The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[lapal_fan]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

since you didn't ask ...... my gripe with most remainers is that when you present them with evidence they ignore it don't rebuttal it and then 5 minutes later claim that it's all about race and nobody provides answers

I didn't ask because I didn't think anyone on here was retarded enough to vote out  

 

And that's 5 minutes, so shut up you racist.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, Awol said:

the things people generally voted Out to achieve

What were these things? Was it 350 million quid a week for the NHS? Was it to remain in the single market and also to stop immigration? was it to give the Government a kicking? or Labour a Kicking? or was it because they don't like the way fishing is managed, or the way the country is very much more of a mixed nationality sort of make up? or was it for fear of terrorists coming from Syria? or was it for an "Australian style points system" or was it to "take control" (of, er, something or other), or was it for "sovereignty"

I don't suppose there was one single reason, or even two single reasons. Commentators seem to have decided immigration was one reason, based on vox pops and such like. Though to be more accurate, fear of immigration, rather than the reality seems more likely - low immigration areas voted more "out" and high immigration more "in" (with a few exceptions).

There's definitely a current fad for the Gov't to be speaking in UKIP-ese with rhetoric about foreigners and "sticking up for the hard done by" - but that's just a fashion, following on from "hard working families" and "alarm clock Britain" and Worcester woman" and all the other gibberish that politicians come up with.

And it's not got any clearer since, really, with "Brexit means Brexit" and "the best possible deal" being about the level of detail provided.

[Awol]

Pete, Lord Ashcroft did the most comprehensive polling immediately after the result and found the most popular reason for voting out was national sovereignty.

That's potentially a fairly broad church of motivations but would primarily involve the supremacy of UK domestic law and political institutions over foreign courts and political institutions. 

The second highest scoring response was immigration and IIRC, the sample size was around 10,000. 

Taken together that would indicate people were voting for the core themes which the Leave campaign proposed, none of which are compatible with membership of the customs union.

I think a great many Leavers knew exactly what they were voting for, but it suits Remainers to suggest that they didn't (or were simply covering for their retarded racism) in order to fight a rear guard action against Brexit. 

Still it's pretty academic now, we will end up leaving the single market and going down the free trade route, however much the Tories may actually wish to avoid it. Anything else is political suicide. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Awol

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, Awol said:

Still it's pretty academic now, we will end up leaving the single market and going down the free trade route, however much the Tories may actually wish to avoid it. Anything else is political suicide. 

Remaining in the single market was a specific Tory manifesto commitment, was it not?

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Pete, Lord Ashcroft did the most comprehensive polling immediately after the result and found the most popular reason for voting out was national sovereignty.

That's potentially a fairly broad church of motivations but would primarily involve the supremacy of UK domestic law and political institutions over foreign courts and political institutions. 

The second highest scoring response was immigration and IIRC, the sample size was around 10,000. 

Taken together that would indicate people were voting for the core themes which the Leave campaign proposed, none of which are compatible with membership of the customs union.

I think a great many Leavers knew exactly what they were voting for, but it suits Remainers to suggest that they didn't (or were simply covering for their retarded racism) in order to fight a rear guard action against Brexit. 

Still it's pretty academic now, we will end up leaving the single market and going down the free trade route, however much the Tories may actually wish to avoid it. Anything else is political suicide. 

free trade... you can't possibly be serious?

Edited October 12, 2016 by villakram
edit: all the silly whitespace

[chrisp65]

it'll be interesting to see if others follow Tesco, or choose to take advantage of the lack of Persil on Tesco's shelves

Dutch company Unilever trying to hike their prices due to the crash in the sterling exchange rate.

 

 

 

I guess the real question, is will the consumer back Tesco, or run to Sainsbury for their very british colmans mustard and bovril and PG tips...

[snowychap]

The overly frequent use of the phrase 'the British people voted for' (or something similar) by politicians when talking about the result of the referendum is rather disturbing.

There were not just 17.471 million votes cast in the referendum and the British people is a more populous constituency than that, Mr Davis.

[Xann]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

...the crash in the sterling exchange rate...

An impressive 168 year low.

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

An impressive 168 year low.

A "welcome change " if you listen to Lord King former Bank of England governor and presumably more knowledgable about these things than VillaTalks finest minds 

[Xann]

In all honesty Tone, I don't know if it it'll work out economically or not? Neither does Mervyn, who you selectively quote.

My thoughts on economies is that they should serve the people not vice versa. If the UK sorts that out first - Great!

My concerns are more social and environmental.

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Xann

[tonyh29]

If you concerns were social and environmental why a cheap shot at the £ ?  I'd have thought you would have welcomed it , have a read up on it as I'm not sure a lot of the public understand what the low £ actually means ... 

£ has been too high for years what we've got is a readjustment without a lot of the pain 

 

 

 

[villakram]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

A "welcome change " if you listen to Lord King former Bank of England governor and presumably more knowledgable about these things than VillaTalks finest minds 

Lord King.

This ^&%*^%^... he presided over a big huge bubble in the UK economy, the LIBOR/GOLD/and who knows what else fixing scandals, where by fixing I mean rigging, and of course he didn't see the massive crash coming. So, yes take the opinion of this peer scumbag who should be in prison over those who may know a thing or two and are not politically constrained in our/their opinions like the esteemed Mr. King.

... and regarding Sterling's depreciation. Yes, it *might* be a huge boon for the UK exporter eventually, but *will* result in inflation across the board  for UK citizens now and the UK current account is a mess, which is finally being giving the attention it deserves given the huge government debt of the UK. On Bloomberg this morning, they were comparing Sterling to an emerging market currency. Brexit turns the UK into a little fish in big water and the neither the UK economy nor its citizenry is prepared for that reality.  

Edited October 12, 2016 by villakram
edit: all the silly whitespace

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

A "welcome change " if you listen to Lord King former Bank of England governor

Did he have a fan chart with him representing the probabilities of just how welcome/unwelcome this change might be?

[Awol]

7 hours ago, peterms said:

Remaining in the single market was a specific Tory manifesto commitment, was it not?

No idea, but seems a strange thing to promise when Cameron wouldn't countenance the possibility of leaving the EU? Why else would they need to make such a promise?

 

6 hours ago, villakram said:

free trade... you can't possibly be serious?

Why not? An FTA with the UK post Brexit would represent their single largest free trade deal? It's odd to believe they wouldn't want it.

[chrisp65]

might be worth reminding ourselves now and again what the question was

in very round numbers, of the 45,000,000 eligible voters, 17,000,000 voted leave and 16,000,000 voted remain, whilst 12,000,000 didn't vote

nobody and no vox pop or sample will tell us why millions upon millions voted the way they did

It's certainly the case that if you study the breakdown by area of how people voted  there appears to be some correlation between affluent areas voting remain and poorer areas voting leave. For me, this suggests people in good houses in good areas by good schools Monmouthshire didn't want to risk the status quo. People seeing massive inward investment in Cardiff liked it as it was. Whereas people without jobs or prospects in Merthyr or Bridgend saw through having no future and weren't being fobbed off with a multi million pound art installation and interactive library hub. For all the hysterical anecdotes, we simply don't know that 17,000,000 people really wanted an end to immigration and an end to the single market.

Leave won. We should leave. Everyone agrees it was a piss poor campaign by both sides. Personally, I believe it was the lazy fearful remain campaign that lost it when compounded by the ridiculous lack of media scrutiny of the leave campaign claims. But it was a close run thing as to who was most crap. But leave won.

That Theresa May is now an unelected PM trying to work this out in secret. Work out what it meant but more importantly, working out how to stay in power. What's new? We don't ever get to vote for the PM. We can't openly debate for ever what we want from the rest of the EU as our divorce settlement.

That we have a tory government deciding on all of this. Well that's what happens when 37% of the 66% of the electorate that voted, voted conservative.

That's democracy. If people don't like it. Perhaps we have the wrong model.

Now, if the numbers in the above don't look like a very appealing form of democracy, don't even begin to look at EU democracy.

Perhaps what we need is a fundamental change in the education system to teach everyone how to question, how to fact check, how to think independently and not take shit at face value, how to be involved. Or, if it's easier, we could just educate 20% in grammar schools. Let's have a look at exactly how many voted for that little gem.

  

 

[OutByEaster?]

It's not difficult to understand why it's a struggle to pin down people's reasons for voting leave - we had a huge campaign that was based on just about anything other than 'reasons' to leave or stay - if stay had won, then I'm sure the exact same would be true and we'd be struggling to understand exactly why people voted to stay.

The referendum campaigns in my opinion were notable for their failure to educate or inform the electorate on the subject being voted on; it wasn't even attempted. Instead we had a shouting match of slogans and scary warnings (from both sides) that showed a complete and utter contempt for the electorate and for people outside of the political bubble in general.

If we want better ways of doing things, we need to educate our young people on how the world around them works, on how political systems function, how banking and finance systems function, the political function of the military, how social programs function and how they can affect and influence the world around them. (We could make room in the curriculum by removing religion.)

People who are deliberately separated from real information make choices based on feelings and hunches that they can't necessarily link to this law, that policy or this detail - I don't think we should be angry at those people for that - I think we should be angry, but I think that anger should be aimed elsewhere.

 

[tonyh29]

39 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

if stay had won, then I'm sure the exact same would be true and we'd be struggling to understand exactly why people voted to stay.

Just with fair less wailing , nashing of teeth and airs of superiority  

[StefanAVFC]

 

[HanoiVillan]

9 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

A "welcome change " if you listen to Lord King former Bank of England governor and presumably more knowledgable about these things than VillaTalks finest minds 

Britain imports more than it exports, so a very weak pound will lead to price rises for consumers. 

It's up to individuals to decide whether that benefits them or not. 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

That's democracy.

No, that's a form of democracy as you later (hopefully) allude to by talkibng about 'the wrong model' (I don't believe you're suggesting a jaunt down totalitarian avenue with this comment).