General Election 2017 Mega Thread

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:57 am

You mean Tories like terrorists?

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:10 am

Theresa May may have "won" the election, but when you think about what she has done she has no credibility or moral authority with which to govern.

This is the woman who signed the papers to begin taking us out of Europe and then, instead of preparing for what, in her own words, were "the most important negotiations this country has undertaken since the war", she effectively resigned. Opportunistically looking for a massive increase in her majority, she then conducted the most arrogant, complacent and inept (non)campaign in British political history and got exactly what she deserved - a big fat rasberry from the British people. How on earth is she now supposed to represent the country in front of all of Europe's other leaders - she'll be laughed out of the room. They'll also be accutely aware of - and exploit - her reputation for indecision, u-turns and failure, and the lack of backing for any particular stance from her still fractured party.

When you look at this Conservative government's record since being freed from the moderating influence of the Lib-Dems, it really is quite shocking. They've called two purely self-serving elections and made a total cock of them both. We now have a government dependant on a tiny group of Irish Protestant nutters to stay in power, are leaving Europe without any idea what will happen afterwards and are going into those negotiations with a lame-duck Prime Minister.

If a Labour government had created this shambles, the tabloid press would, rightly (for once), be screaming "not fit to govern". Neither are this shower.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:19 am

nil_desperandum wrote:May could have already made an agreement with the SNP if she had wanted. They asked her to look at Scotland remaining in the Single Market even if the rest of UK pursued a hard Brexit.

Given that this was pretty much the stance of the DUP, (in that , whilst leavers they wanted open borders and trade with the south), the single market is definitely back on the table as an option. (A Hard Brexit is almost unworkable for the DUP in Ireland because of border trade etc).

Arlene Foster has already stated that as part of co-operation with the Tories they would be pushing for soft brexit, and a soft border. So basically there's no reason at all why there can't be consensus with the SNP, and if as seems likely the Tories do have to go for a soft brexit, it might also be a good idea to have a 2nd referendum to approve this.(Not a ref to say whether we should leave the EU, but to get an agreed majority for soft brexit, and therefore give the "hard brexiteers" the opportunity to reject the deal, and demand a full or hard brexit)
So it would be quite possible to get a consensus around soft brexit I think, and to give it democratic legitimacy, we could have that 2nd ref that the Lib Dems want in order to verify the deal.
This would be the best way to bring us together I think. It wouldn't please the hard right, but you can't please everyone, and I suspect that the vast majority could, (with reservations) unite around a soft brexit.

Remaining in the single market has never been off the table to my knowledge. It's all well and good referring to SNP's request for Scotland to remain in the single market if the rest of the UK didn't, but I fail to see how that could ever be delivered. And I be stunned if there was a cross party agreement to hold a second referendum. I'm trying to be realistic about the possibility of reaching a broad consensus, and your two examples do nothing to convince me it would be achievable. In fact the two examples feel so unrealistic the opposite is true. That's not to say we won't pursue a soft Brexit but that wasn't off the table anyway.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:22 am

bobinho wrote:So. There I am responding to the "Northern Ireland" thread, twenty minutes and some considerable text later, I hit "submit" and the thread has gone. Turns out it's merged with this. My post lost in the ether (on my fone)

Why wouldn't any posts written automatically be redirected to the merged thread??? FFS this isn't the dark ages!

Can't be arsed with this ****, I'm off to discuss bacon butties...

Ditto was just about to nudge it. Anyway id be interested in the response if you can be arsed. Or context of it.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:25 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Does this DUP deal jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement? We might end up getting even more terrorists for you lot to be terrified of.

Somehow replied to wrong thread

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:25 am

It made me laugh when she replied to someone stating she didn't turn up for one of the election question meetings, yet JC did.

She answered it, saying she had more pressing issues by planning for Brexit... even though it was her who signalled the bloody election!

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:29 am

A common theme on here was a lack of real inspiration for both main parties; i like some labour some tory policies but neither of them really floated my boat. I reluctantly voted tory as the thought of Corbyns giveaway manifesto was worrying and based on all businesses he wanted to tax staying here. All people above 80k staying here or not putting more into a pension and dropping below threshold all people in private schools staying in them and paying Vat instead of going into the state sector and subsequent cost to the tax payer. His repeated ambiguity about defence etc. May proved to be a Dullard who couldnt debate was arrogant lacked a basic understanding of the real anger 're care costs nhs funding student debt etc and such an obvious disregard about seeking advice from cabinet members instead relying on a focus groups Push May push Brexit mantra. It spectacularly backfired. I voted with my wallet in mind as I thought that the stability required during Brexit would be better served by a party who didn't rely as much on borrowing.
The tories have caused all these problems for Britain by calling for the referrendum in the first place to unite the Tories and defeat UKIP. In hindsight we should have stayed in Europe but fought tooth and nail with other North European countries such as Germany Holland etc to become what it was set up as in the first place a trading zone with no politicians involved.

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:41 am

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Ditto was just about to nudge it. Anyway id be interested in the response if you can be arsed. Or context of it.

Gist was basically about imo it being a bit of a no brainer for TM to align herself with pro union pro brexiters. She will need all the help she can get whilst working in the brexit deal cos the opposition will simply oppose everything and try to make it a failure. Basically putting their party before the country to further their own agenda as someone else put it.
For those that want to pour scorn on it there will be the terrorist angle (that they conveniently forget about with SF) in that they may have supported the UDA's activities at some point in the past, but in this era we are all for fogiving the IRA/RIRA, and ignoring corbyns relationship with them, but are prepared to crucify TM for getting into a deal with them.

Northern Ireland is still very sensitive. Exactly what will happen over there is anyone's guess, but at least there is a chance the voices of the province will be heard now (at least one side of the argument seeing as SF don't bother DESPITE the peace process) as they are in a good position to deal with the sitting government, due to said govt wanting support.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:47 am

taio wrote:Remaining in the single market has never been off the table to my knowledge. It's all well and good referring to SNP's request for Scotland to remain in the single market if the rest of the UK didn't, but I fail to see how that could ever be delivered. And I be stunned if there was a cross party agreement to hold a second referendum. I'm trying to be realistic about the possibility of reaching a broad consensus, and your two examples do nothing to convince me it would be achievable. In fact the two examples feel so unrealistic the opposite is true. That's not to say we won't pursue a soft Brexit but that wasn't off the table anyway.

So, why didn't TM tell Nicola Sturgeon that a soft Brexit wasn't off the table.?
Apart from stating it on other occasions, TM was definitive on January 17th 2017 :
"Britain is leaving the EU’s single market," Prime Minister Theresa May said Tuesday as she unveiled her strategy for leaving the European Union. “We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave,” she said. “The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. My job is to get the right deal for Britain as we do.”

I agree that it didn't appear likely that Scotland could remain in the Single Market, but I would imagine that Sturgeon may well have had Ireland in mind when she put it forward as a possibility, since it was frequently mentioned that there would most likely have to be special arrangements to take into account the unique border situation there. (i.e. Sturgeon: if they can come to a deal in Ireland in order to preserve the Union then they might at least look at accommodating our wishes too).

Whilst May might have agreed with us that a separate arrangement for the Scots was unrealistic, she could just have said that a soft brexit "wasn't off the table" (to use your words).
Instead she announced in the strongest terms that we were leaving the single market, and indeed the Customs Union.

I agree that a 2nd referendum is not very likely, and I doubt many people have any appetite for one, but if as now seems likely, (due to the DUP), we pursue a soft Brexit, Farage and the hard brexiteers would be incandescent, and would never give up on it.
If however, (whoever is negotiating) could put together some sort of "soft brexit" deal that seemed to suit the majority, it would be much better to have a referendum to verify it and therefore, just about permanently end the argument.
Question on ballot paper:
Do you approve the deal for a "soft brexit" drawn up with the EU, or should we leave the single market and customs union and revert to WTO rules?
yes or no.
There would be no question as to whether we were staying in. The result of the first referendum would be upheld, and then to ensure an end to the matter the deal could be ratified or not.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:00 pm

bobinho wrote:Gist was basically about imo it being a bit of a no brainer for TM to align herself with pro union pro brexiters. She will need all the help she can get whilst working in the brexit deal cos the opposition will simply oppose everything and try to make it a failure. Basically putting their party before the country to further their own agenda as someone else put it.
For those that want to pour scorn on it there will be the terrorist angle (that they conveniently forget about with SF) in that they may have supported the UDA's activities at some point in the past, but in this era we are all for fogiving the IRA/RIRA, and ignoring corbyns relationship with them, but are prepared to crucify TM for getting into a deal with them.

Northern Ireland is still very sensitive. Exactly what will happen over there is anyone's guess, but at least there is a chance the voices of the province will be heard now (at least one side of the argument seeing as SF don't bother DESPITE the peace process) as they are in a good position to deal with the sitting government, due to said govt wanting support.

'Ignoring Corbyns relationship with them'

That is definitely what has happened over the past 6 weeks.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:01 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:So, why didn't TM tell Nicola Sturgeon that a soft Brexit wasn't off the table.?
Apart from stating it on other occasions, TM was definitive on January 17th 2017 :
"Britain is leaving the EU’s single market," Prime Minister Theresa May said Tuesday as she unveiled her strategy for leaving the European Union. “We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave,” she said. “The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. My job is to get the right deal for Britain as we do.”

I agree that it didn't appear likely that Scotland could remain in the Single Market, but I would imagine that Sturgeon may well have had Ireland in mind when she put it forward as a possibility, since it was frequently mentioned that there would most likely have to be special arrangements to take into account the unique border situation there. (i.e. Sturgeon: if they can come to a deal in Ireland in order to preserve the Union then they might at least look at accommodating our wishes too).

Whilst May might have agreed with us that a separate arrangement for the Scots was unrealistic, she could just have said that a soft brexit "wasn't off the table" (to use your words).
Instead she announced in the strongest terms that we were leaving the single market, and indeed the Customs Union.

I agree that a 2nd referendum is not very likely, and I doubt many people have any appetite for one, but if as now seems likely, (due to the DUP), we pursue a soft Brexit, Farage and the hard brexiteers would be incandescent, and would never give up on it.
If however, (whoever is negotiating) could put together some sort of "soft brexit" deal that seemed to suit the majority, it would be much better to have a referendum to verify it and therefore, just about permanently end the argument.
Question on ballot paper:
Do you approve the deal for a "soft brexit" drawn up with the EU, or should we leave the single market and customs union and revert to WTO rules?
yes or no.
There would be no question as to whether we were staying in. The result of the first referendum would be upheld, and then to ensure an end to the matter the deal could be ratified or not.

It was an error - I meant to say soft Brexit not off the table rather than single market. I like how you've framed the second referendum.

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:03 pm

I didn't mean the people who are vehemently opposed to corbyn. I meant his fans and supporters, not forgetting the hundreds of thousands of students who have no recollection of the troubles. But I suspect you knew that.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:04 pm

taio wrote: I like how you've framed the second referendum.

In the forthcoming general Election do you think I should stand as a candidate with this policy?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:11 pm

Damo wrote:I thought Corbyn was proposing to pay for most of his ideas using capital gains tax?
Which of course is tax on business profits?
Forcing businesses to give people an inflation busting pay rise will directly affect business profits won't It?
Meaning less money for his schemes?
Does that sound right or not?

Thanks for the clarification. You're wrong, of course, but thanks for the clarification. This was the argument used against the introduction of the NMW, too, which also proved to be a busted flush. Wages have consistently fallen behind inflation. Increasing NMW would help begin to redress this. This is important because your economy doesn't work if people can't afford to buy anything. Higher wages also helps take people off income support.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:20 pm

And don't forget that even if a higher, but not insane, NMW does mean lower corporate tax revenue the increased money in the economy means more jobs paying more income tax at the lower bracket plus more disposable income means more VAT revenue and fewer people receiving welfare. There are probably even more fiscal benefits that I've not thought of.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:21 pm

bobinho wrote:Gist was basically about imo it being a bit of a no brainer for TM to align herself with pro union pro brexiters. She will need all the help she can get whilst working in the brexit deal cos the opposition will simply oppose everything and try to make it a failure. Basically putting their party before the country to further their own agenda as someone else put it.
For those that want to pour scorn on it there will be the terrorist angle (that they conveniently forget about with SF) in that they may have supported the UDA's activities at some point in the past, but in this era we are all for fogiving the IRA/RIRA, and ignoring corbyns relationship with them, but are prepared to crucify TM for getting into a deal with them.

Northern Ireland is still very sensitive. Exactly what will happen over there is anyone's guess, but at least there is a chance the voices of the province will be heard now (at least one side of the argument seeing as SF don't bother DESPITE the peace process) as they are in a good position to deal with the sitting government, due to said govt wanting support.

"some point in the past" in this instance being about a fortnight ago. Not really comparable to the hammering Corbyn took for his words and actions in the 70s and 80s.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 76873.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And don't try to claim "we" are all for ignoring Corbyn's past. We might be, but your lot certainly weren't - funny how your stance has changed though, isn't it?

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:22 pm

If 'soft brexit' is dependent on free movement of EU citizens into the UK, it ain't going to happen.

So why is anyone talking about it?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:25 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And don't forget that even if a higher, but not insane, NMW does mean lower corporate tax revenue the increased money in the economy means more jobs paying more income tax at the lower bracket plus more disposable income means more VAT revenue and fewer people receiving welfare. There are probably even more fiscal benefits that I've not thought of.

Would be surprised if NLW of £10 per hour, abolition of zero hours contracts and a corporation tax hike would do much for job creation.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:26 pm

One of the best things to have come out of this election is waning influence of the press. People no longer have to rely on the papers and other mainstream media outlets for their information and news. Through the internet we can now do our own research, check the facts and make independent informed decisions.

The facts can no longer be controlled, ignored or manipulated by vested interest groups ( be they left or right wing). The truth is out there and freely available to all those prepared to make a little bit of effort. Through the internet people are now becoming engaged in politics and can make their thoughts and opinions heard.

I think it's bloody marvellous!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:34 pm

taio wrote:Would be surprised if NLW of £10 per hour, abolition of zero hours contracts and a corporation tax hike would do much for job creation.

There's definitely a point at which a NMW becomes counter productive but I don't think £1 more in 2020 than what the Tories were promising in 2015 is going to crash the economy. And its still way, way below what it should be if wages had risen in line with productivity over the last 40 years

Of course, I don't recall many people criticising them for buying votes but that's the way of things in politics. When the left focus on the proles it's "free stuff for everyone everywhere" when it's the Tories it's "this is sound fiscal sense".

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:41 pm

On it's own, no. But alongside the other policies, possibly. Having said that I'd be more relaxed than I was - if young people want Labour's proposals so much they would have to deal with any long term impact on the economy.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:54 pm

taio wrote:On it's own, no. But alongside the other policies, possibly. Having said that I'd be more relaxed than I was - if young people want Labour's proposals so much they would have to deal with any long term impact on the economy.

The same argument about younger voters being reckless, without regard to the long term effects of the economy, can equally be used for older people who voted for brexit. If there is any long term damage of leaving the EU those older voters are unlikely to be around to pick up the pieces.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:54 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:59 pm

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:02 pm

Spijed wrote:The same argument about younger voters being reckless, without regard to the long term effects of the economy, can equally be used for older people who voted for brexit. If there is any long term damage of leaving the EU those older voters are unlikely to be around to pick up the pieces.

Yes it could

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:05 pm

Greenmile wrote:"some point in the past" in this instance being about a fortnight ago. Not really comparable to the hammering Corbyn took for his words and actions in the 70s and 80s.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 76873.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And don't try to claim "we" are all for ignoring Corbyn's past. We might be, but your lot certainly weren't - funny how your stance has changed though, isn't it?

Your lot? Who are "my lot"?? I'd be obliged if you would let me know.

My politics are, and always have been left of centre. JC and his friends are just slightly right of Marxism. That's too far left for me. Couple that with his other "issues" and his policies, and that makes him, in my eyes, not the right man for the job. We are skint. We'd be skinter. (New word. Good eh?) I DO want to see another labour government, but only when they are ready to govern.
We are leaving th EU. What's really important is that we get the very best deal we can, and who you think can deliver that deal. Out of the choices we had, TM was the best of a bad bunch.

Time now for politicians to get their **** together, stop trying their best to scupper the other party, get behind the brexit negotiations at least until we are done with it, for the good and benefit of the entire nation. That's the single most important thing right now, not political point scoring and scuppering negotiations just so someone can say "you screwed it up".
Brexit is MASSIVE. We get this wrong, and we are royally ******. I'd sooner TM go to Europe and sell them what we have rather than JC, who I'm convinced thinks we have NOTHING to sell them. He comes across as an apologist, and that's just why we don't need him at the table. Basically, I don't trust him.

My stance hasn't changed in the slightest, so there's nothing funny about it.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:15 pm

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:25 pm

There is a distinct lack of animus among you lot and this is **** in me off. Stop talking and start sniping or I'm reporting all of you.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:13 pm

You lefties should be happy, the DUP are against the bedroom tax and austerity, in a funny old way you're probably going to get what you want

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:34 pm

Spijed wrote:The same argument about younger voters being reckless, without regard to the long term effects of the economy, can equally be used for older people who voted for brexit. If there is any long term damage of leaving the EU those older voters are unlikely to be around to pick up the pieces.

Agreed, and it's as daft an argument whichever way round you go. There aren't many parents and grandparents who work on the basis of "I'm all right Jack, my children and grandchildren can go hang". Older people vote for the long term even if they won't be around to see it; similarly, young people vote for what they believe to be the best option for now and forever, even if their relative youth means they're more likely to change their mind later.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:52 pm

Are these stupid ***** really going for a formal coalition?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:55 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:The European Court of Human Rights explained to those who don't know anything about it

Just seems the right place to put this

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/vid ... r-us-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The abolition of slavery? Really?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:58 pm

Mala591 wrote:If 'soft brexit' is dependent on free movement of EU citizens into the UK, it ain't going to happen.

So why is anyone talking about it?

I would say - wait and see.
A lot of people , having looked at all the arguments are no longer so convinced that free movement is such a bad thing.
I'm willing to bet that virtually all those younger voters who effectively changed the course of this election and potentially the future of British politics are in favour of having the same rights as movement that their parents have enjoyed.
The young have now discovered that they have a voice, not only via social media, but also through the ballot box. Don't be surprised to see millions more registering and voting at the next election. And don't be surprised if all political parties start to listen to them.
The Tories will continue to blame them for losing them the election and ignore their views at their peril.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:05 pm

"Soft Brexit" is a bit of a red herring, really. Everybody wants access to the EU single market; the only question is, how much are the various parties willing to pay for it. The EU have said it can't happen without free movement of people, and the Tories have said they won't accept it without free movement of people, so unless one side changes their mind, it won't happen under the Tories. Labour have said that a deal must be made with the EU, though are very vague on what that deal will be; they have said that the free movement rule will change which implies they won't agree to be in the free market unless the EU change their minds.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:13 pm

So it's the Federation of United Conservatives and the Democratic Unionist Party.

Or for short... FUCDUP

cutsy123 · Post by **cutsy123** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:13 pm

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:16 pm

Proper straw clutching going on there.

The brexit that you and others wanted is dead.

You still get your blue passports, no EU rule (which easn't the case anyway but hey) and your flag to wave around so be happy.

And what was the Ukip vote again? Didn't Lord Buckethead get about the same amount for his tweets?

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:16 pm

You cannot have free movement whilst leaving the ECHR because those people won't have an umbrella justice system that you would need if it is their hands whether they come or go.

If we have free movement while still being in the ECHR and in the single market, we would surely insist on equal influence to other nations in those things (like influencing EU law). We would thus not have left at all.

So I cannot see any way free movement can stay. We can though agree on keeping fairly unconstrained migration, with perhaps limits on free movement without jobs or university. I expect visitors to be allowed, say, 90 days staying here without those things. We can insist on being able to deport convicted people who commit crimes while they are here. That is the sort of agreement I anticipate, whoever is in charge. I also think 75% of people will support it.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

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

page 28, Labour manifesto

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/ ... 202017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:20 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Proper straw clutching going on there.

The brexit that you and others wanted is dead.

You still get your blue passports, no EU rule (which easn't the case anyway but hey) and your flag to wave around so be happy.

And what was the Ukip vote again? Didn't Lord Buckethead get about the same amount for his tweets?

Just remember the reason Labour managed to hold on to northern seats is that some of the UKIP vote went Labour, any backsliding and they will desert Labour again.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:23 pm

claretandy wrote:"Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union."

page 28, Labour manifesto

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/ ... 202017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keep cherry picking, it's only yourself you're deluding.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:35 pm

If the kamikaze version of Brexit is dead in the water (as it would appear), it looks increasingly likely that the only way we will leave the EU is by paying for full access to the single market, remaining in the customs union, and by accepting the freedom of movement.

The only things we'd be giving up are our seat at the table and our voice on how Europe is shaped.

Which then raises the question: is it actually going to be worth leaving at all?

It's still very, very early days yet, but the Brexit train running out of steam before the 2 years is up is a possibility, even if it's an unlikely one.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:36 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Keep cherry picking, it's only yourself you're deluding.

Whys it cherry picking ? It's a fact, it was in the manifesto, any attempt to backslide will cost them in any 2nd election. If people wanted to keep freedom of movement then they should have voted Lib Dem, they didn't.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:40 pm

claretandy wrote:Whys it cherry picking ? It's a fact, it was in the manifesto, any attempt to backslide will cost them in any 2nd election. If people wanted to keep freedom of movement then they should have voted Lib Dem, they didn't.

I thought that's what parties did - promise the world in their manifesto; get voted in; don't fullfil what they said they'd do. Rinse and repeat.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:41 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:If the kamikaze version of Brexit is dead in the water (as it would appear), it looks increasingly likely that the only way we will leave the EU is by paying for full access to the single market, remaining in the customs union, and by accepting the freedom of movement.

The only things we'd be giving up are our seat at the table and our voice on how Europe is shaped.

Which then raises the question: is it actually going to be worth leaving at all?

It's still very, very early days yet, but the Brexit train running out of steam before the 2 years is up is a possibility, even if it's an unlikely one.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

One things for sure, Corbyn is in a stronger position now, he has always been Eurosceptic, and wants to be able to intervene and nationalise industries which is against EU rules.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:46 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:If the kamikaze version of Brexit is dead in the water (as it would appear), it looks increasingly likely that the only way we will leave the EU is by paying for full access to the single market, remaining in the customs union, and by accepting the freedom of movement.

I don't see why the election result makes that much difference. Whatever happens, at the end of negotiations, Parliament will be asked "do you accept the deal". Parliament will be able to reject the deal, but there won't be an alternative deal, and there won't be an option of staying in the EU. Parliament's choice will be the deal as negotiated, or no deal at all.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:14 pm

claretandy wrote:One things for sure, Corbyn is in a stronger position now, he has always been Eurosceptic, and wants to be able to intervene and nationalise industries which is against EU rules.

Jesus Christ you're just packed full of complete bullshit. Nationalisation is not against EU law.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:[deleted] you're just packed full of complete [deleted]. Nationalisation is not against EU law.

Do you find personal abuse and swearing are helpful in pointing out errors? Or is it Tourette's?

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:43 pm

dsr wrote:Do you find personal abuse and swearing are helpful in pointing out errors? Or is it Tourette's?

Yes...just cut it out you Conartist voters will you.

Also if someone has the misfortune to have Tourette's don't use that as a form of.... there's a good chap/chapess.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:47 pm

According to Lord Ashcroft (Exit Poll) here is a breakdown of the age of Labour voters:

Puts to bed the myth that it was purely down to the youth vote.

18-24 9%
25-34 19%
35-44 20%
45-54 18%
55-64 18%
65+ 16%