deal risks no brexit.
They haven't said it is an option, they have said it is a risk, a risk they are painting as a worse option than a no deal brexit.
May is pinning her legacy on driving through a brexit deal, and be dammed with the consequences, it isn't principled, it isn't civic duty, like all of the higher ranks of the tory party it is hubris and a lust for power that drives her.
But until recently, no Brexit at all wasn't even being entertained as a possibility.
I'm clinging to the hope that it rises to the top and all the assertions that this is where it will all end, come to a happy fruition...
I'm surprised none of the rabid Brexiteers have spotted the obvious solution to the Irish border problem and suggested a military take over of the South. Kill several birds with one stone.
I seem to recall that the implementation of a hard border with Eire would contravene part of the Good Friday Agreement and, as such, would be illegal. I could be wrong about that, but the big thing there would be going back to the days to The Troubles. We don’t want that.
I belive it's this section of the Belfast agreement
RIGHTS, SAFEGUARDS AND EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY
Human Rights
1. The parties affirm their commitment
to the mutual respect, the civil
rights and the religious liberties of
everyone in the community. Against
the background of the recent history
of communal conflict, the parties
affirm in particular:...
...
• the right to freely choose one’s place of residence;
• the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender
That means people can freely move between north and south and go about thier business, because if they couldnt, both parties won't be equal. At least that's how I read it.
It is also in the withdrawal act (but then so is the Leave date). But, in fact, there is so much in that act, that it has a clause that allows the government to remove or rewrite anything in it. It's garbage. You're right that previous international agreements are far more important in informing what we do, so let's ignore the withdrawal act (everyone soon will be) and focus on the Belfast Agreement (everyone should have been for the last few years).
I’m surprised none of the rabid Brexiteers have spotted the obvious solution to the Irish border problem and suggested a military take over of the South. Kill several birds with one stone.
It was proposed by the DUP. Other solutions from this notable collection of thinkers also included Irexit in which Ireland also left the EU.
May was actually trolling Rees Mogg during her statement, thanking him for his kind suggestions on future customs arrangements
Bet she’s loving slapping the tedious Dickens-outtake down? 😂
Maybe Labour could make some radical suggestions for a new conception of our country that is only possible outside of the EU? What they've suggested in the past would be possible from within the EU, so no point in leaving really.
As the only options on the table seem to be:
Stay in EU (not awful, but the EU has lots of issues and we were doing pretty well... but we still had all the issues that caused this decision in the first place)
A worse "soft" brexit than we already had
A no deal brexit leading to a Victorian era Britain....
How about a no deal brexit leading to a much more equal and fair country?
Obviously that's all quite airy-fairy, but no-one is suggesting any options other than the status quo, a crapper version of that or a laissez-faire deregulated state.
How about a no deal brexit leading to a much more equal and fair country?
I think at this point we're only considering options which aren't fictional.
Obviously that’s all quite airy-fairy, but no-one is suggesting any options other than the status quo, a crapper version of that or a laissez-faire deregulated state.
As I've said since the start, this is part of the problem. The alternative to "leave" shouldn't be "remain," it should be "reform." Forget the status quo, stay in the EU but address the concerns which caused people to vote leave in the first place.
Net Migration over the last 20 years is the main driver of house price inflation which is why our children have little hope of owning a home unless they want a 300K mortgage.
and even with the govs target of 100K per year it wont get any better - we need a target of -100K per year.
Shock of Shock Migrants have ruined our housing market.
Net Migration over the last 20 years is the main driver of house price inflation which is why our children have little hope of owning a home unless they want a 300K mortgage.
Bollocks.
Lack of investment into building new houses and the banks printing / lending money is the main drivers of house price inflation.
Shock of Shock Migrants have ruined our housing market.
Shock of shocks, we've ruined our own housing market and are now blaming foreigners for it.
I think you'll find it's cashed up baby boomers with buy-to-let portfolios that have ****ed the housing market.
Here, read this rather than the Daily Express.
http://www.pricedout.org.uk/why
or this
https://positivemoney.org/issues/house-prices/
How about a no deal brexit leading to a much more equal and fair country?
That's always been Labour's policy, in or out.
Net Migration over the last 20 years is the main driver of house price inflation
It's also been the main enabler of economic growth. Without the migrants wed end up like Japan. And houses are expensive there along with everything else.
The problem is that we’ve had successive governments that have artificially inflated house prices so they can dress it up as economic growth, to disguise the fact that there isn’t any actual economic growth.
Baby Boomers spending their equity on shiny things is not a sustainable economic model, but... hey... those bloody immigrants eh? Bastards! It’s all their fault
Net long-term international migration was estimated to be +230,000 in year ending (YE) June 2017
165700 homes built in England (only) in 2017. Would it be safe to assume at least 2 people per house? That would be 331400 bedspaces ignoring Wales, Scotland and NI.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/house-building-statistics#2017
The street I used to live on was the traditional first home area in my town. The houses were always some of the cheapest and were bought and sold frequently as people moved up the ladder to be replaced by the next people starting out.
Since I moved about 6 years ago nearly every house has been bought by landlords to rent out, including my old one + neighbours both sides.
That's where your first time buyers houses have gone.
<div>fotorat
<div>
<div>Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Net Migration over the last 20 years is the main driver of house price inflation which is why our children have little hope of owning a home unless they want a 300K mortgage.
and even with the govs target of 100K per year it wont get any better – we need a target of -100K per year.
Shock of Shock Migrants have ruined our housing market.
</div>
This attitude driven by years of tabloid lies is why we are in this mess.
Just a couple of questions that the more enlightened contributors may wish to give their views on.
Who needs to build the ‘hard border’ between the Republic and the Uk?
What asset do you need to build ‘Housing’ and who controls that asset?
What is wrong with immigration either seasonal or long term?
Is there a prize for a quiz?
Hard border? Nobody needs to build it as nobody should be building it.
Housing? Aggregates of some sort
Immigration? Nothing at all
Worn 7 speed drive train with twist shifters
chestrockwell - I bet those landlords are all foreign though.... :):):)
I'm off here on Tuesday - https://www.nepic.co.uk/event/eu-exit-events-for-the-chemicals-and-allied-industries/
I'm hoping that a lot of 'grown-ups' have been thinking of ways of dealing with complicated and tedious things like regulations (that don't easily fit on the side of a bus...). Maybe some brexiteers will also be present to wave flags and offer their expert advice... I'm not holding my breath though.
I’m hoping that a lot of ‘grown-ups’ have been thinking of ways of dealing with complicated and tedious things like regulations.
Well I am sure they would have liked to, but they still don't know what exactly to plan for, so they will have to have many plans for many scenarios. I attended an event held by the Government for space industries last month frankly the only reason the government propagandists we not beaten to death was because they clearly knew they were lying, were rather embarrassed by what they were stating, but were forced to do so.
The hubris of this Government really knows no bounds, they are either lying, or trying to patronise, most frequently both, even when dealing with people with far more intellect and experience than them.
When they actually do go outside of the Westminster bubble, it is to the city of London finance bubble, they are completely ****ing clueless about any other aspect of reality.
That’s where your first time buyers houses have gone.
Round me in the 70s first time buyers could get small theee bed terrace. They had families but many never upgraded to the larger home. Now a first time buyer gets a crap studio or 1 bed which is so small they can’t really live in it. House builders are building and selling houses now that would not even have been looked at 30 years ago.
With no regulation on room size, poor build quality and massive asking prices people can get more for their buck by renting. While it used to be a lot cheaper to buy in some places it is now cheaper to rent.
I just had a quick browse of that link, this statement says it all really.
This is an opportunity for you to ask questions of policy officials, advise Government on the impact of EU Exit on your business and help to shape the negotiation and policy positions that will support the sector.
Maybe they should have done that before enacting article 50 the incompetent ignorant **** wits. Although I am sure mefty will be able explain why they were unable to plan for the negotiations before entering the negotiations.
House builders are building and selling houses now that would not even have been looked at 30 years ago.
They are also now actively marketing them as investment properties worldwide, because they know they have mined out the domestic market.
They are also now actively marketing them as investment properties worldwide,
Indeed and sadly the reason old council houses and some of the houses from the 70s are so popular is that the bedrooms are a good size and there is sometimes a garden not just an insult of space outside
Baby Boomers spending their equity on shiny things is not a sustainable economic model, but… hey… those bloody immigrants eh? Bastards! It’s all their fault
Oh, no, not this time, it's the fault of all those lazy privileged self-entitled Millennials for, y'know, expecting half the breaks that the Boomers got.
Net Migration over the last 20 years is the main driver of house price inflation
Interesting view.
I'd suggest it's perhaps more to do with Thatcher-era Tory-driven financial deregulation leading to pension funds being plundered in the interests of propping up share prices leading to a generation of homeowners realising that the rising equity in their homes was a much better prospect for comfortable retirement than their pensions were ever likely to be, and more homeowners since those homeowners piling in with the same idea and lots of homeowners doing the same thing many times over until there were no more new homeowners because homes were too expensive.
But you might be onto something.
I think you’ll find it’s cashed up baby boomers with buy-to-let portfolios that have **** the housing market.
That's equally bollocks.
I’d suggest it’s perhaps more to do with Thatcher-era Tory-driven financial deregulation leading to pension funds being plundered
House prices? Is there any subject this thread hasn't covered? 🙂
Anyway, I'm snot sure that's true either. The deregulation part is right, but it resulted in easy credit combined with a shortage of supply that caused prices to rocket. The beneficiaries, as always, were the banks. It's a good con trick too, because everyone who's house price sky-rocketed now thinks they're filthy rich, thanks to the tory policy of mass home-ownership. Until of course they realise that they (and their offspring) need to live somewhere so can't really free up that capital unless they're willing to go into massive debt. And who benefits from people being in massive debt? Again, the banks.
Not sure what the hell this has to do with brexit though? At least if the economy crashes we might see a readjustment to more sensible house prices and a collapse in the cheap debt market.
Not sure what the hell this has to do with brexit though?
Because it was another chance to blame immigrants for something that irks people.
And May's defence of her withdrawal deal and vague plan for the future yesterday boiled down to two things:
- blocking those immigrants from coming here
- …
Sorry, one thing.
But the EU statement clearly says that all 4 freedom must be respected.
The issues with the housing market are not due to immigrants or the baby boomers, they (mostly) did not understand the unsustainable situation they were in. The cause was really poor government management of the situation and outright greed.
Those two issues are still very much in evidence in the daily running of the country.