Forum menu
Can you take this age old tuition fees stuff to another thread now? I’m still annoyed it happened, but it’s not really on topic, is it.
They’re just lashing out because Magic Grandpa’s fence sitting and dithering has left him looking a right tit. To be fair, anyone who kept more than a casual eye on Brexit knew this already, but even the moderate public at large (who have lives to be getting on with) are saying ‘hang on a minute, shouldn’t it be Labour that are doing the actual opposing?’ But no, deafening silence. Again. Any halfway capable politician would have knocked the Tories into a cocked hat by now. That Corbyn has managed to balls this up is just risible.
I bet myself a beer that tuition fees would get trotted out sooner or later by one of the comrades. It was a lovely drop too.
Lol Kelvin.. I put my phone down for 20 mins..
At least we have a consensus.. Haha
Swinson playing a blinder?
Even 17% of leave voters agree !!!
Can you take this age old tuition fees stuff to another thread now
If it was a different set of players in charge of the Libdems the argument of it being a long time back would work. However since its the same players its not unreasonable to judge them by their actions when they last held power.
Still happy to stop pointing out that the libdems have been doing the big boy did it and ran away excuse a bit too much if the fanatics stop coming out with their hilarious "comrades" and other politically illiterate statements.
This country is ****ed looking at that graph hahah, I think we just need the CIA and FSB to supply both sides with weapons so we can have it out. There is no way either side will give up.
Any halfway capable politician would have knocked the Tories into a cocked hat by now.
Says you.
The whole thing is a poison chalice. Three years ago coming out for either side would have ruined them. Corbyn had no choice but to do what he did. You're massively oversimplifying it by moaning he didn't do what you wanted and end up leading the good guys home to cheers and applause.
What you call lack of leadership _could_ just as easily be caution and care. Don't confuse leadership with bluster and hyperbole.
Even 17% of leave voters agree !!!
I would want to see a follow up making sure they all understood a political majority can be way under 50%. Although of course they could be taking the strategic approach of saying since the chances of that happening are well under 17% might as well say yes since it if doesnt happen then can do the opposite.
Reading the legal goings on today was fascinating. Poor day for the government seems to be the consensus but as the pundits say second guessing judges is never easy.
I can't wait for John Majors testimony - an ex troy PM appearing in court to oppose another tory PM - great spectator sport.
And some fine names - QCs pannik and Keen!
I would want to see a follow up making sure they all understood a political majority can be way under 50%.
No party can ever win 50% of the vote at a general election because it is not a national two option referendum! It is hundreds of individual elections with differing candidate sheets, some of which the main parties don’t even get involved with due to the different political history of our four countries.
You just keep finding new ways of beating the same drum of “old Referendum trumps subsequent elections” and then act all “I said nothing of the sort” when anyone tries to address that idea.
Hopefully at some point the undeliverable shape of Brexit from back in 2016 will get identified as such by more and more of the population, and voters, and finally … politicians and their parties.
Yeh I was following a live feed off and on, early days..
Interesting debate from both sides, it's a 2 sided argument..
I think it will all hinge on whether the courts are allowed to judge.
If it's deemed they are, boris is done for.
If it's deemed they they can't, I'll be tapping up my grandmother for the couple of grand I'll need to get my Irish citizenship and EU passport.
I'm not sure that corbyn with a front page Guardian splash explaining how he will sit on the fence even more is going to help him get those votes back
I can also see the vast majority of his MPs & his membership rolling their eyes 👀 and thinking the conference is gonna be a big dissapointment
The second thing I'm most bored with after "yes but fish" is the tuition fees thing.
Yes, they dropped the ball, and they could have handled it better subsequently. But like fish it's just become a lazy stick to beat the LDs with, just like with Labour and Iraq. All parties have had policies which they've seen through or reneged on, yet none of the other issues ever get a look in.
Ragging the LDs because of some other screw-up you dislike, yeah fair enough, but the tuition fees issue is just a brainless copy & paste argument because you don't like the party and don't have anything better to throw. If this is your argument then I'd put it to you, "name a second issue."
Politics is complicated. Brexit is complex. I'd wager that the vast vast majority of voters in 2016 were single-issue voters, they didn't know what to do so for example voted leave because they wanted to give more money to the NHS.
We're still doing it, in both camps. "I can't support the LDs because of a single decision a different set of people made a decade ago." Personally I can't get behind the Tories because Thatcher took free milk out of schools.
It's bloody ridiculous, the sooner we get stop obsessing about the past the better. The sooner we get over personal prejudices the better. Inertia is what's killing democracy, we all have laudable ideals until it tweaks a personal nerve.
point missed cougar. Its not the tuition fees thing only - that is just representative of the betrayal. Its the support for a vile tory government that did so much damage and led us into this mess we are in now. Its the fact they gave away all their power for a ministerial jag and some meaningless posts, its the fact they are completely unrepentant for the harm they caused via the coalition, its the fact that Swinson is now the single biggest obstacle to stopping no deal because of her refusal to work with labour. Its the fact that what was once a radical liberal party is now occupying the ground vacated by the tories in their move right to give us a lib dem tory lite party and above all else its the complete betrayal of the people who voted for them
The whole thing is a poison chalice. Three years ago coming out for either side would have ruined them. Corbyn had no choice but to do what he did. You’re massively oversimplifying it by moaning he didn’t do what you wanted and end up leading the good guys home to cheers and applause.
What you call lack of leadership _could_ just as easily be caution and care. Don’t confuse leadership with bluster and hyperbole.
He has had over three years to expose the lies and bullshit. Three years to cautiously pull his core voters around. They say a week is a long time in politics. Not for grandpa.
You think we still live in past times. Lol. The majority of the electorate now decide based on stuff they see on social media and what Debbie at work (who is a bit older) say.
He’s also had 3 years to come up with a shadow Brexit plan take it to Europe, get it signed off by them then say “look I’ve got this vote for me”.
But he hasn’t.
its the fact that Swinson is now the single biggest obstacle to stopping no deal because of her refusal to work with labour.
It's ironic, given that you are calling it an issue of trust, that the reason the LDs are quite rightly reluctant to work with Labour is that Labour have shown themselves utterly untrustworthy on the subject of Brexit.
Labour have shown themselves utterly untrustworthy on the subject of Brexit.
You only think this because they haven’t done exactly what you want. Remainers May be able to dismiss the concerns of leave voters or call them morons but labour don’t have that luxury. It’s very easy to throw your dummy out the pram and pretend this is simple. It really isn’t though, and Labour are the only party which is serious about finding a sustainable, long term solution to this nightmare which the majority can accept.
You only think this because they haven’t done exactly what you want.
Unfortunately, all groups, wanting all outcomes, don’t trust Corbyn on Brexit. Not those wanting a hard Brexit. Not those wanting a referendum. Not those wanting an EEA type relationship with Europe. Not those wanting to keep EU membership. Not those wanting a No Deal Brexit.
He’s also had 3 years to come up with a shadow Brexit plan take it to Europe, get it signed off by them
Is a 'shadow' Brexit plan and agreement of said plan with the EU actually possible or have you just made that up?
Drafting a new political declaration and challenging the government to move towards it very much could be thing. Well, except it can’t, because as soon as it is written down it can be pulled apart and shown to be lacking.
The EU aren’t going to “sign” anything that doesn’t come from the government though, obviously, they’d be painted as meddling in domestic politics then.
You only think this because they haven’t done exactly what you want.
No, I've done this because he has been thoroughly shifty throughout the last 3 years.
Remainers May be able to dismiss the concerns of leave voters or call them morons but labour don’t have that luxury.
Perhaps he could have tried being honest? I have a sneaking suspicion that might have been a winning policy.
It’s not Corbyn you need to trust, it’s the voters in a new referendum. Seems like remainers don’t have the confidence of their convictions though.
Those wanting a referendum don’t trust Corbyn either … you’re missing out so
many steps to jump to a referendum happening with no fudge or deception. Corbyn still needs to earn the trust of those that think a referendum is part of the path we should take, because, well, people have been watching him since he became leader.
its not unreasonable to judge them by their actions when they last held power.
Which was 1910.
Personally I can’t get behind the Tories because Thatcher took free milk out of schools.
But of a digression but Thatcher was opposed to that policy. She carried it out but she opposed it in cabinet. In fact it was driven by the Treasury under Iain Macleod and later Anthony Barber:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-thatcher-myths
A lot of Labour seem to be of the opinion that:
Michael Chessum, from AEP, said: “Labour has already crossed the Rubicon in promising a public vote with an option to remain. It would be utterly absurd, in those circumstances, for Labour not to campaign for remain when 90% of its members want to stay in the EU. Trying to prevent Labour from backing remain is a dead end for Corbyn – it will inevitably fail and it risks the morale of our base at at a crucial moment.”
I've highlighted the bit with the elephantine cognitive dissonance problem.
Just so as you're clear, that's why he's not trusted.
If he was taking a clear stand for ref and remain, it would be quite straightforward to get behind him.
As it is, all he promises is a bit more uncertainty.
With the whole lib Dem thing, tuition fees and coalition...
For me personally it was the actual coalition itself that smelt bad.
Then over time,after the lib dems got shafted my opinions changed a fair amount. I think they did their best, with not that many cards to play, of limiting what Tory governments always do. Relish the good times and scapegoat the poor or weak when beneficial.
In actually quite grateful to them for at least trying to keep the Tories (which I detest) under a modicum of control.
Anyway, another SNP policy I approve of, down here south of the border
Can I just counter that, SNP never abolished tuition fees regardless of policy, it was the Libs as a condition of the Lib/Lab coalition. SNP abolished the student endowment which was a later graduate tax. To be fair Labour have tried to take credit for it as well.
Amazing how things get repeated so often they become the new truth.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-thatcher-myths.
Don't come here with facts about Thatcher otherwise people who hate her for some things she was meant to have done will be forced to admit it wasn't entirely her behind all those things. pretend they are not true.
It’s not Corbyn you need to trust, it’s the voters in a new referendum. Seems like remainers don’t have the confidence of their convictions though.
Corbyn has constantly failed to inform the electorate about the damage that brexit will do, instead promising a labour unicorns brexit, as he has done again in the past 24 hours.
Corbyn does not oppose brexit, he has again stated that he will negotiate a brexit, now it is just that he has been dragged kicking and screaming to have a referendum on that brexit.
The tories are threatening to cut off both legs, Corbyn is saying "with me you can have one leg won't that be great imagine the possibilities" I want someone to just stand up and say the obvious, that losing 1 or 2 legs is beyond shit, to deliberately cut peoples legs off is insane, lets just let everyone keep their ****ing legs.
tjagain
...its the fact that Swinson is now the single biggest obstacle to stopping no deal because of her refusal to work with labour.
It's the beautiful irony that if anti-independence Swinson actually manages to get enough to form a govt, she'll be personally hobbled by EVEL because she's a Scottish MP.
But with a bit of luck, she won't have a seat by then.
It would be utterly absurd, in those circumstances, for Labour not to campaign for remain when 90% of its members want to stay in the EU.
So, with the small matter of conference this month, will the membership try to impose this policy on the leadership team? We hear a lot about policy being set by conference, so it would seem to be a convenient moment.
(Obviously, all the Remain inclinations got squished into a composite motion last time, which is why we've had the flowchart policy on Brexit ever since.)
Thanks @squirrelking. Much as I’d love this thread to move onto EU related chat… that was a genuine education. Much appreciated. We all have huge holes in our understanding of Scottish politics down here.
beautiful irony...
...could be illustrated by taking a person who is against Brexit because of the huge damage it would do to the UK but is for Scottish independence despite similar outcomes once you look at the border. Then there is the irony of believing that a small representation at the EU parliament is a good thing but a larger representation at Westminster is anti democratic.
Wanting an independent Scotland in the EU is a desire for stability now, in my opinion. Some got this years before me though…
https://twitter.com/bencooper/status/1174215440605880321?s=21
Back then, and now, I still want Scotland to stay in the UK, but it is entirely logical to call for both EU membership and for Scotland not to be ruled from Westminster. If I lived north of the border, I suspect by now I’d have come around to that position myself.
There is precedent for why Corbyn is acting the way he is...Ironically Heath had made moves to enter the EC, which Wilson principally backed, while rejecting the Tories' terms...
...Harold Wilson in opposition showed political ingenuity in devising a position that both sides of the party could agree on, opposing the terms negotiated by Heath but not membership in principle. Labour's 1974 manifesto included a pledge to renegotiate terms for Britain's membership and then hold a referendum on whether to stay in the EC on the new terms. This was a constitutional procedure without precedent in British history.
Sound familiar?
Except the border problem comes back once again. There is no way to square that circle without affecting trade and free movement between the two.
Yes, but with the UK leaving the EU there will be border problems anyway, unless there is a move to EEA+CU. Scotland has to cope with new borders and diverging trade regimes imposed on them by Westminster decisions. As I said, I want Scotland to stay in the UK… but it is not “hypocrisy” to want to see an independent Scotland in the EU (or in the EEA&CU instead if necessary).
On a related note… there are some politicians who want to avoid a transition period, and even more so customs arrangements that extend past the end of transition, because they know this could result in the best chance for talks about both Northern Ireland and Scotland seeking their own arrangements with the rest of Europe. Call them the “union without consent” Tories if you wish.
Sound familiar?
Hardly a surprise. Corbyn has signalled many times that he's going to take a Wilson approach. It's the right thing to do. Being the only party advocating a democratic solution is an excellent position to be in, and the 'Let the people decide' slogan will cut through the bullshit.
Can you take this age old tuition fees stuff to another thread now? I’m still annoyed it happened, but it’s not really on topic, is it.
It's spot on topic ... because it typifies how LEAVE won.
Underlying this is complete and utter mis-understanding of HOW a our parliametary democracy works (or doesn't) by a huge proportion of the electorate.
A history of both Labour and Conservatives and their blinkered supporters creating a 'them and us'.
FFS the Tory's were the ones pushing for tuition fee's ... but Labour were the ones who'd spent the money but neither seems to be able to accept the other's fact.
MEANWHILE .... whilst we bicker about Vile Tories and Commo Socialists social media gets leveraged to blame the EU for every ill. A large % of the electrorate seem fine with £350 million for the NHS and the easiest deal in history and it barely seems to even register that Farage is on record wanting to sell the NHS off... or David Davis the first EU negotiator and staunch Brexiteer failed to get the easiest deal ever... or that in 3 years no-one has negotiated a meaningful deal with anyone else.
Of course it doesn't register. Blah blah, fake news, project fear, move along people. Look over here, a rabbit we'll hire some new policemen, do you like that?
Let the people decide’ slogan will cut through the bullshit.
Keeping the same stance that worked so well at the European elections?
Underlying this is complete and utter mis-understanding of HOW a our parliametary democracy works (or doesn’t) by a huge proportion of the electorate.
More a lack of interest and/or intellect than a mis-understanding. That is why populism and lies are winning.
Cheers Torso - that story is the neat encapsulation of the problem, there has to be a choice between an open irish border and therefore being signed up to the EU trade agreements, or some kind of solo dealmaking country (which has been a resounding fail thus far) to try and get more money from America etc and hard borders
And guess what, Ireland and the EU are more important than the Yanks.
an open irish border and therefore being signed up to the EU trade agreements
Think about what would happen if we leave with no deal. From a UK POV there would be no border. We'd do what we've done since the 20s and have an open border and tolerate a bit of smuggling/whatever. [1]
So from a UK POV there would be an open border still. What would the EU/Ireland do? They'd have a closed border would they? If they put a kiosk there, the IRA will blow it up. When they put a bloke there to guard it he'll get shot. So they put a platoon there... and so on. I can't see the EU wanting to play that game either. So the EU wouldn't have a closed border either.
If all that's true an open Irish Border both ways is not dependent on being signed up to EU trade agreements at all. ...and if the border can be open without a deal, it can just as easily be open with a deal.
[1] It happens today. Free movment of goods within the EU has limitations so smuggling is possible within the EU and we just let it happen. People illegally take lorry loads of Diesel across the Irish border for sale all the time, we just live with it. I'm pretty sure people drive heroin from (say) Holland to Spain, it's not legal but there's an open border, nobody checks and it's accepted as the price of the convenience of an open border.
Isn't there a question then, of the EU having other borders, with countries who would demand the same.
Hence the EU's aversion to the idea?
Or have I misunderstood?
Government legal team going in hard today on the "it's not for the courts to intervene" approach...
We’d do what we’ve done since the 20s and have an open border and tolerate a bit of smuggling/whatever. [1]
So from a UK POV there would be an open border still.
Yellowhammer paragraph 18, and I quote, "The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available"
“The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available”
Thanks. Did they explain the reasoning behind that conclusion? It worked from 1921(ish) until 1975.
Also: Google says No results found for “The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available”. So Linky please.
Kerley
More a lack of interest and/or intellect than a mis-understanding. That is why populism and lies are winning
Yes, but that is exactly why addressing the offshore tax dodgers matters.
Creating a them and us over people who basically work for a living regardless of if it's 15k/yr or 250k/yr or anywhere inbetween simply helps promote populism.
So from a UK POV there would be an open border still. What would the EU/Ireland do?
Maybe I missed the memo but wasn't controlling our borders a central theme leavers voted for?
Thanks. Did they explain the reasoning behind that conclusion? It worked from 1921(ish) until 1975.
Also: Google says No results found for “The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available”. So Linky please.
It's a bit irrelevant surely as an open border with the EU would be undermining the "Will of the People"
Oob, if we're wto we have to treat everyone the same. An open border with the EU means an open border with everyone else. At that point, why does anyone need a trade deal? They can already import anything in to the UK without any checks. So now anything that can be produced anywhere cheaper than we can here is free to come in at the lowest possible price. Goodbye manufacturing, farming, fishing...
People seem to be missing the fact the UK and Ireland joined the EEC at the same time so the 1921 to 73 situation cannot be replicated. Ireland remains an EU member so you need to put a border somewhere other than down the English Channel which was the case up till 73.
Maybe I missed the memo but wasn’t controlling our borders a central theme leavers voted for?
I think the fact that the Irish border was never even mentioned during the referendum campaign is really illustrative about how this has been about English Nationalism right from day one.
When the leavers talked about controlling borders they were clearly talking about the white cliffs of Dover and stopping Johhny Foreigner from entering good old blighty. Whenever they mentioned 'the UK' what they actually meant was Engerland, which doesn't actually have a land border with the EU, so it was never an issue for them.
I still don't think its sunk in yet. Hence their obvious frustration and flippant attitude to the problem. To them it's just those frightful peasants in the provinces making things difficult for glorious Albion
Hypothetical question; if brexit will lead to medical shortages that will in turn lead to deaths in the populace, should it still be carried out?
point missed cougar. Its not the tuition fees thing only – that is just representative of the betrayal.
You say that, but it's pretty much the only thing that ever gets mentioned. There isn't a political party in existence that hasn't welched on their promises at some point, why is this one so special? "Tuition fees" isn't a reason to hate them, it's an excuse.
Its the support for a vile tory government that did so much damage and led us into this mess we are in now.
Or looking at it another way, if they hadn't joined up with the Tories do you think less damage would have been done?
Out of interest I've just had a quick glance at the 2010 results and I can't see any other way a majority government could have been formed. A Labour / Lib Dem coalition wouldn't have been sufficient seats to form a majority, and the next biggest vote after LD was the DUP with 8 seats so essentially everyone else is an irrelevance. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding, which is entirely possible.
Don’t come here with facts about Thatcher otherwise people who hate her
Point of note, I'm fairly ambivalent towards Thatcher. It was simply the first example I could think of. Grateful for the correction though.
Hypothetical question; if brexit will lead to medical shortages that will in turn lead to deaths in the populace, should it still be carried out?
It's a price worth paying, apparently.
This is a very telling article:
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/09/18/190918-cummings-and-i/content.html?sig=V3ep8Di90VEsADMEg8fZ7UUHeKwBE-FtKNLriRS7hGY
Yes, but that is exactly why addressing the offshore tax dodgers matters.
Creating a them and us over people who basically work for a living regardless of if it’s 15k/yr or 250k/yr or anywhere inbetween simply helps promote populism.
Of course addressing tax dodgers matters. There is no them and us, some people take more from the system (net) than others and those are the people who can most afford any impact. Do you take £1,000 from someone who has £10,000 to live on or do you take £1,000 from someone who has £50,000 to live on. I would tae it from the £50,000, the tories would take it from the £10,000. That is how their austerity works. Bit off the Brexit topic here though and it is also nothing to do with populism so not sure why it was linked to that.
at the end of the day its a game of (almost) two halves.
[url= https://i.ibb.co/JjFWmY2/Football.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/JjFWmY2/Football.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
Kelvin, I edited out the hypocrisy bit as I didn't feel it would contribute positively to the discussion.
The difference between Brexit and Indy is that we don't have a land border with the EU. If we did gain independence, legally, we would then be faced with the same problem as ROI and NI (albeit with less life threatening consequences). There is no magic technological solution to solve that issue and it would affect more people on a day to day basis than just hopping across the channel. That's before you consider the closest crossing to NI is Cairnryan meaning we would have to deal with through trade. We need to be able to trade freely with England for a host of logistical reasons, there is no quick fix for that problem.
Of course addressing tax dodgers matters. There is no them and us, some people take more from the system (net) than others and those are the people who can most afford any impact. Do you take £1,000 from someone who has £10,000 to live on or do you take £1,000 from someone who has £50,000 to live on. I would tae it from the £50,000, the tories would take it from the £10,000. That is how their austerity works.
You missed the entire point ... Labour will take it from those with £50k and the Tory's will take it from those with £10k. Whilst we argue those on £1M a week are getting off scott free.
Bit off the Brexit topic here though and it is also nothing to do with populism so not sure why it was linked to that.
IMHO it's got everything to do with populism and Brexit...
The whole point of brexit for the ERG is to avoid the anti-tax-dodging legislation...
Set 2 groups against each other whilst creating a common cause whilst your group stands by laughing and profits whilst pouring petrol onto the fire they created.
Cougar
As I have said a zillion times S+C. Was the answer. Retain the ability to vote down stuff
it would affect more people on a day to day basis than just hopping across the channel. That’s before you consider the closest crossing to NI is Cairnryan meaning we would have to deal with through trade.
That assumes a frictionless border with the UK is desirable to Scotland post Sexit. As I understand it a big motivation for Scotland to leave the UK is to tax and spend more than UK governments do. In which case high tarrifs into Cairnryan might mean there's no desire to import into Cairnryan for the English Market, it may be cheaper to go straight to the uk. And you can't significantly increase tax people if they have free movement and can simply move to Berwick Upon Tweed.
Free movement of capital and people is great if you're a neo-liberal looking to unshackle businesses. Not so great if you want to tax your population a bit more. (Hence John McDonnells comments about a run on the £ if he won.)
Cougar
As I have said a zillion times S+C. Was the answer.
S being Scotland? With all six of their seats?
S being Scotland? With all six of their seats?
I think he means supply and confidence.
Which would have left the Tories with a majority of -40. You can't govern with a -40 majority. You need another election. (Johnson's on -43 and needs an immediate election.)
The liberals had literally no choice and they are highly likely to be in the same situation again in the future. ...but this time they *will* insist on a change of leader whichever party comes out ahead.
Five Live were just saying earlier Mark Francois and the rest of the ERG fruitloops are getting themselves worked up into a right old lather with rumours that when Parliament is back in session, Boris intends to bring Mays deal back from the dead, as he now reckons enough Labour MPs will back it, with No Deal looming.
That'd be an interesting move. Would the Brexiteers ringleader be labelled a traitor for denying them their No Deal Brexit?
You missed the entire point … Labour will take it from those with £50k and the Tory’s will take it from those with £10k. Whilst we argue those on £1M a week are getting off scott free.
My original point was that if you are going to impact anyone then don't impact the £10,000 a year people impact the £50,000 and over people (which clearly includes the £1M per week people)
No more replies from me on this one as not worth the effort.
Boris intends to bring Mays deal back from the dead, as he now reckons enough Labour MPs will back it, with No Deal looming.
I hadn't thought of that, but now you mention it it seems inevitable. ...both Labour and the Tories desperately need Brexit behind them. With both parties in favour and 3 line whips it could pass.
Corbyn and Boris off the hook in a one-er.
Would the Brexiteers ringleader be labelled a traitor for denying them their No Deal Brexit?
He can't keep everyone happy whatever he does. This way he faces an election with Brexit behind him. I suspect even BINO will get the Brexit party off his back to a very large degree. (Clearly he thinks that or he wouldn't be suggesting it.)
Has the Liberal 'Remain' policy changed the situation such that the WA looks a good bet to Labour. The anti Brexit party have caused Brexit. I think yes. Ironic.
Alan Johnson was on being interviewed. It was an interesting interview but to summarise, his message to labour MP's was "just vote for the ****ing deal!"
Difficult to argue with that at his point in proceedings isn't it really?
I think if Johnson did bring it back, it'd fly through. The ERG would go mental, but that in itself should provide enough reason for a load of Labour MP's to vote for it and carry it.
“I voted to get rid of all that red tape”
I think if Johnson did bring it back, it’d fly through.
I'm 100pc positive that the leaderships of both parties would back it and whip accordingly - they both need Brexit in the past. Is that enough for it to pass? Very likely.
Corbyn can blame Boris, and Boris can blame the opposition for preventing him from having an election in time to negotiate a good deal. The liberal's fox is shot. It feels inevitable to me.
Difficult to argue with that at his point in proceedings isn’t it really?
Well, it would kick the can and change key dates… but I don’t see what it gains the UK above other ways to do that. It also moves us over a threshold that means all subsequent agreements require unanimous support from the parliaments of all those other countries, with no route back to our current preferential membership terms.
Surely Mays deal means having the back stop, how will Dumbojo sell that?
Corbyn will NOT whip to support Mays deal - he will have a 3 line whip against it as before. Maybe some labour idiots would vote for it but I doubt enough
I’m 100pc positive that the leaderships of both parties would back it and whip accordingly – they both need Brexit in the past. Is that enough for it to pass? Very likely.
The problem is - once we decide to leave with a deal, the actual process starts... Brexit will shape politics in this country for a generation at least. There is no putting it in the past.
Free movement of capital and people is great if you’re a neo-liberal looking to unshackle businesses. Not so great if you want to tax your population a bit more. (Hence John McDonnells comments about a run on the £ if he won.)
Free movement doesn’t effect tax that much, if you’re rich enough to get up and move to save a bit of tax you are rich enough to get a visa to wherever you want to go.
Free movement of capital encourages inward investment, so your tax intake if you never had free movement for capital might not be as high (even if taxation rates are higher) as it would have been in a free but lower tax environment.
But sure, something something neo-liberal cabal something something immigrants etc etc etc is easier to point a finger at.
The fact is that what will sort taxation is a more equitable division of economic power between nations and political and economic integration on tax.
All of which the EU is helping to achieve. The economic arguments against the EU are simply the products of the cognitive biases of those who are trying to make their view of the world fit their nativist understanding of democracy.