Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Brexit divisions are here to stay

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Brexit divisions are here to stay

When you stop and think about it, voting is a very low information form of communication. We get nothing about the certainty of the voter’s view, nothing about the enthusiasm of the voter, nothing about the considerations that led the voter to that view. All we get is a single recorded choice.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394
    Quiet, considering.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588
    Chris said:

    Quiet, considering.

    Considering what?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394

    Chris said:

    Quiet, considering.

    Considering what?
    Considering we're on the brink of either triumph or disaster.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    … and in the middle of the biggest political crisis since the war and this is a politics forum.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Quiet, considering.

    Considering what?
    Considering we're on the brink of either triumph or disaster.
    It's the lull before the storm; Tuesday evening will be busy on here no doubt.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,848
    kinabalu said:

    … and in the middle of the biggest political crisis since the war and this is a politics forum.

    Everything has been said.

    There. Are. No. New. Words.........
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926
    Good article, but I don’t agree with its conclusions.

    If we leave, I expect support for Rejoin to be 20-30% of the electorate for the foreseeable future. Enough to cause a lot of noise, and possibly capture the Labour Party, but not enough for an election-winning majority.

    If we Remain after a second referendum, I would expect support for Leave to settle around 40% before declining in future years. The sense that victory has been stolen will make the process of reconciliation slower.

    If we Remain without a referendum, all bets are off.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,525
    edited January 12
    A post that I put up (disagreeing with Alastair - I think people are very woirried by Brexit but see it as non-party, like a tsunami, hence the stable ratings) has disappeared, so perhaps others have had a similar experience.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671

    Everything has been said.

    There. Are. No. New. Words.........

    That is very true.

    But the trick is to use them in a different order.

    I will have a bash and revert.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,656

    kinabalu said:

    … and in the middle of the biggest political crisis since the war and this is a politics forum.

    Everything has been said.

    There. Are. No. New. Words.........
    Nothing. Has. Changed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,656
    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.
  • FPT - many people seem to have reached the conclusion that by being critical of Bercow's actions, David is defending the Government's previous actions surrounding the postponement of the vote.

    I don't see it like that at all. The Government's behaviour was appalling, its conduct in refusing to publicise its legal advice on the deal was appalling. Bercow's conduct here was appalling, his own refusal to publicise his clerks' advice also appalling.

    Bercow's actions are arguably much more harmful - the government can (and will in my view) be voted out but Bercow has politicised the Speaker's role forever. From now on any speaker has the right to choose which amendments to advance and which to ignore regardless of the legal advice because Bercow has set the precedent.

    The fact that allowing Grieve's amendment may have righted a wrong caused by the Government in delaying the vote is irrelevant. Parliament is a rules based organisation, and precedent is extremely important in rules based organisation - therefore breaking one rule to correct the breaking of another rule will make things far worse in the long run.

    I am constantly amazed at how often this is overlooked, especially by those seeking to remain in the EU.

    The net result is that Parliament has been treated shamefully in this episode, by the government in its initial actions, by Bercow in making up the rules against advice, and by the labour party and tory ultra-remainers in refusing to investigate perfectly credible bullying claims against Bercow because, get this, the entirely impartial speaker will help thwart Brexit - thanks for the clear explanation Margaret.. In fact, it appears now that Parliament can decide whether to investigate its own depending on personal whim (how's that Keith Vaz investigation going while a cabinet minister was hounded to resign because he touched someone's knee 20 years ago?).

    I do not know what will happen with Brexit, but whatever the end result is, Parliament has been irrevocably damaged by the petty self interest of all sides. Where that leads is a very worrying conversation indeed
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242
    I would expect support for, and opposition to, Brexit to fluctuate, in response to events, as it did after 1975.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,594
    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, but I don’t agree with its conclusions.

    If we leave, I expect support for Rejoin to be 20-30% of the electorate for the foreseeable future. Enough to cause a lot of noise, and possibly capture the Labour Party, but not enough for an election-winning majority.

    If we Remain after a second referendum, I would expect support for Leave to settle around 40% before declining in future years. The sense that victory has been stolen will make the process of reconciliation slower.

    If we Remain without a referendum, all bets are off.

    If we Remain after a Referendum, the people will have spoken.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    Chris said:

    Quiet, considering.

    Too quiet.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited January 12
    The header is stimulating. Is it also true? Yes and No, for me.

    Yes, in the sense that 'Brexit' has coarsened and spiced up our politics, and I can see the new tone being here to stay for a long time.

    No, in that I do not believe Brexit itself will persist as the dominant dividing issue once we have ratified the Withdrawal Treaty and left the EU.

    Although with a caveat to that last, which is that we set sail for a closely aligned EU relationship in the FTA talks, and achieve that.

    In which case I think the issue is over, apart from the real extremists on either side who see it as a war to be won and the other lot as enemies to be ground into dust.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,838

    You are arguing against yourself. If the EU is insignificant at only 6% of the world's population, what does that make the UK? With China rapidly developing its industrial base and its billion plus economically active consumers and workers, do you really think now is a good time to cut down on co-operating with our neighbours?

    Not at all. We need to look to the other 94% rather than the 6%. They are the future.
    But scale matters. There is a reason we are obliged to take China more seriously than Easter Island. By choosing to operate from a smaller home market we are making it more difficult to compete in the other 94%.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    viewcode said:

    Chris said:

    Quiet, considering.

    Too quiet.
    They're planning something...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Chris said:

    Quiet, considering.

    Too quiet.
    They're planning something...
    I'll send up a flare...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Chris said:

    Quiet, considering.

    Too quiet.
    They're planning something...
    I'll send up a flare...
    [waits]
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    THOUSANDS OF THEM! OPEN FIRE! FIRE EVERYTHING!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    viewcode said:

    THOUSANDS OF THEM! OPEN FIRE! FIRE EVERYTHING!

    [pause]
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926

    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, but I don’t agree with its conclusions.

    If we leave, I expect support for Rejoin to be 20-30% of the electorate for the foreseeable future. Enough to cause a lot of noise, and possibly capture the Labour Party, but not enough for an election-winning majority.

    If we Remain after a second referendum, I would expect support for Leave to settle around 40% before declining in future years. The sense that victory has been stolen will make the process of reconciliation slower.

    If we Remain without a referendum, all bets are off.

    If we Remain after a Referendum, the people will have spoken.
    They will have spoken again. We can do it all over again in 2022; after all, a second referendum means no decisions are truly final.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    THOUSANDS OF THEM! OPEN FIRE! FIRE EVERYTHING!

    [pause]
    Ah, my coat.

    [runs for the exit]
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 232
    edited January 12
    Totally off topic. Has anyone had any dealings with a Confusius Institiute? They seems exceptionally keen to make cultural links. I’ve no problem with the Chinese people, and would not hold them to account for the actions of their government, but should I be concerned that they are operating as a wing of the Chinese Communist Party?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    An interesting article.

    If triangulating between one view and another is not going to work with voters, then there is an argument for saying that MPs may as well vote for what they believe in and then explain themselves to voters honestly. And take the consequences at the next election. Rather than all this disingenuous "well I don't agree but we have to honour the vote" blarney we're getting.

    MPs voted a year ago to leave the EU without a deal. For them now to say that there is no majority for this and therefore there need to be all these procedural shenanigans to get to some alternative destination is the cowardly way out. If they genuinely think that leaving without a deal is the wrong thing to do then they should vote for the only thing that Parliament can do, without the consent of others i.e. revocation, explain why to the voters and then do what should have been done before the Act was enacted on i.e. spell out the options available in the real world, the trade offs, the consequences, what the EU in reality has offered and what it means and either have a GE or a referendum. Or, sod it, make a Parliamentary decision.

    Personally, while I am worried about a no deal Brexit and its consequences, I don't feel that my views on this topic are central to my identity in the way that the polls quoted by Mr Meeks seem to suggest others are. I do feel sad that Britain is dealing with a really important decision in such a cack-handed and amateurish way. That annoys me even more than the actual result. There was, potentially, a grown up way of dealing with Brexit. It has not been the one chosen.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    Off topic, a thank you to @RichardTyndall (fpt): I am currently listening to Leonid Kogan's performance of the Beethoven Violin Concerto. Superb.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588
    kinabalu said:

    Everything has been said.

    There. Are. No. New. Words.........

    That is very true.

    But the trick is to use them in a different order.

    I will have a bash and revert.
    How about:

    No. There are new words!

    ?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 533
    RoyalBlue said:

    Good article, but I don’t agree with its conclusions.

    If we leave, I expect support for Rejoin to be 20-30% of the electorate for the foreseeable future. Enough to cause a lot of noise, and possibly capture the Labour Party, but not enough for an election-winning majority.

    If we Remain after a second referendum, I would expect support for Leave to settle around 40% before declining in future years. The sense that victory has been stolen will make the process of reconciliation slower.

    If we Remain without a referendum, all bets are off.

    Although I think you're right a large swathe of the public aren't too bothered, I think you make the mistake of seeing the future through the prism of now. Whatever we do we infuriate 30% of the population who are staunchly committed one way or the other. The problem with leaving is that thanks to the nebulous and unachievable nature of what people expect from it you're not going to satisfy that sentiment. Brexit itself will be a betrayal for some when we have to accept things that were blamed on the EU but were facts of being a developed nation in the 21st Century. A wound has been opened and it ain't going to heal, short of a complete genius becoming PM - which is precluded by both parties' utter dysfunctionality.

    Why we will remain divided is that remain/leave has given focus to a political divide that's been festering since the 70s but largely stayed hidden as it didn't fit neatly within the two parties.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited January 12

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    I do not see much plus to Brexit but a fall in property prices would certainly count. As would something else that is often touted as a downside risk - a smaller City.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394
    notme2 said:

    Totally off topic. Has anyone had any dealings with a Confusius Institiute? They seems exceptionally keen to make cultural links. I’ve no problem with the Chinese people, and would not hold them to account for the actions of their government, but should I be concerned that they are operating as a wing of the Chinese Communist Party?

    Confucius?

    Confusionism is different. It's the national religion of the UK at present.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,383
    kinabalu said:

    … and in the middle of the biggest political crisis since the war and this is a politics forum.

    people are pig sick of the incompetence and chicanery
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    That's true of course, and such a reduction may well be necessary Brexit or no-Brexit, but don't underestimate the disruption it would cause.

    Far better if we could have 10 years of house price stagnation.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536
    On topic, an instance:



    The thread comments so far seem long on wishful thinking and short on actual evidence supporting it.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,892
    If, as seems increasingly likely, we get a No Deal Brexit and an economic horror show, whom will the Leave voters blame for their doom? Ironically it will probably be Theresa who goes down in infamy, whilst those who engineered the catastrophe - Boris, DD etc. - will present themselves as unheeded prophets and will most likely be believed.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588
    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Totally off topic. Has anyone had any dealings with a Confusius Institiute? They seems exceptionally keen to make cultural links. I’ve no problem with the Chinese people, and would not hold them to account for the actions of their government, but should I be concerned that they are operating as a wing of the Chinese Communist Party?

    Confucius?

    Confusionism is different. It's the national religion of the UK at present.
    Sounds like notme2 may already have joined. :wink:
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,383

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    Being stupid then, no thought to the people who would lose their houses and jobs, and endanger their own such that they could not afford at reduced prices. Some thicko's going about.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,838
    I really hope it doesn't happen this way, but the quickest way to reform a national consensus is leaving with no deal and with no referendum. The narrative is ideal for rejoin. All dislocation gets blamed on Brexit. The refusal to hold a vote to confirm leaving becomes a betrayal of democracy. An actual vote on a specific question is fraught with difficulties for remain. A hypothetical vote that would have solved the problem but which never took place is the perfect stick to beat the leavers with.

    I'd rather have had a second referendum now - but it would have been a horrible experience and it would have been even more divisive than the first one. And that was bad enough.

    Still hoping something will turn up that solves the issue, though I've no idea what it might be.

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926
    Cyclefree said:

    An interesting article.

    If triangulating between one view and another is not going to work with voters, then there is an argument for saying that MPs may as well vote for what they believe in and then explain themselves to voters honestly. And take the consequences at the next election. Rather than all this disingenuous "well I don't agree but we have to honour the vote" blarney we're getting.

    MPs voted a year ago to leave the EU without a deal. For them now to say that there is no majority for this and therefore there need to be all these procedural shenanigans to get to some alternative destination is the cowardly way out. If they genuinely think that leaving without a deal is the wrong thing to do then they should vote for the only thing that Parliament can do, without the consent of others i.e. revocation, explain why to the voters and then do what should have been done before the Act was enacted on i.e. spell out the options available in the real world, the trade offs, the consequences, what the EU in reality has offered and what it means and either have a GE or a referendum. Or, sod it, make a Parliamentary decision.

    Personally, while I am worried about a no deal Brexit and its consequences, I don't feel that my views on this topic are central to my identity in the way that the polls quoted by Mr Meeks seem to suggest others are. I do feel sad that Britain is dealing with a really important decision in such a cack-handed and amateurish way. That annoys me even more than the actual result. There was, potentially, a grown up way of dealing with Brexit. It has not been the one chosen.

    One of the most common Remainer memes is that Leavers voted to take back control by returning sovereignty to Parliament. They did not. They voted to leave the European Union. They did not vote to give power to Parliament to countermand a decision they have already made.

    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    PS For those who would say that considering the above is giving into intimidation, I hope you adopt the same attitude with the risk of dissident republican violence in Northern Ireland from a No Deal Brexit.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,143
    I’m surprised a few voices are now heard for revocation. That would be a democratic abomination. It’s the Remain version of “No Deal”, i.e. completely unacceptable.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,838
    RoyalBlue said:

    Cyclefree said:

    An interesting article.

    If triangulating between one view and another is not going to work with voters, then there is an argument for saying that MPs may as well vote for what they believe in and then explain themselves to voters honestly. And take the consequences at the next election. Rather than all this disingenuous "well I don't agree but we have to honour the vote" blarney we're getting.

    MPs voted a year ago to leave the EU without a deal. For them now to say that there is no majority for this and therefore there need to be all these procedural shenanigans to get to some alternative destination is the cowardly way out. If they genuinely think that leaving without a deal is the wrong thing to do then they should vote for the only thing that Parliament can do, without the consent of others i.e. revocation, explain why to the voters and then do what should have been done before the Act was enacted on i.e. spell out the options available in the real world, the trade offs, the consequences, what the EU in reality has offered and what it means and either have a GE or a referendum. Or, sod it, make a Parliamentary decision.

    Personally, while I am worried about a no deal Brexit and its consequences, I don't feel that my views on this topic are central to my identity in the way that the polls quoted by Mr Meeks seem to suggest others are. I do feel sad that Britain is dealing with a really important decision in such a cack-handed and amateurish way. That annoys me even more than the actual result. There was, potentially, a grown up way of dealing with Brexit. It has not been the one chosen.

    One of the most common Remainer memes is that Leavers voted to take back control by returning sovereignty to Parliament. They did not. They voted to leave the European Union. They did not vote to give power to Parliament to countermand a decision they have already made.

    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    PS For those who would say that considering the above is giving into intimidation, I hope you adopt the same attitude with the risk of dissident republican violence in Northern Ireland from a No Deal Brexit.
    That's a good point, but you could equally argue they didn't vote on a particular timescale. There is nothing undemocratic about postponing rather than revoking the leave date.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242

    I’m surprised a few voices are now heard for revocation. That would be a democratic abomination. It’s the Remain version of “No Deal”, i.e. completely unacceptable.

    Eg Matthew Parris, this morning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    edited January 12
    RoyalBlue said:

    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    The party system has already collapsed. The third largest party are a narrow special interest vehicle. The second largest party is controlled by a racist with known terrorist contacts. The fourth largest party are an irrelevance living on past glories. The fifth and sixth largest parties are the political wings OF former terrorist organisations. The eighth largest party makes the rest look sane and well-organised. That leaves Sylvia Hermon.

    Theresa May and Philip Hammond, whatever their faults, are the one frail barrier that stand between us and total meltdown. Sadly for us and for them, the meltdown is now being forced on them by he unholiest alliance imaginable of a hard left inadequate, centrist unreconciled Europhiles, and the hard right Eursoceptics of their own party, who are about to deliver no deal.

    We get the politicians we deserve. Boy, have we done something bad as a nation.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588

    On topic, an instance:



    The thread comments so far seem long on wishful thinking and short on actual evidence supporting it.

    It's just an instance though. Leavers will be looking for scapegoats when/if the Brexit project fails (just as Remainers sought scapegoats when the Referendum was lost) and Grieve fits Leavers' bill.

    I suspect history will judge him kindly tbh - principled and effective, he seems to be running rings around the government's business managers.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    That's true of course, and such a reduction may well be necessary Brexit or no-Brexit, but don't underestimate the disruption it would cause.

    Far better if we could have 10 years of house price stagnation.
    A big fall in house prices would make it much harder for first time buyers to get mortgages, and freeze house building. Both of those are recent success stories, so you are correct that it 's better for prices to go nowhere, while wages creep up.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671

    How about:

    No. There are new words!

    ?

    Also true. Or that we need a few anyway.

    One that springs to mind is a new verb for what parliament will have done to the 2016 referendum when it decides for reasons that are quite genuinely in the national interest to revoke article 50 and cancel Brexit.

    All of the usual suspects - ignore, dishonour, renege on, disrespect, trash - are inappropriate because they imply malignity.

    We need a brand new addition to the lexicon. Working on it but, as yet, no breakthrough.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,212

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    You beat me to it, was going to make that exact point.

    Lower house prices are not a bug of brexit, they are a feature.

    A worrying feature for those of us with large mortgages, but an absolute boon to the huge numbers of people who've seen the housing ladder slip away from them in the last fifteen years or so, the fault of successive Conservative and Labour governments.

    Outside of a few outlying areas, usually low income, low job opportunity areas, I doubt you would be able to buy a family sized home for less than 250k these days. You might get a one or two bed flat, but how are you going to start a family and raise kids in that?

    And the thought of saving for a 25k deposit while you're paying through the nose to rent some grotty little place? A laughable idea to many renters.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588

    I’m surprised a few voices are now heard for revocation. That would be a democratic abomination. It’s the Remain version of “No Deal”, i.e. completely unacceptable.

    The difference being of course: No Deal trashes the economy, revocation boosts it.

    Having said that, 'revocation without a further referendum or GE' would imo be untenable; I am not sure anyone is seriously suggesting it though.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,668
    RoyalBlue said:


    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    To be honest, the only thing I would be worried about from a unilateral revocation would be the Conservative vote share dropping from 40% to 20%.

    I'll be honest - I don't talk politics much outside this forum and compared to some posters I don't talk that much about it here either. The effects of the 1975 Referendum weren't long lasting - were they a factor in the rise of Margaret Thatcher? It's hard to argue for their significance given everything else going on at the time.

    Perhaps 2016 will come to be viewed in the same way further down the line as a contributory event along with events of greater significance to promote the zeitgeist of the 2020s.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 981
    edited January 12
    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,814
    edited January 12
    Wikipedia has very little to say about the 'gravy train'. There has been a generation (or more) of MPs that think a sort of fence-sitting is what really works. They've also benefited from the general lavishness with which Europe extends to its appointed parts.

    That view is now obsolete. We find our MPs in three camps

    - the 'well I was always just going to tell you, and you'd better agree'

    - the 'don't change anything, it's the 'gravy train''

    - the 'i think i need to do my job'

    Most MPs are in the second category. Quite a few are in the first, including many people we'd have hoped might have done a good job but haven't.
    Some, very few, are in the latter band.

    Theresa May is, Rory Stewart is, and oddly Ken Clarke is. I can't think of others, I'm sure there are a few. However many MPs are stuck in the first camp - Yvette Cooper is a great example as she's just using her undoubted skills to fight against reality. There's no hope of rescuing the 'gravy train' mob.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394

    I really hope it doesn't happen this way, but the quickest way to reform a national consensus is leaving with no deal and with no referendum.

    I would still ask for evidence that or transport and distribution infrastructure could continue operating in those circumstances, rather than breaking down completely.

    Given that the slightest disruption in "normal" circumstances can lead to major problems. Such as large numbers of people being stranded in snowbound trains in adverse weather conditions, or even larger numbers of people not being able to buy anything owing to relatively minor software glitches.

    Capitalism is a great mechanism for optimising things in normal circumstances, but there's very little incentive for it to produce robustness against extreme circumstances.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242
    kyf_100 said:

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    You beat me to it, was going to make that exact point.

    Lower house prices are not a bug of brexit, they are a feature.

    A worrying feature for those of us with large mortgages, but an absolute boon to the huge numbers of people who've seen the housing ladder slip away from them in the last fifteen years or so, the fault of successive Conservative and Labour governments.

    Outside of a few outlying areas, usually low income, low job opportunity areas, I doubt you would be able to buy a family sized home for less than 250k these days. You might get a one or two bed flat, but how are you going to start a family and raise kids in that?

    And the thought of saving for a 25k deposit while you're paying through the nose to rent some grotty little place? A laughable idea to many renters.

    In Luton, you could get a three bed house for. £170K. Most of the country is similar. London, and other hotspots, are outliers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256

    I’m surprised a few voices are now heard for revocation. That would be a democratic abomination. It’s the Remain version of “No Deal”, i.e. completely unacceptable.

    The difference being of course: No Deal trashes the economy, revocation boosts it.

    Having said that, 'revocation without a further referendum or GE' would imo be untenable; I am not sure anyone is seriously suggesting it though.
    Since there is no time for the former at least, and it is far from clear (as Norm pointed out) that Remain would win a referendum even if it was on the ballot, I'm afraid the conclusion must be that is exactly what they are arguing for.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,848
    ydoethur said:

    We get the politicians we deserve. Boy, have we done something bad as a nation.

    Go on, admit it - who shot God's dog?
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,285

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    That's true of course, and such a reduction may well be necessary Brexit or no-Brexit, but don't underestimate the disruption it would cause.

    Far better if we could have 10 years of house price stagnation.
    Better would be 60 yrs with no nominal price rises, i.e. a real cut ...

    My parents bought their first house for £500 in 1956 (£20,000 now).

    Houses depreciated then, i.e. valuers and buyers were more realistic.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,143

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    You beat me to it, was going to make that exact point.

    Lower house prices are not a bug of brexit, they are a feature.

    A worrying feature for those of us with large mortgages, but an absolute boon to the huge numbers of people who've seen the housing ladder slip away from them in the last fifteen years or so, the fault of successive Conservative and Labour governments.

    Outside of a few outlying areas, usually low income, low job opportunity areas, I doubt you would be able to buy a family sized home for less than 250k these days. You might get a one or two bed flat, but how are you going to start a family and raise kids in that?

    And the thought of saving for a 25k deposit while you're paying through the nose to rent some grotty little place? A laughable idea to many renters.

    In Luton, you could get a three bed house for. £170K. Most of the country is similar. London, and other hotspots, are outliers.
    That would be a high price here, a low price in Gloucestershire, not even an option in most of Devon, and extortionate in Stoke.

    A quick way to look foolish is to generalise about house prices.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,848

    On topic, an instance:



    The thread comments so far seem long on wishful thinking and short on actual evidence supporting it.

    It's just an instance though. Leavers will be looking for scapegoats when/if the Brexit project fails (just as Remainers sought scapegoats when the Referendum was lost) and Grieve fits Leavers' bill.

    I suspect history will judge him kindly tbh - principled and effective, he seems to be running rings around the government's business managers.
    Easy when you have the Speaker fighting your corner, against the precedents the Government's business managers would have expected to be in play.
  • Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Very convincing
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,525
    notme2 said:

    Totally off topic. Has anyone had any dealings with a Confusius Institiute? They seems exceptionally keen to make cultural links. I’ve no problem with the Chinese people, and would not hold them to account for the actions of their government, but should I be concerned that they are operating as a wing of the Chinese Communist Party?

    Yes and no. Like the British Council, they are vaguely associated with the Government, but certainly not responsible for Communist Party policy. If you wish to have some cultural dealings with the Chinese without getting into supporting their government, it's reasonable to work with them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Very convincing
    Afternoon Andy.

    Any news on that source for Grieve announcing his retirement?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,525
    RoyalBlue said:



    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    I do think this is a bit Project Fearish. I reckon that people will generally decide to live with whatever comes out, with a weary shake of the head. There will be a few nutters whatever we do.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,848

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Mostly, it's minimum wage Uber drivers?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,234
    notme2 said:

    Totally off topic. Has anyone had any dealings with a Confusius Institiute? They seems exceptionally keen to make cultural links. I’ve no problem with the Chinese people, and would not hold them to account for the actions of their government, but should I be concerned that they are operating as a wing of the Chinese Communist Party?

    Everything Mainland Chinese is, at least in part, a wing of the PRC, and, by extension, of the Communist Party. As we are seeing with Huawei.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,039
    I would take it up one more level than a tactical vote. I would say that leavers trust the nation state and the institutions of that state to provide for their future in the best way. Remainers have a distrust of the nation state and its institutions and so want external checks and balances to provide the best future for them. Cyclefree used to write good articles on this.

    This is why the current party system is not answering the questions as Mr Meeks correctly IMV says, on this issue it is more than how much welfare spending do you want. It fundamentally is who do you want to control the welfare spending.

    It will not go away because the beliefs are deeply held. Look at Irish unification, Scottish independence, Catalonia. Same basic belief systems.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    edited January 12

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Mostly, it's minimum wage Uber drivers?
    Never used an Uber.

    What drives me is a Skoda Octavia.

    What drives Sunil is on rails - but then he's an unabashed Leaver so is hardly germane to this discussion.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,588

    On topic, an instance:



    The thread comments so far seem long on wishful thinking and short on actual evidence supporting it.

    It's just an instance though. Leavers will be looking for scapegoats when/if the Brexit project fails (just as Remainers sought scapegoats when the Referendum was lost) and Grieve fits Leavers' bill.

    I suspect history will judge him kindly tbh - principled and effective, he seems to be running rings around the government's business managers.
    Easy when you have the Speaker fighting your corner, against the precedents the Government's business managers would have expected to be in play.
    Of course Grieve also has one other advantage the government doesn't: the majority support of the HoC.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    You beat me to it, was going to make that exact point.

    Lower house prices are not a bug of brexit, they are a feature.

    A worrying feature for those of us with large mortgages, but an absolute boon to the huge numbers of people who've seen the housing ladder slip away from them in the last fifteen years or so, the fault of successive Conservative and Labour governments.

    Outside of a few outlying areas, usually low income, low job opportunity areas, I doubt you would be able to buy a family sized home for less than 250k these days. You might get a one or two bed flat, but how are you going to start a family and raise kids in that?

    And the thought of saving for a 25k deposit while you're paying through the nose to rent some grotty little place? A laughable idea to many renters.

    In Luton, you could get a three bed house for. £170K. Most of the country is similar. London, and other hotspots, are outliers.
    That would be a high price here, a low price in Gloucestershire, not even an option in most of Devon, and extortionate in Stoke.

    A quick way to look foolish is to generalise about house prices.
    On checking, it's more like £190 k here, but the point stands.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,848

    On topic, an instance:



    The thread comments so far seem long on wishful thinking and short on actual evidence supporting it.

    It's just an instance though. Leavers will be looking for scapegoats when/if the Brexit project fails (just as Remainers sought scapegoats when the Referendum was lost) and Grieve fits Leavers' bill.

    I suspect history will judge him kindly tbh - principled and effective, he seems to be running rings around the government's business managers.
    Easy when you have the Speaker fighting your corner, against the precedents the Government's business managers would have expected to be in play.
    Of course Grieve also has one other advantage the government doesn't: the majority support of the HoC.
    Set against Grieve are 17.4m voters......
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,913
    RoyalBlue said:


    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    'For too long the liberal elite has appeased the Teutonic hegemony that lurks behind the hated EUSSR, and against all the odds we have won a great victory*. Now is the time to appease the far right rioters & mp killers in our own country.'

    *without a bullet fired, apparently.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited January 12
    malcolmg said:

    people are pig sick of the incompetence and chicanery

    Yes, it has gone beyond entertaining now. The planned process of chucking out the Deal and only then looking for an alternative which probably does not exist is bugging me. I'm getting het up about it and this is not good for a person of my fragile temperament.
  • On topic, an instance:



    The thread comments so far seem long on wishful thinking and short on actual evidence supporting it.

    It's just an instance though. Leavers will be looking for scapegoats when/if the Brexit project fails (just as Remainers sought scapegoats when the Referendum was lost) and Grieve fits Leavers' bill.

    I suspect history will judge him kindly tbh - principled and effective, he seems to be running rings around the government's business managers.
    Easy when you have the Speaker fighting your corner, against the precedents the Government's business managers would have expected to be in play.
    Of course Grieve also has one other advantage the government doesn't: the majority support of the HoC.
    Set against Grieve are 17.4m voters......
    Not much good, sadly, if Parliament decides to revoke.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,371
    If Mr Meek's arguments are correct we can expect the majority of C2's D's and E's to vote Conservative and the majority ofGraduates to vote Labour.

    So instead of this situation being an unstable position it looks like it could solidify.

    However, post Brexit surely the rich will return to voting Conservative and the less rich return to voting Labour?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926

    RoyalBlue said:



    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    I do think this is a bit Project Fearish. I reckon that people will generally decide to live with whatever comes out, with a weary shake of the head. There will be a few nutters whatever we do.
    17.4 million people voted Leave. Let’s pretend 0.1% feel strongly enough and are mad and bad enough to want to commmit violence against those who countermanded the referendum.

    That’s 17,400 people. I would expect several MPs to pay the ultimate price.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,887
    notme2 said:

    Totally off topic. Has anyone had any dealings with a Confusius Institiute? They seems exceptionally keen to make cultural links. I’ve no problem with the Chinese people, and would not hold them to account for the actions of their government, but should I be concerned that they are operating as a wing of the Chinese Communist Party?

    The Confucius institute is part of a serious soft power exercise by the Chinese government that includes the Belt and Road initiative, hospitals in Africa etc. The Confucius Institute is closely based on the German government's Goethe institute. The focus is on language classes and cultural events. You won't be brainwashed but don't expect discussion of controversial topics either.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,371

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,143

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
    Wrong. Crazily wrong.

    Remainers tend be younger, better educated and more liberal. All are classic proxies for openness to change.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    RoyalBlue said:

    Cyclefree said:



    1. Sovereignty was one of the reasons for the Leave vote. We have been a Parliamentary democracy for ages. A little absurd to say that the Leave vote wasn't, in part, about giving Parliament powers some felt had been wrongly given up the EU.

    2. The UK party system is at risk of collapsing now. The Tories seem to have de facto split already. Labour is split between a coterie around the leader & some of its voters & its MPs. It may be no bad thing for there to be a realignment in British politics. I don't think that the viability of the current UK party system is above all other considerations.

    3. No - of course I don't want civil disorder or MPs to be killed. No-one does. But you downplay the risk of civil disorder if there is a no deal Brexit &, say, a serious recession, with voters then saying that this was not what they voted for.

    4. Do I want the rise of the far right? No - nor do I want the rise of the far Left; but the main opposition party is now in its hands. A no deal Brexit would likely provide a fertile ground for the far Left to do its worst, one reason why the Labour leadership is unwilling to come up with a sensible policy. It might well embolden the far right. If Nazis or Commies start stalking the land we confront them. Not run away. We certainly don't inflict economic hardship on people without trying to find an alternative.

    Revocation, as I have said ad nauseam, maintains the status quo. It buys the country much needed time for the country to come to a considered view about what it wants to do, knowing now what withdrawal deal is on offer from the EU, given the red lines May has laid down. It gives the country time to decide whether it agrees with those &, if not, change them. It gives time to prepare. And it gives the country the opportunity to decide whether it really wants to go ahead with the decision it took nearly three years ago.

    The plain fact is that, as far as we can tell, there is no settled view in Parliament about how to leave. There isn't even a settled view on this in Cabinet, for God's sake. So pressing the Pause button, taking a deep breath & thinking again - & hard - is not some evil plot against the voters or against democracy. It may well be the least worst option. If the settled view is for leave then let's try & do it like grown ups. Leaving may well be a mistake (or not). But we could earn some credit by the manner of our departure. We are not currently doing so.

    The more Leavers bang on about the referendum & set their face against another referendum, the more I wonder whether some of them are doing so because they are worried that were the voters to look again at their decision in the light of what we now know they might change their mind.

    Nothing is easy here. I'll admit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    edited January 12
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    You beat me to it, was going to make that exact point.

    Lower house prices are not a bug of brexit, they are a feature.

    A worrying feature for those of us with large mortgages, but an absolute boon to the huge numbers of people who've seen the housing ladder slip away from them in the last fifteen years or so, the fault of successive Conservative and Labour governments.

    Outside of a few outlying areas, usually low income, low job opportunity areas, I doubt you would be able to buy a family sized home for less than 250k these days. You might get a one or two bed flat, but how are you going to start a family and raise kids in that?

    And the thought of saving for a 25k deposit while you're paying through the nose to rent some grotty little place? A laughable idea to many renters.

    In Luton, you could get a three bed house for. £170K. Most of the country is similar. London, and other hotspots, are outliers.
    That would be a high price here, a low price in Gloucestershire, not even an option in most of Devon, and extortionate in Stoke.

    A quick way to look foolish is to generalise about house prices.
    On checking, it's more like £190 k here, but the point stands.
    And so does mine.

    Edit - incidentally, unless you have very substantial savings, you will not get a sufficient mortgage for a 190k house on much less than a £50k salary.

    And by 'substantial' I mean roughly £100k.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,371

    A lot of people wanting to get on the housing ladder would see a 30% drop in house prices as desirable with or without Brexit.

    That's true of course, and such a reduction may well be necessary Brexit or no-Brexit, but don't underestimate the disruption it would cause.

    Far better if we could have 10 years of house price stagnation.
    Better would be 60 yrs with no nominal price rises, i.e. a real cut ...

    My parents bought their first house for £500 in 1956 (£20,000 now).

    Houses depreciated then, i.e. valuers and buyers were more realistic.
    Houses still depreciate. It is the land value which appreciates with the scarcity versus demand for housing land.
  • Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
    Wrong. Crazily wrong.

    Remainers tend be younger, better educated and more liberal. All are classic proxies for openness to change.
    That’s why they are all so scared of having to fill in a few forms to work abroad is it ?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,371
    kinabalu said:

    How about:

    No. There are new words!

    ?

    Also true. Or that we need a few anyway.

    One that springs to mind is a new verb for what parliament will have done to the 2016 referendum when it decides for reasons that are quite genuinely in the national interest to revoke article 50 and cancel Brexit.

    All of the usual suspects - ignore, dishonour, renege on, disrespect, trash - are inappropriate because they imply malignity.

    We need a brand new addition to the lexicon. Working on it but, as yet, no breakthrough.
    Deleave? Debrexit?
  • If Mr Meek's arguments are correct we can expect the majority of C2's D's and E's to vote Conservative and the majority ofGraduates to vote Labour.

    So instead of this situation being an unstable position it looks like it could solidify.

    However, post Brexit surely the rich will return to voting Conservative and the less rich return to voting Labour?

    That supposes that the post Brexit agenda for politics reverts to its pre Brexit form doesn’t it ? I think that’s a big assumption, certainly in the short term.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394
    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:



    Do you want to risk a collapse of the U.K. party system, and the rise of the far right? Do you want civil disorder? Do you want more MPs to be killed? All this and more could result from a unilateral revocation.

    I do think this is a bit Project Fearish. I reckon that people will generally decide to live with whatever comes out, with a weary shake of the head. There will be a few nutters whatever we do.
    17.4 million people voted Leave. Let’s pretend 0.1% feel strongly enough and are mad and bad enough to want to commmit violence against those who countermanded the referendum.

    That’s 17,400 people. I would expect several MPs to pay the ultimate price.
    Blimey, that's several hundred people trying to kill each MP. If they all attacked at once, you'd need a considerable armed force to repel them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671

    I would take it up one more level than a tactical vote. I would say that leavers trust the nation state and the institutions of that state to provide for their future in the best way. Remainers have a distrust of the nation state and its institutions and so want external checks and balances to provide the best future for them. Cyclefree used to write good articles on this.

    This is why the current party system is not answering the questions as Mr Meeks correctly IMV says, on this issue it is more than how much welfare spending do you want. It fundamentally is who do you want to control the welfare spending.

    It will not go away because the beliefs are deeply held. Look at Irish unification, Scottish independence, Catalonia. Same basic belief systems.

    Very good point in your 1st para. Many of the most ardent Remainers are centre ground politically, with a fear & loathing of extreme politics of either right or left, and view the EU as a protection against 'any of that nonsense' here.

    Not sure about your last para though. Scotland, Catalonia, United Ireland, they are movements to achieve nation state status for a territory or people who consider that they should be one. That IMO is different to the other point, which is about the balance of power & responsibilities between the nation state and supranational bodies.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,143

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
    Wrong. Crazily wrong.

    Remainers tend be younger, better educated and more liberal. All are classic proxies for openness to change.
    That’s why they are all so scared of having to fill in a few forms to work abroad is it ?
    Moreover, Remainers tend to work in globalised sectors of the economy, ie those that bring them more often into contact with workers from overseas and indeed working overseas thenselves.

    Your “commentary” reminds me why Remainers cannot reconcile themselves to Leaverdom (which at heart is a nihilist, anti-rationalist revolt steeped in nostalgia).
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,371

    If Mr Meek's arguments are correct we can expect the majority of C2's D's and E's to vote Conservative and the majority ofGraduates to vote Labour.

    So instead of this situation being an unstable position it looks like it could solidify.

    However, post Brexit surely the rich will return to voting Conservative and the less rich return to voting Labour?

    That supposes that the post Brexit agenda for politics reverts to its pre Brexit form doesn’t it ? I think that’s a big assumption, certainly in the short term.
    Disappointingly most people are not altruistic but self interested.
  • I would take it up one more level than a tactical vote. I would say that leavers trust the nation state and the institutions of that state to provide for their future in the best way. Remainers have a distrust of the nation state and its institutions and so want external checks and balances to provide the best future for them. Cyclefree used to write good articles on this.

    This is why the current party system is not answering the questions as Mr Meeks correctly IMV says, on this issue it is more than how much welfare spending do you want. It fundamentally is who do you want to control the welfare spending.

    It will not go away because the beliefs are deeply held. Look at Irish unification, Scottish independence, Catalonia. Same basic belief systems.

    Not sure that is true of Remainers. They just want to be part of a different nation state don’t they - a United States of Europe. That’s why so many Remainers were proclaiming that they were European not British in the referendum campaign.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,814

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
    Wrong. Crazily wrong.

    Remainers tend be younger, better educated and more liberal. All are classic proxies for openness to change.
    There's at least a note of caution in the Remain view. I think you'd really struggle to find anyone that viewed the EU as some great blossoming opportunity.

    The young are better educated and more liberal, so you're just saying Remainers tend to be young.

    Personally I think older people don't like the promised land turning out to be full of unpromising souls such as Juncker - we don't need the EU for that, we're world leaders in produce our own dross.

    Not sure therefore there was anything crazy.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,371
    May needs to remove the whip from the rebel remainer group in her party who are voting with Labour and get new Conservative candidates appointed in their constiuencies ready for a general election.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,143

    May needs to remove the whip from the rebel remainer group in her party who are voting with Labour and get new Conservative candidates appointed in their constiuencies ready for a general election.

    She would lose if she did so.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,143

    I would take it up one more level than a tactical vote. I would say that leavers trust the nation state and the institutions of that state to provide for their future in the best way. Remainers have a distrust of the nation state and its institutions and so want external checks and balances to provide the best future for them. Cyclefree used to write good articles on this.

    This is why the current party system is not answering the questions as Mr Meeks correctly IMV says, on this issue it is more than how much welfare spending do you want. It fundamentally is who do you want to control the welfare spending.

    It will not go away because the beliefs are deeply held. Look at Irish unification, Scottish independence, Catalonia. Same basic belief systems.

    Not sure that is true of Remainers. They just want to be part of a different nation state don’t they - a United States of Europe. That’s why so many Remainers were proclaiming that they were European not British in the referendum campaign.
    More evidence for the prosecution.

    You really know very little, one can only assume you haven’t met one of these “Remainers”. Or none who would admit to you, anyway.
  • Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
    Wrong. Crazily wrong.

    Remainers tend be younger, better educated and more liberal. All are classic proxies for openness to change.
    That’s why they are all so scared of having to fill in a few forms to work abroad is it ?
    Moreover, Remainers tend to work in globalised sectors of the economy, ie those that bring them more often into contact with workers from overseas and indeed working overseas thenselves.

    Your “commentary” reminds me why Remainers cannot reconcile themselves to Leaverdom (which at heart is a nihilist, anti-rationalist revolt steeped in nostalgia).
    Risible really. Why did so many inner city residents, rather than commuters, vote Remain. They don’t work in global industries by and large. Doesn’t explain why financial services practioners like Odey or Hargreaves support Leave either.

    Your comments reek of why Remain lost.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    Omnium said:

    There's at least a note of caution in the Remain view. I think you'd really struggle to find anyone that viewed the EU as some great blossoming opportunity.

    The young are better educated and more liberal, so you're just saying Remainers tend to be young.

    Personally I think older people don't like the promised land turning out to be full of unpromising souls such as Juncker - we don't need the EU for that, we're world leaders in produce our own dross.

    Not sure therefore there was anything crazy.

    It could be 'a great blossoming opportunity.' The really frustrating thing about the EU is you can see the potential. But it isn't at the moment. No organisation that puts (Tusk,) Juncker, Barnier and Selmayr in its most important posts is anything other than a mediocrity.

    I think part of the problem is that it's uncertain about its future direction - does it go for full federation as its politicians desire, or for a full trading arrangement that the people desire without the political rubbish (again, we would get this under the withdrawal agreement, which is even more frustrating)?

    It will soon face a moment of truth, but I am worried not only is it ill-equipped to deal with it but our departure removes one of the potential influences to moderate it.
  • I would take it up one more level than a tactical vote. I would say that leavers trust the nation state and the institutions of that state to provide for their future in the best way. Remainers have a distrust of the nation state and its institutions and so want external checks and balances to provide the best future for them. Cyclefree used to write good articles on this.

    This is why the current party system is not answering the questions as Mr Meeks correctly IMV says, on this issue it is more than how much welfare spending do you want. It fundamentally is who do you want to control the welfare spending.

    It will not go away because the beliefs are deeply held. Look at Irish unification, Scottish independence, Catalonia. Same basic belief systems.

    Not sure that is true of Remainers. They just want to be part of a different nation state don’t they - a United States of Europe. That’s why so many Remainers were proclaiming that they were European not British in the referendum campaign.
    More evidence for the prosecution.

    You really know very little, one can only assume you haven’t met one of these “Remainers”. Or none who would admit to you, anyway.
    You have a convenient memory if you’ve forgotten those.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,143
    Omnium said:

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
    Wrong. Crazily wrong.

    Remainers tend be younger, better educated and more liberal. All are classic proxies for openness to change.
    There's at least a note of caution in the Remain view. I think you'd really struggle to find anyone that viewed the EU as some great blossoming opportunity.

    The young are better educated and more liberal, so you're just saying Remainers tend to be young.

    Personally I think older people don't like the promised land turning out to be full of unpromising souls such as Juncker - we don't need the EU for that, we're world leaders in produce our own dross.

    Not sure therefore there was anything crazy.
    No, sorry.

    Remainers were better educated, even allowing for the age effect.

    This partly helps explains why they were able to see through the fake claims of Leave.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 16,469

    May needs to remove the whip from the rebel remainer group in her party who are voting with Labour and get new Conservative candidates appointed in their constiuencies ready for a general election.

    She would lose if she did so.
    If you mean the vote she is going to do so anyway. If you mean the GE, then you have no more idea on that than I do and certainly a number of those rebels are not popular inn their own constituencies because of their Remain positions.

    Mind you I like party rebels (well most of them) so hope she doesn't.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256

    Brexit, or the lack of Brexit which is sadly becoming more realistic , s bound to continue to be hugely divisive.

    Too many people in the country don’t benefit and haven’t benefitted from Britain’s EU membership That’s evident to anyone who travels around the country. The immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement was huge too but it wouldn’t have had the same effect if membership was benefitting all parts of the country.

    The surprising thing is that deprivation in our society is most keenly felt in our inner cities who, with the exception of Birmingham (just), voted strongly for Remain. They don’t benefit from EU membership either and presumably don’t care.

    Hardly surprising therefore that no one has constructed a deal to satisfy the majority. The Remainers driving Brexit don’t want Brexit and want to stay as close to the EU as possible, even to the extent of giving the EU carte blanche to run our economy afterwards. Neither they nor the Leave supporting MPs have the slightest idea of what they want from Brexit or how they want move forward if it becomes a reality. That is a sad inditement on the intellectual inadequacy of British politics.

    Small wonder that Remainers who hold democracy in contempt like Grieve, Soubry, Greening etc are being allowed to stop Brexit in its tracks.

    You know nothing, utterly nothing, of what drives Remainers.
    Fear of change drives Remainers. But older people are more used to not being in the EU and so don't fear reverting back to being outside the EU.
    Wrong. Crazily wrong.

    Remainers tend be younger, better educated and more liberal. All are classic proxies for openness to change.
    That’s why they are all so scared of having to fill in a few forms to work abroad is it ?
    Moreover, Remainers tend to work in globalised sectors of the economy, ie those that bring them more often into contact with workers from overseas and indeed working overseas thenselves.

    Your “commentary” reminds me why Remainers cannot reconcile themselves to Leaverdom (which at heart is a nihilist, anti-rationalist revolt steeped in nostalgia).
    Risible really. Why did so many inner city residents, rather than commuters, vote Remain. They don’t work in global industries by and large. Doesn’t explain why financial services practioners like Odey or Hargreaves support Leave either.

    Your comments reek of why Remain lost.
    Did they? Stoke, Bury, Bradford and Sunderland, off the top of my head, voted leave.
This discussion has been closed.