Forum menu
If the cap fits kelvin....your choice
I was very clear about the comment being general and not specific (to Brexshit/anything else/anyone)
But to be specific on this vote. THe stances of both parties is/was clear (albeit inconsistent) and not that far apart. It would have been foolish not to check and understand this before voting - but hey, that's an individual's perogative. And if people want to vote on the basis of some misconceived tactic that is also up to them.
A stance that is inconsistent cannot be clear in any meaningful sense, because the inconsistencies can be resolved in a variety of ways. It seems plausible to me that labour would (if in govt) resolve the inconsistencies in a way that is less damaging to workers than the Tories.
But to be specific on this vote. THe stances of both parties is/was clear (albeit inconsistent) and not that far apart. It would have been foolish not to check and understand this before voting - but hey, that's an individual's perogative. And if people want to vote on the basis of some misconceived tactic that is also up to them.
So who do you vote for in this specific case. If both parties plan on Brexit but one is clear on a hard brexit and one on a brexit where jobs will be protected? With details like screw the NHS or talk of not doing so? More tuition fees or scrapping them?
Yes you could vote LD or Green but the likelyhood of them being in power with enough clout to stop Brexit?
Least worst option.
Wouldn't you just vote based on principles you hold no matter the chance of success?
If you look at the principles behind each parties support of leaving the EU they are based on very different ideologies. The EU is built around the idea of a free market, goods, labour, capital etc.The right wing of the Tories believe this is not free enough and want to leave the EU to make it even more free and deregulated basically complete laissez-faire neo-liberalism. The left wing of the Labour party believe it is too free a market and want more regulation, state control over spending, basically more of a planned economy as they see the EU is already too neo-liberalist.
The centrists Cameron/Blairites are very happy with the way things are thank you very much. Just enough deregulation for the bankers without resulting to a complete free for all.
The interesting part is how each party has came to the position it's in. The Tories have kowtowed to a populist movement in the form of UKIP and the power it's support has given the right wingers and Labour has embraced a populist movement in the form of Momentum and the literal power it has given it's left wingers (mainly due to Ed Milliband's party leader electoral reforms)
Back to the original point. If you're not going to vote for a party that represents your principles on the EU (assuming that's a remain point of view and as such LDs or Greens), should you not vote for a party that best represents your point of view on leaving the EU?
Or to try for a hung parliament.
So who do you vote for in this specific case.
Very hard
If both parties plan on Brexit but one is clear on a hard brexit
Sorry, that's BS - both parties are after a bespoke deal
and one on a brexit where jobs will be protected?
Ditto - once you get beyond the rhetoric
With details like screw the NHS or talk of not doing so? More tuition fees or scrapping them?
I am in favour of tuition fees so that makes it harder still. Which party campaigned to "screw the NHS" BTW, I missed that?
This talk of elections, especially the oft touted fact that 80odd percent of us voted for had Brexit at the election is meaningless.
The campaign fronted by Gina Miller,[url= https://bestforbritain.org/ ]Best For Britain[/url] helped us to see which [b]candidate[/b] supported Leave or Remain and to vote tactically. In addition, a Leave supporting millionaire has been trying to ensure that Leave supporting candidates were fielded across the board [url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/13/millionaire-brexit-donor-targets-remain-mps ]here.[/url]
Fact is, we were told during the campaign that a Leave vote didn't mean leaving the Single Market, nor did it mean crashing out of the entire trading bloc with no deal in place.
really, i know the independent is unlikley to find much favour with you THM, but the article is pretty clear, as I have been over the past few weeks. in my case, the incumbent MP ( labour ) was one who took a contrary stance to that of the lab leadership and was one of few MPs who did ask some pretty searching questions of government during the A50 debacle. i was pleased to vote for him, in spite of the leadership's position, not only because he's a good MP who reflects his constituent's views, but also because i did not want to split the vote, and run the risk of allowing a tory in. I would have voted that way irrespective of the individual MP's behaviour, if it meant denying May her landslide. which it did. 🙂
Well yes and no
People got unnecessarily confused about the single market. Of course, we are leaving it in the sense that we are giving up membership. The on-going debate is how to continue to have access to it. Therein lies the rub of it. Neither side's position is consistent re how this is to be achieved - hence the debate is NOT about doing any crashing, it is about how and where we compromise. The rest is simply noise, much of which is created deliberately to misinform the great British public. It is succeeding clearly,,,,
Worth bearing in mind that a number of Labour MPs who were prominent figures in the Leave campaign increased their already considerable majorities in the election, Graham Stringer, Kelvin Hopkins and Kate Hoey.
In the shop I see that the papers are frothing about the eu ruining our holidays with queues at the airport.
They don't seem to realise that those queues are the queues of freedom.Everyone in that queue belongs to a sovereign nation.
They don't have endure the shackles of eu oppression anymore.
Our queues set us free.
3 more cheers for nigel.
I voted Labour in a seat which went from Tory to Labour. The Labour candidate is not pro-Brexit. My vote was not a vote for leaving the EU.
Even if the candidate had been pro-Brexit, my vote would not have been for leaving the EU, as I was voting against May, so as not to give her the crushing majourity she had asked for to strengthen her hand in negotiations on leaving. She now has a weaker hand.
My hope is that the deal (or no deal) in place as we leave will go to a further referendum for a 'take the deal or stay in the EU?' question, when people will be able to see what it is they are actually voting for.
and a weaker hand benefits no one and ironically makes no deal more likely - be careful what you wish for
Let's take the hypothetical issue where we have a deal, we then have another vote and the electorate says "no thanks". What happens then. Do we say to our European partners, "sorry nos Amis, this is a tad embarrassing as our fine folk have decided to reject the deal that we have just spent all this time negotiating. All that time and effort wasted, I'm afraid. So here's the deal, lets just forget about it, shall we?"
In response: "tant pis, get lost and stop wasting anymore of our time."
Or words to that effect.
Unless you happen to think that a weak hand makes it far more likely that the whole process collapses and A50 is revoked.
Could do, alternatively we are out on our backsides and relying on WTO. I have no idea.
Unless you happen to think that a weak hand makes it far more likely that the whole process collapses and A50 is revoked.
Precisely, this.
No one has been able to give me a single coherent positive reason for us exiting the EU. Does that mean I should just suck it up and get on with it? Heck no.
Although you and some others refer to crashing out as "WTO" that doesn't begin to cover the necessary. Irish border, functioning of our nuclear industry, flights to Europe, banks assorting rights and many other things are not part of WTO. "We can survive with WTO tariffs" doesn't begin to cover it.
So just a small @€500milliin relocation bill we have to pay as we lose the EMA.
Plus the Tories are suggesting we have to remploy the staff anyway to duplicate its function post Brexit ££££££££
No deal was always just fantasy talk for the hard of thinking, sadly it was lapped up by many brexies that think Brexit is just a simple case of signing a document getting a blue passport and carrying on to our glorious future ruling the waves once more!
Unless you happen to think that a weak hand makes it far more likely that the whole process collapses and A50 is revoked.
Exactly. I don't want us to leave and have not accepted that we are leaving.
[quote=teamhurtmore ]"sorry nos Amis, this is a tad embarrassing as our fine folk have decided to reject the deal that we have just spent all this time negotiating. All that time and effort wasted, I'm afraid. So here's the deal, lets just forget about it, shall we?"
In response: "tant pis, get lost and stop wasting anymore of our time."
Or words to that effect.
Please provide a quote of anybody in the EU suggesting they want us to get lost - I can provide several from those who wield the real power suggesting that us remaining part of the EU is still a realistic possibility.
[quote=thecaptain ]Although you and some others refer to crashing out as "WTO" that doesn't begin to cover the necessary. Irish border, functioning of our nuclear industry, flights to Europe, banks assorting rights and many other things are not part of WTO. "We can survive with WTO tariffs" doesn't begin to cover it.
this - anybody suggesting "no deal" as a realistic option is simply admitting that they have no comprehension of the situation. The Irish border issue on its own is significant enough - and a big reason why the EU negotiators won't just tell us to piss off if we can't agree a deal. Realpolitik will kick in (at some point even DD et al will work out this isn't an option).
Aracer, may I introduce you to the concept of a hypothetical example?
In your hypothetical scenario the EU response would for reasons explained be an exasperated 'okay stay members', rather than the 'faire chier' you (without evidence) seem to think.
John, may I also introduce you to the concept of a hypothetical example
As I made clear, I have no idea what the final reaction would be.
You don't know how the EU would react to the UK wanting to remain? They would let us remain. That is what they want.
I hope that is the case, but I am not sure of it. In that scenario, I would not rule out the idea that they say, ok you can stay but here are the terms
1. Remember Fatcha's rebate, err........
2. Etc, etc
We are burning up the goodwill. If they didn't need us as much/more than/less than we need them it would be a lot worse too
If you're saying we've messed up you'll get no argument from me. Just there are options for staying. You'll remember Boris the Johnson's original line was that a leave vote could precede a negotiation for staying on better terms. This rapidly changed to the simpler 'let's go'. But why not?
The EU would like us to stay, France and Germany in particular. We are a major budget contributor, we are a huge export market for the EU with a significant trade deficit and we are a major destination for immigration. When we leave they lose the money, potentially the tariff free access to our markets and fisheries and those economic migrants will go elsewhere, eg France and Germany.
Freedom of Movement will end in 2019. It seems likely to me there will be a generous visa system for the EU27 as part of any transition arrangement.
When we leave they lose the money, potentially the tariff free access to our markets
Well if Britian wants access to EU markets it is unlikely to be free. See Norway and Switezeralnd.
So the EU doesn't lose the money and tariffs will be reciprocal so Britian has the same to lose if there are high traiffs (but more than any one of the 27).
Of course we messed up, we failed to convince enough people to vote to remain
Very, very limited options for staying and limited options for maintaining access. We are negotiating a position among this limited number.
Jambas. How much of "our money" do you think the EU will lose? Are you expecting zero future uk contribution?
Jamba reckons the Johnny Foreigner EU will pay us, because, well, we're British aren't we. Pip, pip.
(Anyone who takes that statement seriously by the way wants their head examining)
The EU would like us to stay, France and Germany in particular. We are a major budget contributor, we are a huge export market for the EU with a significant trade deficit and we are a major destination for immigration. When we leave they lose the money, potentially the tariff free access to our markets and fisheries and those economic migrants will go elsewhere, eg France and Germany.
It's still they need us more than we need them eh? 😆
Brexit is the perfect example of a country doing something political despite the economic consequences
Please jambs could you explain why rEU wouldn't be willing to do exactly the same?
[url= http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2017/08/daily-mail-we-meant-tougher-for-others-not-us.html ]Daily Mail: 'We meant "tougher border controls" for others, not for people like us'[/url]
Kimbers, I would caution against pushing that line of thought too far, after all....
The euro is (possibly) the best global example of a whole region doing something (bad) political despite the disastrous econiomic consequences
Fortunately we were not stupid enough to join un, despite many proposing such folly...
Fortunately we were not stupid enough to join un, despite many proposing such folly...
Indeed, saved from the Tories by the economic nous of Gordon Brown....
Only the Tories?
What about tanned Tony and all the Lib Demmers
You continue slagging off the Euro and ingnoring the positive economic consequence, THM. I suggest countries would have been worse off without the Euro. It lead to an increase in trade and tourism, making travel easier than the disappearance of the frontiers. Here in SW France there was a hike in cross-border business with both sides winning.
There is no point of comparison just a change in trends which show benefits. Just how many countries would have gone under Iceland fashion is the wake of sub prime without the Euro we don't know. What we do know is that that both the Euro and the countries that are members have survived without the chaos suffered by Venezuela, Germany 1920s or any other country in which the currency has become worthless.
Well you are entitled to your opinion however ill-judged - would love to debate but would take too much time to pick through the flawed analogies (VZ are you kidding???) and muddled economics, so will pass instead.
But I take my hat off to your ability to completed ignore the role that the flawed fixed exchange rate had in creating the excess build up of leverage across the periphery, the inflation of bubble economies and the inability to deal with the consequences in a coherent and sensible manner. Triffling details, I know.
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Very, very limited options for staying
There's a very simple option - one which is likely to be on the table in early 2019...
Well always better to be positive, however fanciful. Let's hope you are proved correct though.
For ed, from someone who has been at the coal face
Yannis Varoufakis 2017Europe is at the mercy of a common currency that not only was unnecessary for European integration, but that is actually undermining the European Union itself
Quite.
Hat trick of good Brexit News
https://order-order.com/2017/08/02/august-kicks-off-brexit-good-news-hat-trick/
Long queues at Passport Control are due to inadequate staffing following a tightening of EU rules.
Balanced and unbiased source there? "remainstream media" is another one for the dictionary.
That the best of the good news? Praise be its going to be a massive success.
That was rather amusing until I realised that it was trying to be serious and wasn't something like The Mash.... How much Brexit cool-aid do you need to have drunk to read that without laughing out loud?
(Doesn't help that it looks like the national enquirer either)
Don't read the comments.
And may cut the border agency and passport service whilst HS resulting in delays etc.
If you want more security it means delays.
Post Brexit you can enjoy the non eu lanes at European immigration controls.
Well you are entitled to your opinion however ill-judged - would love to debate but would take too much time to pick through the flawed analogies (VZ are you kidding???) and muddled economics, so will pass instead.But I take my hat off to your ability to completed ignore the role that the flawed fixed exchange rate had in creating the excess build up of leverage across the periphery, the inflation of bubble economies and the inability to deal with the consequences in a coherent and sensible manner. Triffling details, I know.
Do you talk to people like that in real life, THM ?
Perhaps he meant to post it in the bullshit bingo thread.
Edukator - remember several years ago THM was predicting the end of the euro and that Greece would be out of it.
Yes come and join us Ed. Real life is much better than the one you allude to.
Love LWers and pro-Europeans who are happy to ignore the loss of growth, wages, jobs, health, livelihoods that have resulted in the persistence with the flawed currency. Is this compassionate socialism or an "I'm alright jack" attitude? Either way pretty myopic and, dare I say it, distasteful. Still the Histrory of Europe is to put grand political projects ahead of the lives of - what's the term? - real people. Who cares about the victims, eh?
Go back to what some of your heros say - Stiglitz (for our Scottish friends, remember him?) and Varoufakis for our S Euripeans - and then revert with a case for the success of the euro...Bon chance.
At least Macrom recognises the the euro is broken in its current form and is trying to do something about it. An inflexion point perhaps or merely a grand gesture. We shall see.
From the "real world"
[b]the euro has failed to achieve either of its two principal goals of prosperity and political integration: [/b]these goals are now more distant than they were before the creation of the eurozone. Instead of peace and harmony, European countries now view each other with distrust and anger. Old stereotypes are being revived as northern Europe decries the south as lazy and unreliable, and memories of Germany’s behaviour in the world wars are invoked.[b]The eurozone was flawed at birth. The structure of the eurozone – the rules, regulations and institutions that govern it – is to blame for the poor performance of the region, including its multiple crises.[/b] The diversity of Europe had been its strength. But for a single currency to work over a region with enormous economic and political diversity is not easy. A single currency entails a fixed exchange rate among the countries, and a single interest rate. Even if these are set to reflect the circumstances in the majority of member countries, given the economic diversity, there needs to be an array of institutions that can help those nations for which the policies are not well suited. Europe failed to create these institutions.
Worse still, the structure of the eurozone built in certain ideas about what was required for economic success – for instance, that the central bank should focus on inflation, as opposed to the mandate of the Federal Reserve in the US, which incorporates unemployment, growth and stability. It was not simply that the eurozone was not structured to accommodate Europe’s economic diversity; it was that [b]the structure of the eurozone, its rules and regulations, were not designed to promote growth, employment and stability...[/b]
It is perhaps natural that the eurozone’s leaders want [b]to blame the victim – [/b]to blame the countries in recession or depression or reeling from a referendum result – for bringing about this state of affairs. They do not want to blame themselves and the great institutions that they have helped create, and which they now head. But blaming the victim will not solve the euro problem – and[b] it is in large measure unfair.[/b]
Stiglitz 2017
THM - for the record, and I'm probably not telling you anything, LWer, pro-EU & European, but anti-euro here.
Would have loved the euro to have worked, but accept that it is flawed.
Happy with some of the integration that would make it work, but not desperate for it and also accept that certain elements oppose this and it's unlikely to happen.
Please don't lump all LWer, pro-EU & European types as pro-euro.
(Even if not having to change money as much is great)
Depends on your definition of left wing I guess, but please don't lump all left wingers as being pro EU. As I said on the previous page there's plenty of socialist MPs, Hopkins, Stringer, Hoey and even Corbyn and McDonnell who are not pro EU. Not to mention other left wing bodies, The Morning Star, British Communist Party and some of the more left wing unions including ASLEF and RMT.
Plenty of centre/left Blairite support for the EU I'm sure but it's not a polarised left/right wing issue by any means.
I am not generalising tbc
There are LW/RW/centrists who are pro and against EU and/or pro and against the euro. That is a given. What is surprising is the number of LWers who are por a structure that in design and execution causes harm to those they claim to represent. Very odd indeed.
Nowt so queer as folk, eh?
Does it harm all/a majority/a minority? And is it actually due to the Euro or other factors such as poor government? Genuine question. My visits to Europe suggest it's some way from collapse into total anarchy but I haven't been to Greece in recent history...
I think you'd be hard pressed to convince a lot of those people that the EU doesn't represent business above all else.
The outcome of the Laval Quartet cases at the ECJ has put up a serious barrier to collective bargaining and collective action.
https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike
I note also that London-dominated fiscal policy was widely criticised for crippling the Scottish economy back in the thatcher years but that doesn't actually mean two currencies would have been a better solution.
Whattlier, viking & Laval were in 2007
There's been plenty of collective bargaining & strikes since then
Unless you know of any where the ECJ has stopped them ?
The ECtHR balanced the ECJ ruling in 2010
I'd read that report and wouldn't say the paragraph on page 20 definitively balances the Laval case.
Besides my main point is the EU is pro business above all else including when workers disputes clash with one of the freedoms. Even one of the main directives aimed at workers has proven to be a ceiling rather than a starting point as mentioned in the report you linked.
All the things people stand up as benefits of the EU are were all intended to grease the wheels of business, free movement, the Euro even workers rights.
One of the more significant things the EU did for me - and all scientific researchers, whether they now know it or not - was abolish the repeated short-term contract situation that was commonplace in the 80s. Having also worked in a country where it was still legal (Japan) the difference in employee rights and treatment was striking.
[url= https://apple.news/AZ12xPYVxQAS_o94-HBAZqw ]Partridge to be the voice of Brexit[/url]
Should be excellent
I'd have thought parodying brexiteers could be quite a challenge.
Excellent!
I always thought that Farage might have been a parrody of Partridge tbh, sexist, ignorant, xenophobic, embittered, reject even has the blazer !
the problem is the brexit or nothing lot don't get when they are the parody...
[img] 
[/img]
Depends on your definition of left wing I guess, but please don't lump all left wingers as being pro EU. As I said on the previous page there's plenty of socialist MPs, Hopkins, Stringer, Hoey and even Corbyn and McDonnell who are not pro EU. Not to mention other left wing bodies, The Morning Star, British Communist Party and some of the more left wing unions including ASLEF and RMT.
Point one:
I completely understand why right wingers would be anti-EU, after all those pesky rules and regulations stop them from selling the rest of us down the river, which is what will happen when we try and "negotiate"(it will be a bit of a one sided negotiation) with the US, China, and the EU for example.
Point two:
But while I do understand the Left wingers position, I find it bizarre. Now coming from a working class background, I do understand that they do have a bit of an issue with immigrants, and that a number of them not only want to maintain position, but drag others down to that position, but while accepting that globalisation has happened, and that by leaving the EU, you can simply just shut it away...or is it a possibility that the left hope that it will go so badly wrong that people will once again flock to their cause?
Out of both points, if we leave the EU, point one will happen.
Capitalism through globalisation is decades ahead of national Governments, and the mantra of "taking back control" is an ignorant falsehood that flies in the face of it. National Governments are no longer calling the shots, and the way to favour ourselves with globalisation, is global governance.
The EU is the beginning of such Governance. You can either be swallowed up by globalisation which is what point one will do, or continue in union with other countries to bargain collectively.
The EU is not perfect and needs reform, but it stops jamba and his kind from making a killing.
Yep I see the left position as very much wond the clocks back to when it was all great. Get rid of the multinationals and global companies and we can have it all again. Forget it the genie is out the bottle. It goes with the What has the EU ever done for us line, you know like emplyee rights, safety and the environment. Problem with that is people live too long and cause problems in health and pensions.
Hoey is not a leftie. She is another tory in the wrong party
The EU is the beginning of such Governance. You can either be swallowed up by globalisation which is what point one will do, or continue in union with other countries to bargain collectively.
The EU and its regulatory environment favours large companies, because the regulatory cost represents a high barrier to entry so the established players' position is protected from competition. It is no surprise that organisations representing big businesses like the CBI are very pro EU whereas organisations which have a broader membership have a much more mixed position.
Likewise the smartest financiers are keen on regulation as it often generates arbitrage opportunities from which they can profit.
Nonsense, it is small and medium sized companies that don't have the scale to satisfy 30+ different sets of standards and regulations to sell across Europe… Harmanisation of such things allows the smaller companies to sell internationally in a way they couldn't dream of without the EU.
El bent - you completely miss the lefts dislike of the EU - is because EU positions on state subsidy and similar things would stop a left wing government from having a left wing economic and industrial strategy by nationalising industry and providing state aid to key industries
I see brexidiocy shows no signs of abating
but this is the funniest
Gove dashing around Europe offering sweeteners, because we have no leverage & desperately need a transition deal
Its almost as if the Brexiters have been bullshitting all along...
I liked this bit
"But the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the plan had always been to allow other nations some access to UK territorial waters after Brexit, and that the extent of this could now be decided by the UK."
Kimbers - the first one, the average is 3-4 times what we were (still are) paying per head for full EU isn't it?
this article sums up brexit
https://www.ft.com/content/b3d62bcc-7713-11e7-90c0-90a9d1bc9691
This generation of mostly former public schoolboys didn’t want Brussels running Britain. That was their caste’s prerogative.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Trouble is it's not the three Muppets above chucking coal in the runaway trains boiler - it's the Brexit voters because they "believe"
This gets funnier by the day and David Davies looks like someone picking up dog shit up with his bare hands.. I am loving it
El bent - you completely miss the lefts dislike of the EU - is because EU positions on state subsidy and similar things would stop a left wing government from having a left wing economic and industrial strategy by nationalising industry and providing state aid to key industries
How much of that is actually the EU though. Look at the development of the EU over the last couple of decades and notice how much has been the UK pushing a direction of travel. Further it has been in the interest of the UK to blame the EU.
Why are UK trains run by DB or SNCF for instance, why aren't German railways run by virgin etc. Why is a large part of the UKs bus network also run by DB. This also applies to most of the Tory privatisations, who actually gained and what was the point.
Well yes, obviously the Tories were keen to privatise everything in sight. The red tories were obviously not intent on re-nationalisation when they scrapped clause 4 . So the direction of travel has been towards more privatisation and PFI.
What I think tjagain is referring to is any future re-nationalisation would be hampered by the EUs unfair competition regulations if and when a socialist Labour party ever gets to form a government, hence Corbyn and McDonnells anti EU position.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market_en
re-nationalisation
I wonder if it would be though, saying you can't do something that is already replicated by others.
Unless of course Corbyn is proposing a full re-nationalisation of everything, back to the days of British Leyland and British Steel.
In which case he is an idiot.
I have sympathy with the idea of roads, rail, telecoms held within the public sector as they are core infrastructure, but commercial industries?
I think he does only mean core infrastucture. I'm pretty sure he's not planning on going the full socialist planned economy route.
Edit - And I think the reasons for doing it would be ideological above all else.
Edit - And I think the reasons for doing it would be ideological above all else.
That is my concern, ideology has a place, so to does pragmatism.
Venezuela is not a role model for the way forward, neither is the US.
Thatcher's decision to privatise them all in the first place was an ideological one too. Not very pragmatic to sell off the crown jewels to make the wealthy wealthier.
It's a stretch to compare nationalised railways with what's going on in Venezuela but I see your point.