General Election, June 8th

[Guest]

Thing is macron has talked Germany into looking at treaty change at the first attempt. Perhaps if we'd got properly involved and not always been on the sidelines heckling we might have had more success in getting what we want. If you had a group would you be more likely to change its rules if a central player suggested it or if the annoying git that was constantly moaning suggested it?

 

 

[Voll Blau]

The Indy exploring the case for PR. Personally think Labour need to back it in their next manifesto.

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/uk-election-map-proportional-representation-system-2017-conservative-labour-7784956

 

Not convinced it could work if you pooled all votes together on a nationwide basis, but think it could work if you regionalised it as you'd still have MPs representing the interests of a certain area. Had a little play around with this and worked out the results for Leicestershire and Rutland...

 

https://icon.cat/util/elections

 

It's actually a pretty good example as the two counties send a combined 10 MPs to Westminster, which is a nice round number. Worked out you'd have had 6 Tory and 4 Labour MPs, instead of the 7 and 3 that were actually returned.

[Captain...]

19 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Interesting point and looks like that was correct, in other words always sticking to their principals rules and regulations regardless of the consequences, so basically never any chance of the concessions and more importantly reforms we wanted.

David Cameron and the leave campaigners were crystal clear on what leaving the EU would mean regarding leaving the single market, customs union and repealing EU law that was the mandate.

Now earlier I said I believed it was arrogance on the part of the EU not to rubber stamp David Camerons  minor concessions which may have prevented a leave vote who knows? Well maybe it wasn't arrogance how about complete fcuking indifference whether we stayed in or not, let's face it we were always a reluctant bride, we didn't subscribe to the Euro, Mrs Thatcher may have only received half of the rebate she asked for 1984 but nevertheless it was a 'special concession' for Britain which has saved our treasury Billions . Maybe like I have said there was total indifference that we left, they have finally got rid of the disruptive child in the classroom.

If that is the case there is absolutely no chance of any party getting anything out of these negotiations other than an extremely painful kick in the groin and pocket that will cost a fortune what would you call that a 'Hard' or 'Soft' Brexit ?

Cameron's concessions were so minor to be virtually pointless and easy to reject/water down. It didn't even begin to tackle the true issue of freedom of movement and that is the disparity in living conditions and wages between member states and how easy it is to exploit the migrant work force. With the number of poorer eastern European countries joining the EU there really should have been a 2 tier system in place, or at  least greater controls. Not just to protect the richer countries from large numbers of immigration, but to protect the poorer countries from losing their work force. It is not a level playing field when a skilled professional in Romania can earn more doing unskilled manual work in the UK than in his chosen profession in his native country.

[Alf Bentley]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Out of interest what do you think it would take for the DUP to drop their support and give Corbyn a chance of being the Prime Minister? I'm struggling to think of much, they despise him so much I think the Conservatives are actually in a fairly strong place with this agreement, far stronger than they were in the Lib Dem coalition. I think he DUP realise they can have real influence, get a lot of money and keep JC from being PM for as long as possible here, it would take a lot for them to jeopardise that imo.

 

(apologies if I don't reply, time to do some work today, I've got to catch up from too much posting on here yesterday)

 

I'm no expert on Northern Irish politics, but possible causes for the DUP to withdraw....

- If Brexit negotiations aren't producing an open Irish border (which might require the UK to stay in the Customs Union, in turn possibly causing Tory schisms that could collapse the govt)

- If at any point May is not prepared to offer them as many goodies as they want (investment, cash, policy concessions)

- If the govt starts to become seriously unpopular (e.g. due to growing economic problems). They probably wouldn't want to be associated with that as it could cost them electoral support big-time

- If they spot an opportunity to do serious political damage to Sinn Fein or to the Official Unionists (though the latter are badly damaged already)

- I'd like to think that they'd also withdraw if the alliance was going to lead to a permanent collapse of power-sharing or of the Peace Process

 

I take your point that they wouldn't want to put Corbyn in No. 10, but there's not much chance of that on the current numbers. He might be able to form a govt with the support of LDs, SNP, Plaid & Green, but would still only have 314 seats. So the DUP could collapse the Tory Govt and then vote with the Tories to collapse any minority Labour administration.....then the Tories would be blamed if they opted not to bring down a Corbyn Govt and trigger an election, surely?

 

No probs re replying. About time I got on with other stuff, too!

[Captain...]

I'm still surprised no talk of a Lib Dem coalition happened, they would get the seats they need to form a majority (whilst still being supported by the DUP who vote with the Tories anyway), the Lib Dems basically became a single issue party, a referendum on the Brexit deal. Agree to a Coalition with Lib Dems, they support the Tories and get their Brexit referendum. It gives the Tories a get out clause on any sort of bad deal/no deal scenario. Negotiate the best deal possible, put it to the people if the people reject it then it is not the government's fault. It also gives the EU something else to think about a completely one sided deal on the table would be rejected the British public so it would be in their interest to get the British public onside to accept the deal on the table.

[Nick]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I'm still surprised no talk of a Lib Dem coalition happened, they would get the seats they need to form a majority (whilst still being supported by the DUP who vote with the Tories anyway), the Lib Dems basically became a single issue party, a referendum on the Brexit deal. Agree to a Coalition with Lib Dems, they support the Tories and get their Brexit referendum. It gives the Tories a get out clause on any sort of bad deal/no deal scenario. Negotiate the best deal possible, put it to the people if the people reject it then it is not the government's fault. It also gives the EU something else to think about a completely one sided deal on the table would be rejected the British public so it would be in their interest to get the British public onside to accept the deal on the table.

It's Lib Dem party suicide to get into bed with these lying fools again! 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I'm still surprised no talk of a Lib Dem coalition happened, they would get the seats they need to form a majority (whilst still being supported by the DUP who vote with the Tories anyway), the Lib Dems basically became a single issue party, a referendum on the Brexit deal. Agree to a Coalition with Lib Dems, they support the Tories and get their Brexit referendum. It gives the Tories a get out clause on any sort of bad deal/no deal scenario. Negotiate the best deal possible, put it to the people if the people reject it then it is not the government's fault. It also gives the EU something else to think about a completely one sided deal on the table would be rejected the British public so it would be in their interest to get the British public onside to accept the deal on the table.

 

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

It's Lib Dem party suicide to get into bed with these lying fools again! 

 

As well as the massive risk to the very existence of the Lib Dems, surely the Tory Right would never accept a second referendum as part of a deal?

[Captain...]

Just now, Swan Lesta said:

It's Lib Dem party suicide to get into bed with these lying fools again! 

They are already virtually irrelevant they campaigned on one thing and one thing only if they achieved that (and were honest about it, to achieve their aim they had to prop up the government until Brexit is sorted) I don't think they would lose that many votes. They don't have that many to lose, Labour are sweeping up the lefty vote, Lib Dem may have won more seats but got a smaller percentage of the vote, another election in the next 12 months would see them even more marginalised as the 2 main parties would dominate the votes as people look to get a majority government.

[Captain...]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

As well as the massive risk to the very existence of the Lib Dems, surely the Tory Right would never accept a second referendum as part of a deal?

I don't see why not, most ministers wanted remain, I think more people are waking up to the absolute mess that any Brexit would be at this stage. Putting it to the people absolves them of any responsibility. They were given a mandate to pursue Brexit, they did/are doing that. The results of the negotiation is not necessarily going to be the Brexit the majority of the people want so it makes sense to put it to them again. Whatever the result, be it a Hard Brexit, accepting the negotiated deal or remaining in the EU the Government is immune from criticism because it was enacting the will of the people at all stages. If the public had wanted to strengthen May's mandate for a hard Brexit, then they have just missed their opportunity. As it is an election called to strengthen her hand went badly wrong.

 

If I was a Tory minister that campaigned for Remain, or Campaigned to leave purely to further my own career it would be very appealing to come out of this mess with clean hands and political integrity still intact.

[Guest]

Political support grows for cross-party approach to Brexit negotiations

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/brexit-negotiations-cross-party-support-jeremy-corbyn

[Guest]

Tories may have to ease austerity plans, says Michael Gove

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/tories-may-have-to-ease-austerity-plans-says-michael-gove

 

Funny how money can always be found when it suits them

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I don't see why not, most ministers wanted remain, I think more people are waking up to the absolute mess that any Brexit would be at this stage. Putting it to the people absolves them of any responsibility. They were given a mandate to pursue Brexit, they did/are doing. The results of the negotiation is not necessarily going to be the Brexit the majority of the people want so it makes sense to put it to them again. Whatever the result, be it a Hard Brexit, accepting the negotiated deal or remaining in the EU the Government is immune from criticism because it was enacting the will of the people at all stages. If the people wanted to strengthen May's mandate for a hard Brexit, then they have just missed their opportunity.

 

If I was a Tory minister that campaigned for Remain, or Campaigned to leave purely to further my own career it would be very appealing to come out of this mess with clean hands and political integrity still intact.

 

I don't disagree with your analysis of the substantive issue (Brexit). But a significant minority of Tory MPs, probably an outright majority of party members and a large chunk of Tory voters have a fierce ideological commitment to Hard Brexit.

 

If the Govt agreed to a second referendum, it would open up the chance of us remaining in the EU, which they want to avoid at all costs. Even with DUP support, it might only take about 3 Eurosceptic Tory MPs to vote such a proposal down, probably collapsing the government and triggering an election.....and I think they would do that. Getting out of the EU is a lifetime's mission for some of them. Without a second referendum, we'll presumably end up with some sort of negotiated deal (Soft or Hard, largely at the discretion of the EU) or a Very Hard Brexit if no deal is agreed - out on WTO terms. I think that the latter outcome is utterly disastrous for the future of our nation....but a significant number of Tory MPs disagree. They'd much prefer it to a second referendum - and they'd have the support of a lot of party members and voters in taking that stance.

 

Calling a second referendum would split the Tory party down the middle (parliamentary party, membership and voters) and we've already seen how far the Tory party is prepared to go to prioritise party management/interests.

 

I suppose it could get more complicated if opposition parties supported a motion for a second referendum - but would they do so? Presumably the Lib Dems would, maybe some of the minor parties - but probably not Labour, as things stand. They'd prefer to bring down the govt and potentially take power via an election, surely?

 

Also, Labour policy is currently to accept the referendum result but to seek a Soft Brexit prioritising jobs, the economy and a close trading relationship. That policy might change, but probably only if the public mood shifts massively in favour of a second referendum. Worth remembering that the likes of Corbyn are lifelong Leftist Eurosceptics. He has had to modify his views as leader as most party members are Remainers, but he'd be quite happy with a Soft Brexit, I suspect.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn#European_Union

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Tories may have to ease austerity plans, says Michael Gove

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/tories-may-have-to-ease-austerity-plans-says-michael-gove

 

Funny how money can always be found when it suits them

It won't be found, it will be borrowed. How hard is that to understand. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It won't be found, it will be borrowed. How hard is that to understand. 

But by doing so we'll have more money in the economy which will allow growth thus brining in greater tax receipts. How hard is that to understand?

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

But by doing so we'll have more money in the economy which will allow growth thus brining in greater tax receipts. How hard is that to understand?

So where do you draw the line? 1 trillion debt? 2? 5? 10?

 

Artificial growth is fine. Until it isn't. Then we're all ****ed. 

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't disagree with your analysis of the substantive issue (Brexit). But a significant minority of Tory MPs, probably an outright majority of party members and a large chunk of Tory voters have a fierce ideological commitment to Hard Brexit.

 

If the Govt agreed to a second referendum, it would open up the chance of us remaining in the EU, which they want to avoid at all costs. Even with DUP support, it might only take about 3 Eurosceptic Tory MPs to vote such a proposal down, probably collapsing the government and triggering an election.....and I think they would do that. Getting out of the EU is a lifetime's mission for some of them. Without a second referendum, we'll presumably end up with some sort of negotiated deal (Soft or Hard, largely at the discretion of the EU) or a Very Hard Brexit if no deal is agreed - out on WTO terms. I think that the latter outcome is utterly disastrous for the future of our nation....but a significant number of Tory MPs disagree. They'd much prefer it to a second referendum - and they'd have the support of a lot of party members and voters in taking that stance.

 

Calling a second referendum would split the Tory party down the middle (parliamentary party, membership and voters) and we've already seen how far the Tory party is prepared to go to prioritise party management/interests.

 

I suppose it could get more complicated if opposition parties supported a motion for a second referendum - but would they do so? Presumably the Lib Dems would, maybe some of the minor parties - but probably not Labour, as things stand. They'd prefer to bring down the govt and potentially take power via an election, surely?

 

Also, Labour policy is currently to accept the referendum result but to seek a Soft Brexit prioritising jobs, the economy and a close trading relationship. That policy might change, but probably only if the public mood shifts massively in favour of a second referendum. Worth remembering that the likes of Corbyn are lifelong Leftist Eurosceptics. He has had to modify his views as leader as most party members are Remainers, but he'd be quite happy with a Soft Brexit, I suspect.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn#European_Union

The inner workings of the Tory party is a mystery to me so I will bow to your greater knowledge, my impression was that the majority of the Tory party ministers backed remain.

 

As for Corbyn, he quietly supported remain in the referendum, but wasn't very vocal. I think his campaigning this time around Brexit was very careful, he couldn't say that he would support us staying in the EU as it would have cost him a lot of votes. As I said earlier in the thread his comments on prioritising jobs and access to the single market over immigration suggest to me that a EEA deal is not off the table. Others have interpreted that differently. So who knows, but if I was a politician on either side I would be really happy for the public to take this decision out of my hands. Negotiate the best deal and put the options to the public. Voting to exit last year doesn't mean that the exit that will be offered in 2 years time is what they voted for.

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

It's not at all, it's a confidence and supply agreement, very, very different to the coalition which saw the other party take very senior posts in office.

 

The DUP will not be in the government and Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds will not have government positions or be regular attendees of cabinet meetings, stop trying to make it out to be something it isnt.

As I said - weak semantics. We know it's not an official coalition, we know the DUP won't be taking ministerial seats, but that is irrelevant really. It's two parties working very closely together to run a government with a parliamentary majority, it's an unofficial coalition - if you seriously think Sinn fein and the like will look at that and say "it's fine, the DUP haven't taken any ministerial seats" then you're naïve.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The inner workings of the Tory party is a mystery to me so I will bow to your greater knowledge, my impression was that the majority of the Tory party ministers backed remain.

 

As for Corbyn, he quietly supported remain in the referendum, but wasn't very vocal. I think his campaigning this time around Brexit was very careful, he couldn't say that he would support us staying in the EU as it would have cost him a lot of votes. As I said earlier in the thread his comments on prioritising jobs and access to the single market over immigration suggest to me that a EEA deal is not off the table. Others have interpreted that differently. So who knows, but if I was a politician on either side I would be really happy for the public to take this decision out of my hands. Negotiate the best deal and put the options to the public. Voting to exit last year doesn't mean that the exit that will be offered in 2 years time is what they voted for.

 

I understand the logic of your agreement. Personally, I'd like us to have a second referendum once negotiations are complete, with the option to stay in the EU. But only a minority of people want that at the moment. The failure of the Lib Dems' single-issue election campaign for a second referendum is evidence of that.

 

We who debate the issue on here only have a limited understanding of what will happen with Brexit. But 99% of voters have even less understanding or interest in the detail. I think the general view is that, for better or worse, the referendum result is known, the govt should get on with the negotiations and we'll then leave. Some people will believe the lies about a glorious Brexit future, others won't and most won't have much of a clue - but will accept the referendum result unless and until it becomes clear that the outcome is going to be disastrous for them and for this country.

 

There might be much more support for a second referendum in 18 months time, if negotiations produce a bad deal or no deal and if the economy is absolutely tanking (both of which I fully expect to happen). Whoever is in government then might be able to legislate for a second referendum - though whether they'd want to is another matter. Also, there's the issue of whether the EU would allow us to stay and, if so, on what terms.....probably not or on very harsh terms, I'd guess.

 

Also, on the back-burner is the unresolved issue as to whether the UK has a legal right under Article 50 to reverse its notice to leave within the 2-year negotiating period. The legal text seems ambiguous. Various legal experts have said that the UK DOES have that right. Again, though, politics might trump EU law. If the EU has spent 2-3 years planning all their structures, strategies, policies and budgets on the assumption that we're leaving, they might well prefer us to go, even though they didn't want it to happen originally. I'm sure they'd find a way of interpreting EU law to ensure we left, if so.... 

[Buce]

 

They all love Jezza now:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/i-was-wrong-about-jeremy-corbyn-leadership-says-harriet-harman

[Rincewind]

Not surprised considering he may have saved some of them their seats. Although I think the 'revolt' was exaggerated. A lot of MPs were happy to work with him and had been doing campaigning before the election. The focus however was on the negative side of Corbyn by the media and little was reported on what he and his colleagues had been doing. After the election was announced because of the impartial rule more positive things were reported by the MSM (Sun and Mail aside) He seemed to brush aside the negative press and concentrate on his campaign. Maybe that is why he gained a lot of respect from voters who had become fed up with the same kind of politics in recent years. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

So where do you draw the line? 1 trillion debt? 2? 5? 10?

 

Artificial growth is fine. Until it isn't. Then we're all ****ed. 

The debt has gone up and will continue to go up. It's funny money now. The whole system does not work.

[RobHawk]

48 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

They all love Jezza now:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/i-was-wrong-about-jeremy-corbyn-leadership-says-harriet-harman

At least they can admit they were wrong! Personally, i'm in the same boat - didn't think he could lead the party at all. Sometimes your happy to be wrong - doesn't mean you weren't doing what you thought was best at the time though (hindsights a beautiful thing!)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I understand the logic of your agreement. Personally, I'd like us to have a second referendum once negotiations are complete, with the option to stay in the EU. But only a minority of people want that at the moment. The failure of the Lib Dems' single-issue election campaign for a second referendum is evidence of that.

 

We who debate the issue on here only have a limited understanding of what will happen with Brexit. But 99% of voters have even less understanding or interest in the detail. I think the general view is that, for better or worse, the referendum result is known, the govt should get on with the negotiations and we'll then leave. Some people will believe the lies about a glorious Brexit future, others won't and most won't have much of a clue - but will accept the referendum result unless and until it becomes clear that the outcome is going to be disastrous for them and for this country.

 

There might be much more support for a second referendum in 18 months time, if negotiations produce a bad deal or no deal and if the economy is absolutely tanking (both of which I fully expect to happen). Whoever is in government then might be able to legislate for a second referendum - though whether they'd want to is another matter. Also, there's the issue of whether the EU would allow us to stay and, if so, on what terms.....probably not or on very harsh terms, I'd guess.

 

Also, on the back-burner is the unresolved issue as to whether the UK has a legal right under Article 50 to reverse its notice to leave within the 2-year negotiating period. The legal text seems ambiguous. Various legal experts have said that the UK DOES have that right. Again, though, politics might trump EU law. If the EU has spent 2-3 years planning all their structures, strategies, policies and budgets on the assumption that we're leaving, they might well prefer us to go, even though they didn't want it to happen originally. I'm sure they'd find a way of interpreting EU law to ensure we left, if so.... 

If we end up re-entering i can only see that being accepted if we become a full and active member at the heart of Europe without the various opt outs we used to have. Personally I'd be delighted with that. 

 

No idea regarding un-triggering article 50.

[Guest]

John major concerned about the dup deal. Im sure he doesn't know as much as mattp and webbo though...

 

I am concerned about the deal, I am wary about it, I am dubious about it, both for peace process reasons, and for other reasons as well ...

My main concern is the peace process. A fundamental part of that peace process is that the UK government needs to be impartial between all the competing interests in Northern Ireland. And the danger is that however much any government tries, they will not be seen to be impartial if they are locked into a parliamentary deal at Westminster with one of the Northern Ireland parties. And you never know in what unpredictable way events will turn out. And we cannot know if that impartiality is going to be crucial at some stage in the future.

If there difficulties with the Northern Ireland executive or with any one of a number of things that might well arise during the Brexit negotiations, it is very important that there’s an honest broker. And the only honest broker can be the UK government.

And the question arises, if they cease to be seen as such by part of the community in Northern Ireland, then one can’t be quite certain how events will unwind. And that worries me a great deal about the peace process.

[Guest]

Both hague and major have said, and earlier gove hinted, that there is no mandate for a hard brexit and that wider consultation with other parties is needed