starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 298
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Feb 17, 2019 9:31:08 GMT
As someone who voted remain, the economic impact, while a bit important was not central to my own decision making. For the leavers I know, that is equally true.
I expect most on both sides expect financial turbulence for at least 5 to 10 years from Brexit, and then it will settle. It will not be the end of the world. Yes probably at a lower economic equilibrium than we are at present. The leavers I know understand that and accept that and see it as a price worth paying for Brexit.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 17, 2019 9:55:20 GMT
As someone who voted remain, the economic impact, while a bit important was not central to my own decision making. For the leavers I know, that is equally true. I expect most on both sides expect financial turbulence for at least 5 to 10 years from Brexit, and then it will settle. It will not be the end of the world. Yes probably at a lower economic equilibrium than we are at present. The leavers I know understand that and accept that and see it as a price worth paying for Brexit.o I genuinely don't think that all Leave voters felt like that, and the campaign made a lot of the positive economic impacts of Brexit such as more money for the NHS and the economic benefits of the additional trade deals that would be done, also with no mention of £39 million in divorce payments and no indication of the likelihood of leaving without a deal (since that was to have been "the easiest in human history"). But there's an easy way to find out. A ratification referendum is the only way the country will ever reunite and reconcile itself to the economic hardships ahead - unless the country explicitly agrees to Brexit on the terms now detailed (and thus explicitly states that we put more value on the non-economic issues that the economic ones), and with 5-10 years of coming "turbulence" to weather, there will be a lot of angry people, especially the young who don't want this and whose future will be most affected.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 17, 2019 9:57:17 GMT
Yeah, I remember reading about that at the time and being pretty unimpressed by it. Still, whilst it doesn't excuse what goes on in the European Commission (or anywhere else for that matter) our own parliament is, unfortunately, hardly a model of probity. Indeed - I believe the government has been held in contempt of parliament, and extraordinary state of affairs.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 17, 2019 10:02:31 GMT
What you say here is very much the argument made in the chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com (new post added today). But I find this too alarmist in tone. I still believe in the "men in grey suits" (sorry women) who were thought to be in the background of the Tory party. Well, at least in the 1980s - the ones who told Margaret Thatcher that it was time to go. So my argument is that the Conservative Party has not lasted this long without a self-righting mechanism, and secondly as the 'party of business' it will not in the end chance crashing the economy and offering up the burning remains to Jeremy Corbyn to build Socialism from ground zero. You have already seen that preserving the party comes before country, and the only logical way to preserve the party is suddenly to dump the ERG faction. That is my prediction. I hope that you are correct. I am concerned that the "self-righting mechanism" might have become, or perhaps has been overpowered by, a "wronging mechanism". Politics has become more extreme (the Tories are now like the US Republicans in that regard) and the safe seat problem combined with a smaller but more politically extreme Tory party membership means any righting mechanisms of the past no longer apply. The only mechanism now (for both Tories and Labour) are new parties, but that is electoral suicide under our outdated voting system. So I think we're screwed.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 298
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Feb 17, 2019 12:14:36 GMT
As someone who voted remain, the economic impact, while a bit important was not central to my own decision making. For the leavers I know, that is equally true. I expect most on both sides expect financial turbulence for at least 5 to 10 years from Brexit, and then it will settle. It will not be the end of the world. Yes probably at a lower economic equilibrium than we are at present. The leavers I know understand that and accept that and see it as a price worth paying for Brexit.o I genuinely don't think that all Leave voters felt like that, and the campaign made a lot of the positive economic impacts of Brexit such as more money for the NHS and the economic benefits of the additional trade deals that would be done, also with no mention of £39 million in divorce payments and no indication of the likelihood of leaving without a deal (since that was to have been "the easiest in human history"). But there's an easy way to find out. A ratification referendum is the only way the country will ever reunite and reconcile itself to the economic hardships ahead - unless the country explicitly agrees to Brexit on the terms now detailed (and thus explicitly states that we put more value on the non-economic issues that the economic ones), and with 5-10 years of coming "turbulence" to weather, there will be a lot of angry people, especially the young who don't want this and whose future will be most affected. Many remaininers said at the time, which I do agree with, that this was too complex an issue to have been put to a referendum. It seems to me hypocritical to then say a few years later, lets put another complex issue to a referendum... But even if a second referendum were to occur. I cannot see how it would not be hugely damaging to the country. I suspect now that the reality of it is starting to play out, we would probably get a low swing towards remain, call it c. 53% (notwithstanding that I do know some remaininers who feel they would be morally obliged to vote leave in line with the first referendum). But the turnout is likely to be lower than the first referendum. So we may end up in a position where the second referendum have c. 17.3m for remain compared to 17.4 for leave in the first election. How on earth does that support reconciliation?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 17, 2019 12:32:16 GMT
I genuinely don't think that all Leave voters felt like that, and the campaign made a lot of the positive economic impacts of Brexit such as more money for the NHS and the economic benefits of the additional trade deals that would be done, also with no mention of £39 million in divorce payments and no indication of the likelihood of leaving without a deal (since that was to have been "the easiest in human history"). But there's an easy way to find out. A ratification referendum is the only way the country will ever reunite and reconcile itself to the economic hardships ahead - unless the country explicitly agrees to Brexit on the terms now detailed (and thus explicitly states that we put more value on the non-economic issues that the economic ones), and with 5-10 years of coming "turbulence" to weather, there will be a lot of angry people, especially the young who don't want this and whose future will be most affected. Many remaininers said at the time, which I do agree with, that this was too complex an issue to have been put to a referendum. It seems to me hypocritical to then say a few years later, lets put another complex issue to a referendum... But even if a second referendum were to occur. I cannot see how it would not be hugely damaging to the country. I suspect now that the reality of it is starting to play out, we would probably get a low swing towards remain, call it c. 53% (notwithstanding that I do know some remaininers who feel they would be morally obliged to vote leave in line with the first referendum). But the turnout is likely to be lower than the first referendum. So we may end up in a position where the second referendum have c. 17.3m for remain compared to 17.4 for leave in the first election. How on earth does that support reconciliation? Because if there's now a Remain majority we won't go through the economic hardships against the now majority view. And if there is still a Leave majority with fully informed consent then we'll be reconciled to our fate. Not everyone will be happy, but both outcomes will be better than the alternative of leaving in a way most people don't support and then facing the consequent economic hardships that they will say they didn't vote for. A soft Norway style Brexit is and always was the compromise position of a wafer thin referendum result, and still could be the way to reconcile, except that Leavers (and especially TM putting party before country) won't have that.
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 305
Likes: 666
|
Post by copacetic on Feb 17, 2019 20:55:31 GMT
I understand there are a lot of people that feel very strongly about remaining and think that Brexit will be damaging to the country, but do any remainers here not feel that having a second referendum on whether to leave is a dangerous precedent to set for our democracy?
Before the 2016 referendum it was made clear that there wouldn't be any attempt to have a further referendum ( Cameron's leave means leave speech was pretty unambiguous and people did vote based on campaigners on both sides saying we would be leaving the single market etc). If we did have another referendum and we ended up remaining why not keep having Scottish independence referendums until Nicola Sturgeon gets her way? Should the lib dems and SNP get repeated referendums on the Alternative Vote? In my opinion if a referendum has a particular outcome it should be implemented in full by the governement of the day then, after a reasonable period of say 5-10 years to judge the effects the vote can be revisited e.g. a referendum to rejoin the EU if there is a party that gets elected on a manifesto pledge of having such a referendum
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 923
|
Post by aju on Feb 17, 2019 23:40:24 GMT
I understand there are a lot of people that feel very strongly about remaining and think that Brexit will be damaging to the country, but do any remainers here not feel that having a second referendum on whether to leave is a dangerous precedent to set for our democracy?
Before the 2016 referendum it was made clear that there wouldn't be any attempt to have a further referendum ( Cameron's leave means leave speech was pretty unambiguous and people did vote based on campaigners on both sides saying we would be leaving the single market etc). If we did have another referendum and we ended up remaining why not keep having Scottish independence referendums until Nicola Sturgeon gets her way? Should the lib dems and SNP get repeated referendums on the Alternative Vote? In my opinion if a referendum has a particular outcome it should be implemented in full by the governement of the day then, after a reasonable period of say 5-10 years to judge the effects the vote can be revisited e.g. a referendum to rejoin the EU if there is a party that gets elected on a manifesto pledge of having such a referendum I did vote to remain and so did mrs Aju eventually but the more we understand what is going on and the fact that having another pop at this is not really in the spirit of voting I feel. In fact we have both decided that if we had to have another go we'd either abstain, not a great move I know, or worse we'd now vote to leave. Quite frankly I'm not sure that the Eu really wants us in the club anymore anyway and if we came back with our tail between our legs would we not be opening ourselves up to not being relevant anyway in their eyes. Don't tell my daughter and future son in-law I said this though as they both work in city companies that are very reliant on the EU for the area they both specialise in. I'm not that sure the political classes knows what they are doing or worse even know what life is like outside their cosy little bubble.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 17, 2019 23:48:07 GMT
I understand there are a lot of people that feel very strongly about remaining and think that Brexit will be damaging to the country, but do any remainers here not feel that having a second referendum on whether to leave is a dangerous precedent to set for our democracy?
Before the 2016 referendum it was made clear that there wouldn't be any attempt to have a further referendum ( Cameron's leave means leave speech was pretty unambiguous and people did vote based on campaigners on both sides saying we would be leaving the single market etc). If we did have another referendum and we ended up remaining why not keep having Scottish independence referendums until Nicola Sturgeon gets her way? Should the lib dems and SNP get repeated referendums on the Alternative Vote? In my opinion if a referendum has a particular outcome it should be implemented in full by the governement of the day then, after a reasonable period of say 5-10 years to judge the effects the vote can be revisited e.g. a referendum to rejoin the EU if there is a party that gets elected on a manifesto pledge of having such a referendum I think it would be a fantastic precendent for our democracy, as it would show that we care about doing things properly, and getting informed consent from the electorate on actual deals in black and white ink, not on vague concepts that had not been fleshed out in any detail whatsoever. and yes - sometimes you do need more than one referendum when things change. We've already had two on our relations with Europe. if there had been a proposal "to implement in full" I'd agree with you - but there wasn't then and there is now. Key difference.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 18, 2019 9:20:30 GMT
I think that this issue - dissatisfaction with the current stance of a political party - might affect a fair number of voters at the next election. For each of the two major parties, if a voter has traditionally always supported a given party but feel the current party stance no longer really aligns with their views, should the voter:
-still vote for their traditional party, on the basis it's marginally more aligned with their views than the other main party, or -vote for some other party, as their traditional choice is unlikely to change if they keep attracting votes (especially if they're in power).
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 18, 2019 10:44:12 GMT
I live in Chukka's ward. His leaving the (Corbyn / McDonnell / Momentum) Labour party might be enough to get me to vote for him.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,215
Likes: 11,408
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 18, 2019 10:44:16 GMT
I think that this issue - dissatisfaction with the current stance of a political party - might affect a fair number of voters at the next election. For each of the two major parties, if a voter has traditionally always supported a given party but feel the current party stance no longer really aligns with their views, should the voter:
-still vote for their traditional party, on the basis it's marginally more aligned with their views than the other main party, or -vote for some other party, as their traditional choice is unlikely to change if they keep attracting votes (especially if they're in power).
Seven gone www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47278902
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 18, 2019 15:08:14 GMT
I understand there are a lot of people that feel very strongly about remaining and think that Brexit will be damaging to the country, but do any remainers here not feel that having a second referendum on whether to leave is a dangerous precedent to set for our democracy? This is a good question, and one I keep coming back to. I have to admit that I am confused and conflicted about it, and don't, as yet, have an answer that I have settled on. On the one hand:- * I was a remainer, and think that staying a part of the EU is in the best interests of the country. * Whilst I accept that "project fear" included some (possibly deliberate) inaccurate forecasts, I believe that the various leave campaigns outright lied to the electorate. * I don't have the same fears of an overarching EU federal state as some do, and I think the UK will be poorer, meaner, less interesting, and less important on the world stage as a result of leaving. * I think the chances of the UK breaking up have increased markedly, and this saddens me. * I am not comfortable with the most likely measure of leaving's success - the implosion of the EU or the Euro. Beggar my neighbour and being glad about it isn't my style. * The essence of democracy is being able to change your mind and thus change direction. On the other hand:- * I accept the result of the vote (as flawed as I think the whole operation was). * I do agree that holding another vote will be damaging to our democracy, or, as copacetic said in the quote above, "... a dangerous precedent to set for our democracy". * In the past I was contemptuous of France, Ireland and Denmark (?) (and the EU itself) when they held second referendums because the results appeared to go against the wishes of the political elite of those countries and the EU. Taking a different view just because it's Blighty at issue strikes me as hypocritical. * There's an aspect of my view that says "ok, let's take our medicine then". * A referendum is different to reasonably regularly scheduled elections and we can't have, and shouldn't attempt to have, them "just because". So I guess I don't have a good answer as of now, and what position I do eventually settle on may well be the result of a) where we find ourselves and b) what question(s) might be posed by any such second referendum.
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Feb 18, 2019 16:26:21 GMT
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Feb 18, 2019 16:54:57 GMT
"In a tweet, Mr Tomlinson said: "Honda are clear this is based on global trends and not Brexit, as all European market production will consolidate in Japan in 2021."
So not really anything relevant here.
|
|