[Closed] Can Someone explain link between GE result and Brexit

Labour Brexit policy looks much the same as May's version really, despite a few encouraging words dressing it up.

Because of that, most people voted based on all the issues other than Brexit, in Labour/Conservative marginal seats.

Still waiting to here why a hard brexit is such a good idea.... Do I need to get a good book?

Hard Brexit is great if you want big corporations to be able to take back control.

and yet even the corporations are saying they really don't want it as it hurts them.

.OP the truth is the GE 85% of the people voted for a hard Brexit at the GE, ie leave the EU, end freedom of movement, end single market membership, end customs union membership. 594 seats out of 650. Had Labour not supported those things the result woukd have been rather different IMO

Good lord Jamba, even for you that's a funny version of the truth. I'd love to know if you really believe it or you just post it for attention.

OP...

You're obviously new round here....

But here's a pointer....

If chewkw is your only flag waver...... it's time to get a different flag!

Still waiting to here why a hard brexit is such a good idea

I'm still waiting to hear why any Brexit is a good idea, TBH. Even the OP has failed to explain why they're crossing their fingers for a hard Brexit despite being asked a couple of times, five pages in now.

[quote=spw3 ]Then ignore him. But the insults in this thread have gone a bit far I think.

I know we've moved on from this, and not wanting to stir it up, but point of order here, the worst insults I can find on here are:
[quote=PJM1974 ]I think that it's probably for the best if our troll friend sits out the remainder of the thread, don't you guys?
Chewkw, your response is neither required, nor wanted.

and
[quote=BoardinBob ]Can you imagine being stuck in the same office as that clown?
£100 says he's universally despised by all his colleagues

am I missing something, or is this accusation of horrible insults being thrown around #fakenews (TBH the reason I checked is that such accusations rarely seem to be backed up by the facts)?

Personally I just blocked chewy recently, as I got bored, and having never been a fan of doing that I've been surprised how refreshing it makes reading threads like this.

[quote=Cougar ]I'm still waiting to hear why any Brexit is a good idea, TBH.

Interestingly I've seen an argument, which appears to be valid, that there are some benefits to hard Brexit, but none at all to soft Brexit. Of course such an argument doesn't mean either that hard Brexit is a good idea, or even that hard Brexit is preferable to soft Brexit (and the person posting wasn't suggesting either of those), but it's an interesting perspective that soft Brexit doesn't gain us anything at all, whilst hard Brexit does.

[quote=oldnpastit ]

OP the truth is the GE 85% of the people voted for a hard Brexit at the GE, ie leave the EU, end freedom of movement, end single market membership, end customs union membership. 594 seats out of 650.

I'll help jamba out a bit here (before shooting him down). The Labour Party manifesto also says:

Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.

Which is I presume what he's relying on for that claim. However as you pointed out it also says:

strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.

My conclusion: the Brexit part of the Labour manifesto is inherently contradictory and it's impossible to achieve all of the purported aims. For all of jamba's reliance upon them I suspect that the words about Freedom of Movement are being disingenuous - if you ninfan it, you realise it is simply a statement of fact, it says nothing about what will be negotiated as part of the deal to retain access to the Single Market, which is part of what they will "put first".

Of course that is all ignoring the complete fallacy of the claim about people voting for a hard Brexit - as it happens I did vote Lib Dem (fat lot of good it did, though voting Labour would have made no difference either), but in a different constituency I would have voted Labour in the hope of a coalition being formed between Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, which would quite surely have resulted in a significant move away from hard Brexit, if not having the whole thing cancelled. Given however optimistically you looked at the polls there was no realistic chance of a Labour majority, I'd suggest it's quite reasonable to claim that a vote for Labour was a vote for such a Brexit cancelling coalition.

strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.

How many times do the EU have to state that fact for our politicians/ the people to accept that you are not going to get a sweet deal?

So Labour the SNP and others should actually state. "We will stay in the single market, customs union and accept free movement of EU citizens" rather than making these fallacious claims.

I'll await the barrage 🙂

I keep hearing these claims from those that want a softer exit from the EU. The truth is, it ain't going to happen, unless you accept the founding principle of freedom of movement.

I have some sympathy there. Which is why on one of these threads (I forget which) I suggested no Brexit is back on the table even though no one is saying it publicly (I don't count).

I keep hearing these claims from those that want a softer exit from the EU. The truth is, it ain't going to happen, unless you accept the founding principle of freedom of movement.

This is true. There is no such thing as a soft brexit. The best soft brexit deal we could possibly have is the one we've currently got. Anything else is just a deterioration of what we have already. I was and still am on the fence regarding brexit, but my view is that if we do have brexit it has to be and can only be a hard brexit. The whole point of brexit is to free us from the shackles of the EU so we can become masters of our own destiny and look outwards into the world and deal with the rest of the world without having to answer to anyone else. That is the only hope that brexit has of being a success. Anything else is not brexit.

The EU will not allow us to have access to the market AND be released form freedom of movement and the law making machine of the EU. They just won't as the effect on the rest of the EU will be huge and threaten the whole project. We cannot be seen to be benefitting from leaving the EU. That is their red line. May knows this hence the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' as she's teeing up the possibility/probability of a hard brexit. She was going to try to get the 'cake and eat it' deal, but knows full well we don't have a cat in hells chance of getting it, and anything else is a bad deal.

Having said all that i'm not sure brexit is back on the table. I think the 'stupid people' knew exactly that when they voted in the referendum for brexit they had squarely in their mind a hard brexit. However the longer all this drags on the uncertainty is bound to have an impact on the economy and people might start to wobble. I suspect this is the tactic of the remainders - to stall proceedings as long as possible to try to force a second referendum.

No second referendum. They are fundamentally undemocratic with their false binary choices. You couldn't come up with a question everyone would agree on anyway. Just cancel Brexit.

The whole point of brexit is to free us from the shackles of the EU so we can become masters of our own destiny and look outwards into the world and deal with the rest of the world without having to answer to anyone else

Really? Most every 'reason' I heard (including immediate family, we are sharply divided) has been either 'sick of immigrants taking our jobs/eroding Englishness' and/or general dissatisfaction with the economy/Cameron's government, 'North/South divide' and class issues. It just seemed like a general protest vote in the midst of austerity. The puppeteers who engineered this somehow managed to remain (sic) hidden in plain sight.

well, May seems to be pressing on regardless anyway despite the interventions of 2 former Tory PMs, so perhaps the OP will get what he wants.

well, May seems to be pressing on regardless anyway

Yes heard that, she really doesn't seem to understand democracy or working together.

OP the truth is the GE 85% of the people voted for a hard Brexit at the GE,

An obvious lie. At least chewy is amusing - Jamba is at best tedious and at worst dangerous.

Of course May is pushing on. She is the Prime Minister and 85% of voters voted for parties supporting her vision of Brexit

85% of voters voted for parties supporting her vision of Brexit

Liar.

But less than half of voters want her to deliver it

Folks, let Jamba have his grieving process for hard Brexit. He's in the denial stage. Let him have that.

After all the Brexies were supportive when we lost a future of prosperity, peace and international cooperation in June 16.

She is the Prime Minister and 85% of voters voted for parties supporting her vision of Brexit

I see that 6 pages in we are still waiting for the OP, Chewy or Jamby to tell us what the benefits of Brexit are.

If it's 'to free us from the shackles of the EU', that's a bit like saying you want to go and live in a field to free you from the shackles of living in a house. Who needs a roof, warmth, running water and sanitation?

I voted Labour and successfully dislodged our sitting Tory MP. It's the first time in nearly 40 years of voting I've ever voted for someone who got elected, but I'm not happy as my conscience wanted me to vote LD. In my constituency that would have been a wasted vote, given our fatally flawed electoral system, so I voted tactically to deny May her mandate for a hard Brexit.

jambalaya - Member

Of course May is pushing on. She is the Prime Minister and 85% of voters voted for parties supporting her vision of Brexit

That's not true.

Repeating something that isn't true doesn't make it true. That's not how truth works. Sorry.

Have we reached post post-truth yet?

She has a vision of Brexit?
When did she share that with everyone?

^ 😀

I don't think people know what the hell is going on. It feels like the villagers put the EU on the stake and lit the fire. Now they are all running around knowing that it could be the wrong enemy/victim they are burning. But to save face they are simply hoping for a strong wind and a fast burn.

I don't know why you're all trying to claim "hard Brexit" is dead… is it just to antoganise Jamba?
Given the timescales are tightening, it is looking more rather than less likely, unfortunately.

kelvin - Member
I don't know why you're all trying to claim "hard Brexit" is dead… is it just to antoganise Jamba?
Given the timescales are tightening, it is looking more rather than less likely, unfortunately.

I don't know why you're all trying to claim "hard Brexit" is dead… is it just to antoganise Jamba?
Given the timescales are tightening, it is looking more rather than less likely, unfortunately.

It was Theresa May's vision. She called the GE explicitly to get an endorsement of that vision and spectacularly failed to get it.

Of course with the help of the DUP, and if the Conservatives don't fall apart, she can keep it alive.

It would be foolish to claim it's dead, but it's certainly quite poorly.

I fully believe that the sensible thing would be a cross-party approach to brexit. For one I would like to see Sir Keir Starmer in the negoitating team. However I dont think Labour have said they would agre to it (havent read all previous pages). Also I think while it would be 'for the greater good' to have a cross-party brexit apraoc, it would be detrimental to Labour. If Brexit goes well, tories will claim all the credit as its a tory govt., if it goes poorly, just say it was labours fault and they should have done it alone.

Two things:

Firstly, I wish to apologise for my attitude towards chewkw. I've had a great deal of frustration at his posting style, his repeated assertions without citation and his annoying habit of repetitively posting the same thing again and again. However, I went too far in my criticism and I regret losing my temper at him.

Secondly, I think Macron's words yesterday were very encouraging. Of course, we can't expect the EU to tear up Article 50 and pretend that it has never happened, but there's a deeper need for reform of our media and politics here too.

The EU have been the convenient excuse for all that's wrong in politics for too long. My (pro remain) MP tells me that we can't renationalise the railways because the EU won't allow it. My father (aged 83) thinks that his mobility allowance was stopped because of an "EEC directive". He doesn't understand that the cuts came from closer to home. If I may reference chewkw for a moment, he always refers to the "EU bureaucratic system", without any acknowledgement of the fact that the EU brings a huge amount of trade and has invested all over Europe. Britain is hugely divided, economically. We've not distributed money to our regions in terms of investment as fairly as we should have. It's no wonder that people in deprived areas see the EU as a gravy train and want to lash out at something. For that, we need to continue to hold our politicians to account and never let them off the hook. There's clearly an agenda in the press, who've been allowed to exert an unhealthy amount of influence upon our politicians. One positive from last week's result was the realisation that there is a limit to the amount of vitriol that the voting public will accept from angry white geriatric men in the media.

While it's easy to feel a little sorry for Theresa May and those Conservative MPs facing financial hardship because they've lost their seats, we need to remember the poor and sick who are demonised on Channel 5 and in the press every day and who suffer at the hands of a callous benefits system that costs more to run than any tangible advantage in cutting the welfare bill.

he always refers to the "EU bureaucratic system"

Which is disingenuous in itself.

The UK has elected parliament members who make decisions and pass legislation, supported and administered by an unelected civil service. In stark contrast, the EU has elected parliament members who make decisions and pass actual legislation, supported and administered by an unelected civil service.

My conclusion: the Brexit part of the Labour manifesto is inherently contradictory and it's impossible to achieve all of the purported aims.

Replicating the other conclusion: that the arguments to leave the EU are inherently contradictory and it's impossible to achieve all of the purported aims.

"EU bureaucratic system"

this fave quote of chewks betrays a staggering amount of ignorance

My (pro remain) MP tells me that we can't renationalise the railways because the EU won't allow it

Which leads to a question, how privatised are DB, SNCF etc. Who pushed the agenda, the UK pushed for the inclusion of Poland et al into the EU.

A Privatised railway needn't be a bad thing, the issue is how and for whom. Switzerland does have some private railways, as does Japan and they seem to work ok. The UKs are simply crap.

Every country has a different situation and history. Particularly where railways are concerned.

I see that 6 pages in we are still waiting for the OP, Chewy or Jamby to tell us what the benefits of Brexit are.

Therefore, the whole argument should really be put back to the people for a second vote.

1) Hard Brexit. Leave customs union, single market, freedom of movement.
2) Scrap the original vote and remain as a fully paid up member, with all of the above as they were.

A watered down brexit will not appease those who voted to leave and the issue will rumble on for years with a great many from both sides feeling aggrieved.

But the whole point flanagaj is that no-one has put forward any sensible reasons for leaving or what advantages it brings. That was the case with the referendum (no real arguments put forward) and it continues.

I am not going to rekindle that discussion. There are opposing viewpoints from across the spectrum and we have already discovered that reaching a consensus will not happen.

See, I really don't think this is true. I have never seen a Brexiter explain the benefits of Brexit. If you know what they are, I'd really like you to tell us about them.

Because the majority of people are vocal about it being a really bad idea

Once again, I feel as though you have made a sweeping generalisation based on your own biased interpretation.

I am not going to rekindle that discussion.

That's a no then? Since I've not seen any discussion anywhere that brings forward any creditable case for Brexit beyond vague promises of 'taking back control'. I'm genuinely interested.

Once again, I feel as though you have made a sweeping generalisation based on your own biased interpretation.

Once again, I offer you the chance to tell us why it is a good idea. If you are so keen on it, your reluctance to even try to make a case for it is puzzling.

Therefore, the whole argument should really be put back to the people for a second vote.

1) Hard Brexit. Leave customs union, single market, freedom of movement.
2) Scrap the original vote and remain as a fully paid up member, with all of the above as they were.

I agree that this is a sensible way forward. However, we need to keep Big Data away from any Referendum Two campaign and focus on what we know and the benefits / disadvantages of either option.

Also, Government needs to pony up some money to remedy the real causes of disquiet - homes, jobs, communities and infrastructure.

It's obvious that policies of low income tax, high purchase taxes and elaborate ways around the tax system for the very wealthy have had their day.

Therefore, the whole argument should really be put back to the people for a second vote.

1) Hard Brexit. Leave customs union, single market, freedom of movement.
2) Scrap the original vote and remain as a fully paid up member, with all of the above as they were.

I agree. Given the array of possibilities, the choice of implementing any particular Brexit strategy must be given to the people as well.

Teresa going off and delivering upon us whatever she chooses on the basis of the referendum result is as ridiculous as me ticking a box on an estate agent's website saying "I'd like to buy a house in London", and them saying "Here's your house, you owe us £1.72m."

Erm, what?

It's a modern mystery........Only hardline Brexiters know the benefit of Brexit? They cannot tell the undecided or the remainder? How did they find out the secret in the 1st place? Does sharing the benefits somehow water them down?

I think that some think Brexit will allow us to replace the trade we would lose with the EU with increased trade elsewhere. But that seems to be just a supposition without any kind of plan or evidence, as far as I can see.

A watered down brexit will not appease those who voted to leave and the issue will rumble on for years with a great many from both sides feeling aggrieved.

agreed if only the tories had managed to contain their internal bickerings about EU membership...

How many threads do you knobbers need to argue about the same thing?

dumbbot - Member
How many threads do you knobbers need to argue about the same thing?

i wouldnt underestimate the power of brexshit

As I understand it from lurking on various conservative message boards (know your enemy) and reading the various news quotes from Brexiteers, some of the intended 'benefits' are as follows:

1) The opportunity to scrap an enormous burden of legislation, some of it admittedly arcane and to start from scratch.

2) To cause a severe shock to the UK economy, to force a restructure and eventual recovery. This approach is sometimes known as 'Disaster Capitalism'.

3) To erode and repeal EU legislation protecting the workforce - note the language from pro-Brexit MPs proclaiming protection for employee rights in the workplace - which most workers will not be afford to enforce through tribunal courts since a fee was introduced. There's a strong drive amongst Brexiteers to take advantage of our low skill, poor productivity workforce as the cheaper option to fixing the skills and productivity gap, which requires investment.

A lot of the thinking is based on the experience of European economies in the immediate post war period, the restructures inevitably paved the way for prosperity for countries like Germany. Of course, they neglect to mention the existence of The Marshall Plan...

You can see why 'benefits' 2 and 3 are not too widely broadcast!

1) yet we will be replacing it all as is with the repeal bill!
are they really arcane or a burden?

the other massive headache is that as laws are constantly changing the ones we keep we will have to update them as the EU does, we will be replicating a huge amount of bureaucracy

2) those comments made by Nigel Lawson would seem to confirm that

3) oh great

You can see why the Leave campaign focussed on immigration and nationalism, because it had dick-all else to offer, unless you were a millionaire business owner in the insurance sector, for example.

Still waiting...

[img] [/img]

the other massive headache is that as laws are constantly changing the ones we keep we will have to update them as the EU does, we will be replicating a huge amount of bureaucracy

Yes, in the short term, the idea is to cut and paste the legislation to the UK however that then becomes the motivating factor to slash and burn later on. Will the likely outcome be that enhanced employee rights are enshrined in law, or that they will be the first thing a hard right Tory government takes an axe to, while Dacre and Murdoch will continue to inform us that we're "getting our country back" and that it's our patriotic duty to suck it up?

while Dacre and Murdoch will continue to inform us that we're "getting our country back" and that it's our patriotic duty to suck it up

As far as I have been able to ascertain throughout this whole mess, is that "take back control" does not apply to anyone other than a very narrow elite. And by "take back", what they really mean is "take more".

That's the great lie of Brexit - it's is motivated not through patriotism or some sense of setting out Good Ship Blighty on a new voyage of discovery, but from an insatiable greed for money and power. British history is littered with it (largely by looting foreign lands), and so the past continues to repeat itself.

PJM, why the insurance sector? Massive benefits to the insurance sector of being part of the single market.

It'll be interesting to see the reaction from the Leave side of the fence (I'm not using that f***ing word) once there's a costed plan in place and they can finally putting a figure on "Getting back control". Will it be £100s or £1000s each? That'll focus minds. . . .

Would also be interesting to see right now what this monster clusterfudge has cost already in wasted effort, productivity, jobs, currency fluctuations, not to mention an inconclusive general election and all the fallout from that.

I half believe that they're slowly managing expectations to a damp squib following the big reveal of our very limited options once it all runs through. After all it does seem the options from Europe are all but total exit or stay in with egg on your face.

The "government" can promise all they like but it's the EU who will decide what shaped ball we get to play with.

PJM1974 - Member

As I understand it from lurking on various conservative message boards (know your enemy) and reading the various news quotes from Brexiteers, some of the intended 'benefits' are as follows:

1) The opportunity to scrap an enormous burden of legislation, some of it admittedly arcane and to start from scratch.

2) To cause a severe shock to the UK economy, to force a restructure and eventual recovery. This approach is sometimes known as 'Disaster Capitalism'.

3) To erode and repeal EU legislation protecting the workforce - note the language from pro-Brexit MPs proclaiming protection for employee rights in the workplace - which most workers will not be afford to enforce through tribunal courts since a fee was introduced. There's a strong drive amongst Brexiteers to take advantage of our low skill, poor productivity workforce as the cheaper option to fixing the skills and productivity gap, which requires investment.

A lot of the thinking is based on the experience of European economies in the immediate post war period, the restructures inevitably paved the way for prosperity for countries like Germany. Of course, they neglect to mention the existence of The Marshall Plan...

Posted 1 hour ago #

Please continue to focus on this. Ask yourself what the uber-rich Brexiteers have to gain by supporting Brexit - then you have your answer.

Point 3 is particularly apposite and they were straining at the leash behind May in the run-up to the GE. "Keep quiet until after we have our enhanced majority, lads, then we'll let you do what you like in the interests of 'economic competition'".

Happily the enhanced majority didn't materialise and the result offers more than a glimmer of hope for the vast majority of us for whom Brexit is going to be a disaster (irrespective of which way we actually voted in the referendum).

PJM, why the insurance sector? Massive benefits to the insurance sector of being part of the single market.

Arron Banks

Just looked him up. What a delightful character!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks

UK motor insurance. No EU trade.

Asked if his companies paid full corporation tax, Banks "I paid over £2.5m of income tax last year ... My insurance business, like a lot of them, is based in Gibraltar but I've got UK businesses as well that deal with customers and pay tax like everyone else."[31] One of the UK businesses of which Banks is director, Rock Services Ltd, had a turnover of £19.7m last year and paid corporation tax of £12,000. The company deducted £19.6m in "administrative expenses", and the main activity appears to be "recharge of goods and services" with Southern Rock Insurance Company.[31] Southern Rock Insurance states on its website that it underwrites policies for the customers of GoSkippy.com, which is run by Banks. Because it is based in Gibraltar, there is little information available on it.

Rock Services and Southern Rock Insurance's ultimate holding company is Rock Holdings Ltd, a company based on the Isle of Man.[31] Banks has also been a "substantial" shareholder in STM Fidecs, of which Leave.EU is a subsidiary; the company claims to be specialising in "international wealth protection", maximising tax efficiencies for entrepreneurs and expatriates and of "structuring international groups, particularly separating and relocating intellectual property and treasury functions to low- or no-tax jurisdictions".[58]

As if by magic, the Independent have an article on this very scenario: [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-privitisation-perfect-cover-for-tories-a7789141.html ]Here[/url]

Just looked him up. What a delightful character!

And he was one of the biggest - if not [i]the[/i] biggest - funding sources for the leave campaign. He pumped millions into Leave.EU (IIRC).

Just reading up on Arron Banks' bio:

One of the UK businesses of which Banks is director, Rock Services Ltd, had a turnover of £19.7m last year and paid corporation tax of £12,000. The company deducted £19.6m in "administrative expenses", and the main activity appears to be "recharge of goods and services" with Southern Rock Insurance Company.

I think we have identified our chief villain.

I wonder if "control of our own laws" will encourage Arron to pay taxes that he currently dodges?

Can I just say, whatever his politics, flanagaj was honourable and prompt in paying up on the £1 bet on the Labour-SNP coalition.
So fast in fact that I'm not spending it yet as I'm not convinced May's coalition of chaos with the DUP will actually hold long enough to prevent a more sensible coalition.

However I don't think a second referendum is a good idea. I have no doubt that a costed hard Brexit option would lose, but it would reinforce the divisions in society that the leave campaign initiated before and after last June. We shouldn't do this sort of thing by referenda if we value a cohesive British society.

However I don't think a second referendum is a good idea.

You're right. It should be best of three.

Nooooooooo....

It'll be interesting to see the reaction from the Leave side of the fence (I'm not using that f***ing word) once there's a costed plan in place and they can finally putting a figure on "Getting back control". Will it be £100s or £1000s each? That'll focus minds. . . .

Arron Banks.

And he was one of the biggest - if not the biggest - funding sources for the leave campaign. He pumped millions into Leave.EU (IIRC).

[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks ]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks[/url]

Read that Brexit fanboys.

Unless you are already part of the billionaire club I will just pop up another wiki link:

[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot ]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot[/url]

How, how can any normal (or even wealthy by reasonable standards) person continue to be so deluded as to think Brexit is a good idea.

Shouty capitals time, because it really is worth it.......

YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED BY THE ULTRA-RICH INTO GIVING UP YOUR EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF HARD BREXIT. WHATEVER REASONS YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE VOTING FOR ARE UNLIKELY TO COME TO FRUITION UNLESS YOU WERE VOTING TO MAKE THE OBSCENELY RICH EVEN RICHER AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OF US.

Please just admit it, you were done up like a kipper.

No insults there, no need for tell-taling. 'Useful idiots' is a common usage and conveys the correct level of cynicism on the part of the people pulling the strings.

One of the UK businesses of which Banks is director, Rock Services Ltd, had a turnover of £19.7m last year and paid corporation tax of £12,000. The company deducted £19.6m in "administrative expenses", and the main activity appears to be "recharge of goods and services" with Southern Rock Insurance Company.

Nice of him to leave a derisory hundred grand to be token-taxed. A very eloquent two fingers to all of us. Classy.

ourmaninthenorth - Member

However I don't think a second referendum is a good idea.

You're right. It should be best of three.

igm - Member
Nooooooooo....

It should best of five ... five thousand (5,000) that is ... 😆

Edit: Breaking news - Tim "shouty shouty" Farron has resigned due to his personal belief apparently ... 😯

I suspect that the words about Freedom of Movement are being disingenuous - if you ninfan it, you realise it is simply a statement of fact, it says nothing about what will be negotiated as part of the deal to retain access to the Single Market, which is part of what they will "put first"

I wouldn't be so sure on that. What was largely, or even wholly, ignored during the referendum debates were the left wing arguments for leaving. By this I mean the far left of British politics, including the British Communist Party, The Morning Star, several socialist Labour MPs, a large number of trade unionists and if they'd not been in the shadow cabinet Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell.

The Labour manifesto probably says it wishes to end freedom of movement as the hard left's opposition the EU, amongst other things is that freedom of movement is viewed by those on the far left as being freedom of exploitation of ALL European workers. I have tried to explain, on many occasions, how this is different to being against immigration but I can't get past the accusations of being a swivelled eyed loon, who is obviously a racist and doesn't want foreigners coming to our country. The difference may be nuanced but to those who have devoted their lives fighting for worker's rights it is seen as a valid reason for wanting to leave.

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-9c1f-Free-movement-in-the-EU-actually-means-free-exploitation#.WUGISmjyu00

 

you were done up like a kipper.

I see what you did there.

[quote=whattiler ]The Labour manifesto probably says it wishes to end freedom of movement

Except it doesn't - it has it as a statement of fact of what will happen when we leave the EU.

I do understand your argument, and the left wing argument for leaving - which I will even acknowledge has some validity. It just suffers from the same problem as all arguments for leaving, in that the benefits are limited compared to the losses (the other trouble with that left wing argument is that it ignores the issue of a right wing government taking us out and tearing up workers' rights).

But then I'm the sort of centrist who finds hard right wing and hard left wing policies equally bad - it's just that despite Corbyn being far more of a lefty than the Labour party has been for a while, I'm finding him far nearer my personal politics that the current Tory party!

The difference may be nuanced but to those who have devoted their lives fighting for worker's rights it is seen as a valid reason for wanting to leave.

Don't take away my rights, in the name of worker's rights, thanks,

1) The opportunity to scrap an enormous burden of legislation, some of it admittedly arcane and to start from scratch.

2) To cause a severe shock to the UK economy, to force a restructure and eventual recovery. This approach is sometimes known as 'Disaster Capitalism'.

3) To erode and repeal EU legislation protecting the workforce - note the language from pro-Brexit MPs proclaiming protection for employee rights in the workplace - which most workers will not be afford to enforce through tribunal courts since a fee was introduced. There's a strong drive amongst Brexiteers to take advantage of our low skill, poor productivity workforce as the cheaper option to fixing the skills and productivity gap, which requires investment.

A lot of the thinking is based on the experience of European economies in the immediate post war period, the restructures inevitably paved the way for prosperity for countries like Germany. Of course, they neglect to mention the existence of The Marshall Plan...

re pt2 - we had a severe shock to the economy in 2008, haven't restructured (we're in even more government and personal debt, house prices are even more unaffordable and we're still dependent on debt-driven consumer spending and a badly behaved financial sector) - and still haven't recovered. I'm not sure what kind of shock these people think will improve this situation?

As well as The Marshall Plan, we also had the happy situation of a baby boom - leading a massive boost in the working age population from the early 60's which then drove productivity and GDP growth. Plus, given we were bust after WW2 - any economic growth would have looked good in % terms... Plus every European economy, supported by USA was working at the same time to rebuild the continent, it wasn't just one country on it's own.

These people are lunatics.

These people are lunatics.

Some are, others are cynical profiteers who will be alright no matter what the outcome (but will be considerably better off if a hard Brexit occurs).

It's not difficult to call in a few favors when you leave office and pick up a handful of non-exec 'directorships' 'working' for people whose agendas you pushed whilst in position.

Do you think David Davies will be on the board of Tate&Lyle when he steps down?
One of the few companies guaranteed to benefit hugely from a Hard Brexit (and his old employer).