General Election 2017 Mega Thread

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:13 am

Even the Suns Political Editor is saying that the majority in the H of C is 45 for a "soft brexit".

This whole "terrorist sympathiser" thing losing a hell of a lot of possible support when the Tories are about to leap into bed with the DUP btw.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:26 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Even the Suns Political Editor is saying that the majority in the H of C is 45 for a "soft brexit".

This whole "terrorist sympathiser" thing losing a hell of a lot of possible support when the Tories are about to leap into bed with the DUP btw.

Maybe, though I think most people find it hard to align what the DUP are doing now with the attempted murder of the Prime Minister (and successful murder of another MP and several friends and relatives).

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:30 am

I'm a bit confused with the whole hard, soft, open Brexit thing. It's my understanding that there is now likely to be a at least a parliamentary vote if not a further referendum on the outcome of negotiations. If that gets voted down in one way or another (highly likely at the moment) and we reach the 2 year deadline we'll by default fall into WTO rules, is that not the hardest of Brexits? Or have I missed something.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:35 am

No deal is hard brexit Caballo, anything else is soft brexit.

A hung parliament makes the first option very, very, very unlikely, there are too many Tory MPs in remain areas sitting on wafer thin majorities, and in the nicest possible way, the bulk of the brexit vote will only shrink over time as nature takes its course.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:42 am

Got to ask Tory voters, at what stage does it get too much?

The creationists are asking for the Drumcree march to be allowed again as part of the deal. Thats not "strong and stable" leadership, its wrecking the peace process.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:50 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:No deal is hard brexit Caballo, anything else is soft brexit.

A hung parliament makes the first option very, very, very unlikely, there are too many Tory MPs in remain areas sitting on wafer thin majorities, and in the nicest possible way, the bulk of the brexit vote will only shrink over time as nature takes its course.

That's working on the assumption that younger people won't change their minds as they get older and more mature. Remember the current pensioner generation were wildly in favour of the EEC in 1975 - they changed their minds.

Of course, a lot of their change of mind will no doubt because experience has shown them what a monster the EU has become, rather than a change of principles; but the point stands, that as Brexiters die they may be replaced from the ranks of Remainers.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:58 am

You: We should leave the EU because we only voted to join the ECC and since then it has changed beyond all recognition.
Also you: The people who overwelmingly voted to join the ECC are now opposed to it and to know this just look at how they voted on the EU.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:58 am

Damo wrote:I you think newspapers don't paint a balanced or intelligent picture regarding politics, I would to hear your views on the guff that was posted all over social media.
The amount of people who I spoke to who were voting labour because they didn't think the NHS should be privatised was unbelievable.
It doesn't matter what coverage politics gets from respectable newspapers as most people don't read them

The number of people reading papers is probably a lot higher than you might imagine, and up until this last week their influence has been enormous and acknowledged.
Social media is becoming increasingly important, but when I leave a post on social media, such as this, it is read by relatively few.
To put it in some sort of context The Daily Hate still sells aporox 1.5 million per day, and it is estimated that most papers are read by an average of 3 people.
A lot of the news is presented as fact, when in fact it is opinion. The same could be said, though possibly to a lesser degree, about the other papers.
Altogether there are still approaching 10 million newspapers sold each day in the UK, so according to research that's about 30 million readers, plus more than double that online.
I do agree that social media is becoming more relevant and hopefully this will force newspapers to be less partisan, more factual and most importantly more accountable.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:59 am

You keep clutching at them straws DSR.

The young know what the EU is, and what it offers (and its failures too).

EDIT - I have absolutely no idea if the mandate for EU remaining is there (it probably isn't) but the mandate for a hard brexit isn't there either. Some tough decisions needed by those in charge, and it has to be in the best interests in the country.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:00 am

There is a key difference in the way news is consumed between print media and social media. A newspaper is passively read by individuals, and social media is more interactive, and open. If a newspaper spins a news item by misreporting it, you as the reader might choose to disagree and stop reading it, however (unless they print your letter to the editor), you can't print your own copy with a dissenting opinion. Although you can employ critical thinking when reading a newspaper article, you are not empowered to respond. Social media is quite the opposite, and allows you to go beyond this and write something entirely different altogether. Someone writing in a national newspaper that (for example) the Tories will nationalise the NHS; will reach hundreds of thousands of people with no ability to respond. The same claim made in social media (and I include online versions of newspapers in this), will trigger debate, and the likelihood any untruths or gross distortions will come to light. In this we can see that newspapers have a disproportionate power over the electorate compared to social media.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:03 am

Very relevant article today in the guardian saying this

"I personally don’t believe the 18-34s – a million of whom registered to vote in the seven weeks after the election was called – voted in their own interests, for the tuition fees offer. I wouldn’t mind if they had; it is an absurdity of our politics that we assume old people vote with their wallets, and yet expect the young to vote with their values."

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:09 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:You: We should leave the EU because we only voted to join the ECC and since then it has changed beyond all recognition.
Also you: The people who overwelmingly voted to join the ECC are now opposed to it and to know this just look at how they voted on the EU.

Yes, two good reasons why people have changed the mind. Though I doubt I said the first one as a reason why we should vote to leave, because what happened forty years ago is only peripherally relevant to today. My point about the vote to join the EEC was that we've never before had the chance to vote on the EU.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:18 am

Oh, and exit polls suggest that the main anti-EU party in Italy is struggling in the elections.

Its looking increasingly likely we are going to be on the only ones to go. Which won't lead to an EU collapse.

Thats good to for the economy at least, as long as we avoid the no deal option

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:28 am

Last week's result has to be a wake up call for the Tories. I can only see more young people voting in the next election, and I suspect a majority of MPs may now favour extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds too. (Not Tory policy I know , but they are no longer in the majority, and I suspect that some of their own MPs may be coming round to the idea that young people matter.)
A further issue that should concern the Tories is the 3 million who weren't allowed to vote. (I.e. EU citizens who vote in local and regional elections, but at present are not allowed to vote in a General election).
No one can be certain what will happen in the Brexit negotiations, but I think we can assume that their status will have to change.
They will either have to return home, or (almost certainly) be offered fast track UK citizenship. If there is an end to free movement then I don't see how they can remain indefinitely in the UK as EU citizens under some kind of permanent visa arrangement.
Given that the Tories intend using them as pawns in the Brexit negotiations and refuse to guarantee their rights, I can make a reasonable guess which party they won't be voting for post Brexit.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:50 am

nil_desperandum wrote:I can only see more young people voting in the next election, and I suspect a majority of MPs may now favour extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds too. (Not Tory policy I know , but they are no longer in the majority, and I suspect that some of their own MPs may be coming round to the idea that young people matter.)

It's not because young people don't matter that they don't get the vote. 15 year olds, 12 year olds, 5 year olds, new born babies, all matter too. There has to be a cutoff, and I doubt it will change before the next election.

nil_desperandum wrote:If there is an end to free movement then I don't see how they can remain indefinitely in the UK as EU citizens under some kind of permanent visa arrangement.
Given that the Tories intend using them as pawns in the Brexit negotiations and refuse to guarantee their rights, I can make a reasonable guess which party they won't be voting for post Brexit.

The Tories have always said that they would be willing to guarantee their rights on a mutual basis with the 1m UK citizens abroad. The EU won't play, because they're the ones who want to keep the citizens' rights as part of the deal.

Why wouldn't a permanent visa arrangement work?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:01 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You keep clutching at them straws DSR.

The young know what the EU is, and what it offers (and its failures too).

EDIT - I have absolutely no idea if the mandate for EU remaining is there (it probably isn't) but the mandate for a hard brexit isn't there either. Some tough decisions needed by those in charge, and it has to be in the best interests in the country.

Corbyn and McDonall have said we are leaving the single market , the yoof have been betrayed or weren't listening.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:07 am

dsr wrote:It's not because young people don't matter that they don't get the vote. 15 year olds, 12 year olds, 5 year olds, new born babies, all matter too. There has to be a cutoff, and I doubt it will change before the next election.

The Tories have always said that they would be willing to guarantee their rights on a mutual basis with the 1m UK citizens abroad. The EU won't play, because they're the ones who want to keep the citizens' rights as part of the deal.

Why wouldn't a permanent visa arrangement work?

Of course there has to be a cut -off, and we can agree to disagree where that might be. My point is that there seems to be a move towards moving the age downwards.
Whether you personally disagree won't change that.
It won't change before the next election I agree, but I am looking at things in the long term.
As you say. Theres no reason why they couldn't stay here under some kind of extended visa system , but I'm pretty sure they would prefer the certainty of UK citizenship and passport, and I would expect it to be offered as part of a reciprocal deal with the EU.
For those who favour strict border controls to prevent free movement, extended or indefinite visas for EU, would be considered a dubious policy I think.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:17 am

I don't think you are capable of reading anyones posts that don't 100% support your view Andy.

One thing that would be nice for the likes of you, dsr, CM and others to acknowledge is that your view of the UK isn't shared by enough to make it a reality, just like mine isn't.

Now we've established that we don't want full EU membership or a hard brexit drop off a cliff no deal, surely its in everyones interest to work together for the best possible deal for the UK?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:18 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Last week's result has to be a wake up call for the Tories. I can only see more young people voting in the next election, and I suspect a majority of MPs may now favour extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds too. (Not Tory policy I know , but they are no longer in the majority, and I suspect that some of their own MPs may be coming round to the idea that young people matter.)
A further issue that should concern the Tories is the 3 million who weren't allowed to vote. (I.e. EU citizens who vote in local and regional elections, but at present are not allowed to vote in a General election).
No one can be certain what will happen in the Brexit negotiations, but I think we can assume that their status will have to change.
They will either have to return home, or (almost certainly) be offered fast track UK citizenship. If there is an end to free movement then I don't see how they can remain indefinitely in the UK as EU citizens under some kind of permanent visa arrangement.
Given that the Tories intend using them as pawns in the Brexit negotiations and refuse to guarantee their rights, I can make a reasonable guess which party they won't be voting for post Brexit.

Wow, slow down a little, please nil_d.

It's good that younger people are engaged in politics - it isn't an "old grumpy man's" game, If all 18+ year olds are encourage to register to vote and take the actions necessary to vote this is great. I'm a lot less confident that there is anything gained by extending the franchise to 16/17.

The 3 million EU citizens living in the UK have the right to apply for UK citizenship if they wish. Yes, their right to remain should be guaranteed (though not with the "super" EU protections proposed by some in Brussels, just on the same terms as everyone else living in the UK). If they choose to apply for UK citizenship this should be supported - and they will qualify to vote when they've made this commitment to the UK.

My recollection is that TM wanted to g'tee EU citizens in UK status last autumn - along with UK citizens in other EU member states. It was the EU that said that this couldn't be done at that time.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:30 am

One of the unexpected 'benefits' of this election is that we will probably end up with a much more democratic and inclusive conservative party.

The two 'poisonous' special advisors have been purged, cabinet ministers are back round the table, the more austere and right wing policies will be quietly dropped.

The loss of a clear majority might be viewed as destabilising but it might also have produced a more centrist and acceptable government.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:33 am

I'm not sure about that. But its certainly the way they need to go. There are vast amounts of votes to be won in the middle, and no one is really interested in them at the moment.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:41 am

Paul Waine wrote:Wow, slow down a little, please nil_d.

It's good that younger people are engaged in politics - it isn't an "old grumpy man's" game, If all 18+ year olds are encourage to register to vote and take the actions necessary to vote this is great. I'm a lot less confident that there is anything gained by extending the franchise to 16/17.

The 3 million EU citizens living in the UK have the right to apply for UK citizenship if they wish. Yes, their right to remain should be guaranteed (though not with the "super" EU protections proposed by some in Brussels, just on the same terms as everyone else living in the UK). If they choose to apply for UK citizenship this should be supported - and they will qualify to vote when they've made this commitment to the UK.

My recollection is that TM wanted to g'tee EU citizens in UK status last autumn - along with UK citizens in other EU member states. It was the EU that said that this couldn't be done at that time.

It's not me that needs to slow down. More likely it's the Tories who need to catch up if they are ever to get a significant majority again. Don't forget theyve only had a working majority for 2 years in the past 20. Even that was scarcely more than double figures.
It's not me necessarily championing votes for the under 18s, but if the Tories are the only party against it, then young people will take note of this, and increasingly consider them to be against the interests of young people in general.
I think you're missing my point about EU citizens in the UK. They cant continue to be EU citizens living in the UK if we end fredom of movement, otherwise if they went on holiday they couldn't get back.
They will need either some form of UK passport, which would presumably then give them full voting rights, otherwise they would continually need to apply for some kind of travel / work visa. I can't see the latter being acceptable to the majority of leavers or remainers.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:51 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Oh, and exit polls suggest that the main anti-EU party in Italy is struggling in the elections.

Its looking increasingly likely we are going to be on the only ones to go. Which won't lead to an EU collapse.

Thats good to for the economy at least, as long as we avoid the no deal option

It was never going to collapse because of us leaving. If anything our leaving, and prior petulance and demands for special treatment, have only worked to solidified the rest of the EU as a bloc. There was some buoyant mood among the anti EU parties in Europe but that was exaggerated by Farage and his sycophants.

By leaving the EU bonds become stronger and we become weaker and I for one don't mind that at all because they deserve it and we don't.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:59 am

nil_desperandum wrote:I think you're missing my point about EU citizens in the UK. They cant continue to be EU citizens living in the UK if we end fredom of movement, otherwise if they went on holiday they couldn't get back.
They will need either some form of UK passport, which would presumably then give them full voting rights, otherwise they would continually need to apply for some kind of travel / work visa. I can't see the latter being acceptable to the majority of leavers or remainers.

Ending freedom of movement doesn't mean you can't physically cross a border. When EU-style freedom of movement ends, it won't stop any EU citizen (barring terrorists etc) from visiting the UK; but it will give the UK the option of not letting them get a job here. All that is needed for the 3m already here, at a minimum, is an indefinite work permit lasting (say) until 3 months after they are last employed in the UK. They may also be given the opportunity to apply for UK citizenship, but the work permit idea would do for those that don't want permanent UK citizenship.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:21 pm

I am confused as to what is hard or soft Brexit.

The reality is there is a spectrum of possibilities rather than two possibilities.

Even "no deal" cannot exist in reality. Yes, trade can be WTO rules, but there are many other elements in which we are intertwined where no deal is impossible.

I'm unclear what the MPs are pushing for. I know most, even Tories, voted Remain, so now are chancing their arm. I suspect they are pushing for a customs union style Brexit, and I suspect this will fail because of the difficulty reconciling it with independence and control.

I still feel the end result will be independence but with concessions to the EU over migration, and concessions internally that we will take anybody who is offered a job. There will be a lot of grey areas, such as what to do about people who wish to set up a business such as a plumber, but they will iron those out

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:24 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I don't think you are capable of reading anyones posts that don't 100% support your view Andy.

One thing that would be nice for the likes of you, dsr, CM and others to acknowledge is that your view of the UK isn't shared by enough to make it a reality, just like mine isn't.

Now we've established that we don't want full EU membership or a hard brexit drop off a cliff no deal, surely its in everyones interest to work together for the best possible deal for the UK?

This right here is exactly where we are as a nation right now.

We are very unsure of where we want our role to be in the world and the type of government we want to have. We need some time to figure this out as a nation, but unfortunately time is against us. Everyone with any sense wants a good Brexit deal, I think our chances of that have been substantially reduced in the last week, but it is what it is.

The issue is for leave voters like myself is not that we wouldn't be willing to compromise, it's that we are only being given two options. That's this so called "soft brexit" in which we adhere to everything we did before minus actual membership itself (we'd even still pay the fees) or a total exit from the EU and everything it offers. So in reality, all we are being offered is a painful Brexit, or no Brexit at all; so we don't feel as though we have any other choice than to go for the hard brexit and fight tooth an nail for it. TM's approach made sense, go for the best possible deal, be prepared to walk away; that is the only way you can ever hope to get a good deal in any negotiation, otherwise there is no incentive to offer a good deal at all.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:25 pm

dsr wrote:Ending freedom of movement doesn't mean you can't physically cross a border. When EU-style freedom of movement ends, it won't stop any EU citizen (barring terrorists etc) from visiting the UK; but it will give the UK the option of not letting them get a job here. All that is needed for the 3m already here, at a minimum, is an indefinite work permit lasting (say) until 3 months after they are last employed in the UK. They may also be given the opportunity to apply for UK citizenship, but the work permit idea would do for those that don't want permanent UK citizenship.

So basically you've just agreed that for borders to be workable the 3 million would either have to become UK citizens or work here / travel herr with some kind of visa system.
The majority will opt for citizenship I'm sure, and the whole point of my initial thread was that I really can't foresee a lot of them becoming Tory voters.

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:39 pm

dsr wrote:Ending freedom of movement doesn't mean you can't physically cross a border. When EU-style freedom of movement ends, it won't stop any EU citizen (barring terrorists etc) from visiting the UK; but it will give the UK the option of not letting them get a job here. All that is needed for the 3m already here, at a minimum, is an indefinite work permit lasting (say) until 3 months after they are last employed in the UK. They may also be given the opportunity to apply for UK citizenship, but the work permit idea would do for those that don't want permanent UK citizenship.

That could actually be done within the EU. To offer specifics, the United Kingdom could enact our own quotas regarding specialised skills to fill skill gaps (or at least have a job to go into) rather than complete free movement in Shengen, EEA or EU, by enacting Article 45. We would then still have access to the free market and access to free movement of Services and capital.

I really don't know why this wasn't stressed by the remain camp. Same goes for the 2006 directive to give the UK and Ireland 'opt-out' powers with regards to enacting EU law within our criminal, family and employment law.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:42 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:So basically you've just agreed that for borders to be workable the 3 million would either have to become UK citizens or work here / travel herr with some kind of visa system.
The majority will opt for citizenship I'm sure, and the whole point of my initial thread was that I really can't foresee a lot of them becoming Tory voters.

I said they may be offered the chance - the corollary is that they may not. But as the ones who would accept the chance to be UK citizens would be the ones who don't want to be in the EU and the ones who are willing to work hard for minimum wage (as a generalisation), then I think there might be more Tory voters than you think.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:44 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:It's not me that needs to slow down. More likely it's the Tories who need to catch up if they are ever to get a significant majority again. Don't forget theyve only had a working majority for 2 years in the past 20. Even that was scarcely more than double figures.
It's not me necessarily championing votes for the under 18s, but if the Tories are the only party against it, then young people will take note of this, and increasingly consider them to be against the interests of young people in general.
I think you're missing my point about EU citizens in the UK. They cant continue to be EU citizens living in the UK if we end fredom of movement, otherwise if they went on holiday they couldn't get back.
They will need either some form of UK passport, which would presumably then give them full voting rights, otherwise they would continually need to apply for some kind of travel / work visa. I can't see the latter being acceptable to the majority of leavers or remainers.

Hi nil_d, I hope I'm not arguing a political point - it's not my concern which parties want 16/17 year olds to vote for them. I think the point should be at what age do you qualify to vote. Should we include "children" or require all voters to be adults? I don't go for this "old v young" agenda. Don't all parents care for their own children and grandparents care for their grandchildren? And, political parties can have policies that are favourable to the young (as well as other age groups) without needing to give 16/17 years old the vote.

The EU citizens who are in the UK will be allowed to remain - their rights will be "grandfathered" - in the same way that the rights of UK citizens in EU member states will be "grandfathered." This is the deal that the UK has already offered to the EU.

I'm also certain that all EU citizens who re working in the UK will be granted work visas. The separate issue about UK citizenship and voting rights will be for them to decide.

I lived and worked in Netherlands before the introduction of "freedom of movement" (I'm pretty sure "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet" was on tv well before this time, also). I had no problems with a work permit. (Great place to live, btw). I've also lived and worked in New York. Yes, work visa was a little harder to obtain for NY. Other family members have also done this much more recently.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:53 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I don't think you are capable of reading anyones posts that don't 100% support your view Andy.

One thing that would be nice for the likes of you, dsr, CM and others to acknowledge is that your view of the UK isn't shared by enough to make it a reality, just like mine isn't.

Now we've established that we don't want full EU membership or a hard brexit drop off a cliff no deal, surely its in everyones interest to work together for the best possible deal for the UK?

What if the EU want no deal ? You are presuming may comes back with a hard brexit and it gets rejected by parliament, then we leave with no deal. If the talks go badly and no deal is reached within 2 years then we leave with no deal. I would say no deal is the most likely option now.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:04 pm

Everyone with any sense wants a good Brexit deal

And you've nailed the problem right there.

Until there is an outbreak of common sense in Westminster, then we are going to bounce along like we are.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:05 pm

They have never, ever, ever said that they want no deal.

You are just making stuff up now Andy. You are going to have to accept were we are at some stage.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:16 pm

claretandy wrote:Corbyn and McDonall have said we are leaving the single market , the yoof have been betrayed or weren't listening.

How have the youth been betrayed by Labour?

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:20 pm

There will be a deal. Best case scenario (that's with us leaving the EU) is to join the EFTA and gain their relationship with the free market, whilst agreeing similar to Switzerland in terms of immigration. We keep the terms as they are regarding Employment law, family law and human and civil rights law. We also agree to allow the current EU citizens already in the country to stay under EU free movement for workers rules and agree the same for UK citizens in EU countries.

That said, if we got the above, France and many others would be queueing to leave.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:31 pm

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:34 pm

You've just lit the blue touch paper there ITBYW.

Dsr et al are heading your way with the messageboard equilvalent of burning torches.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:39 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:How have the youth been betrayed by Labour?

The yoof love the EU and want to stay in, its not going to happen under Eurosceptic Corbyn.

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:40 pm

If it be your will wrote:This is broadly best case, I agree. It does beg the question of what exactly was the point of it all though, doesn't it?

I'm horrified that we are a member of an organisation that I really don't like, yet there seems no sensible way of actually leaving it. But the post referendum situation has, I think, confirmed this horrible truth and it's time we abandoned the whole thing on grounds of pragmatism. (I'm quite cross about that, mind).

Absolutely. The government knew that many people in the UK were getting sick of the immigration issues in the country and that this could infact cause a leave vote if there was a referendum.

When David Cameron went to negotiate prior to the referendum he could have negotiated my above best case scenario and got as close to that as possible, yet he gambled, Maybot gambled and we are now in a position of submissiveness in the eyes of all in the EU.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:41 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:They have never, ever, ever said that they want no deal.

You are just making stuff up now Andy. You are going to have to accept were we are at some stage.

If we don't come to an agreement within 2 years then there is no deal to put to parliament and we leave under WTO terms.

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:42 pm

claretandy wrote:The yoof love the EU and want to stay in, its not going to happen under Eurosceptic Corbyn.

Your extremely generalist view of the youth in this country is nearly as patronising as the Conservative's election campaign.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:43 pm

Foshiznik wrote:Absolutely. The government knew that many people in the UK were getting sick of the immigration issues in the country and that this could infact cause a leave vote if there was a referendum.

When David Cameron went to negotiate prior to the referendum he could have negotiated my above best case scenario and got as close to that as possible, yet he gambled, Maybot gambled and we are now in a position of submissiveness in the eyes of all in the EU.

He wasn't serious about leaving and they knew it, so gave him nothing. Control of borders is a red line, non negotiable.

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:44 pm

claretandy wrote:If we don't come to an agreement within 2 years then there is no deal to put to parliament and we leave under WTO terms.

That's a no deal. There is no movement of persons, goods, services or capital agreement under WTO. We will get a better 'bad deal' than that.

Foshiznik · Post by **Foshiznik** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:46 pm

claretandy wrote:He wasn't serious about leaving and they knew it, so gave him nothing. Control of borders is a red line, non negotiable.

Agree with your first point. Control of borders is negotiable, we just have to compromise on other things such as the free market and quotas and that will be the measure of whether it's a good deal or a bad deal.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:49 pm

If it be your will wrote:This is broadly best case, I agree. It does beg the question of what exactly was the point of it all though, doesn't it?

I'm horrified that we are a member of an organisation that I really don't like, yet there seems no sensible way of actually leaving it. But the post referendum situation has, I think, confirmed this horrible truth and it's time we abandoned the whole thing on grounds of pragmatism. (I'm quite cross about that, mind).

Hi iibyw, I know I'm not supposed to write anything you want to agree with, but I agree with you: there should be a pragmatic resolution of the UK and the EU.

Yes, all the politicians have to respect the views expressed in the referendum. Yes, if we don't leave the EU there has to be something else that the 52% can hold on to as the best resolution of the UK/EU relationship.

So, my suggestion: 1) the EU changes; it accepts that it was doing things that made the electorate in many of its member states want to leave. The EU needs to tackle a number of the long standing sources of friction between the member states. 2) UK politics has to make some changes, open up the "political establishment," and make politics more inclusive. So, move parliament to Manchester for the next parliament (2022 or earlier); abolish the House of Lords - replace with a 300 member "house of knowledgeable persons" - and no more than 100 KPs can be ex-politicians - the majority must be apolitical/neutral people; no more "Lord/Lady/Sir/Dame" - top sports people, top actors can be awarded "top sports person" award - we don't need to call any of them "Sir" or "Lord." And, of course, I've posted further ideas before.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:49 pm

claretandy wrote:The yoof love the EU and want to stay in, its not going to happen under Eurosceptic Corbyn.

Corbyn isn't PM. His manifesto wasn't elected. What the **** is wrong with you?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:50 pm

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:51 pm

Be realistic please, we are leaving them, they don't have to change anything.

We have to rethink what we need and what is worth giving up/keeping from it.

The EU might well change under Macron and Merkel, but as we are leaving, that won't be of any real interest to us

I'm aware I'm being very pragmatic here, but I'm hoping it rubs off on everybody else.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:10 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Be realistic please, we are leaving them, they don't have to change anything.

We have to rethink what we need and what is worth giving up/keeping from it.

The EU might well change under Macron and Merkel, but as we are leaving, that won't be of any real interest to us

I'm aware I'm being very pragmatic here, but I'm hoping it rubs off on everybody else.

I highly doubt that, those two in particular really like things as they are.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:18 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Corbyn isn't PM. His manifesto wasn't elected. What the **** is wrong with you?

He's the alternative if the Tories fail, both manifestos state that we will leave the single market and end freedom of movement, have the yoof and remainers realized this ?