General election? June 8th?

I don't think any British ruling party has ever claimed more than 50% of the vote or anything close so that's a very odd benchmark.

 

Whether people like it or not, the Tories are the only legitimate party with a claim to rule. Far more legitimate than Corbyn blathering about his alternative Queen's speech.

The Conservative Party got 49.7% in 1955. That's pretty close!

The Conservative Party got 49.7% in 1955. That's pretty close!

And they got well over 50% of the votes actually cast. But t'was basically a 2 party system then, Libs were around 3% and the odds and bods and nationalists of all kinds probably didn't get 1% of the total vote between them.

I don't think you understand how rights and responsibilities work. If the UK isn't willing to accept the responsibilities of being in the EU, it won't enjoy the same rights. Schoolboy stuff.

Yeah it's not hard to understand. My point was that if there was a deal that meant we got a better deal and it benefited the EU they wouldn't do it because they need to make sure we get a worse deal just to make a point. They won't do a single thing that gives us any sort of advantage because we are a competitor, rights and responsibilities don't come into it.

Yeah it's not hard to understand. My point was that if there was a deal that meant we got a better deal and it benefited the EU they wouldn't do it because they need to make sure we get a worse deal just to make a point. They won't do a single thing that gives us any sort of advantage because we are a competitor, rights and responsibilities don't come into it.

The "point" being that you can't leave the EU and end up with a better deal than a country in the EU.

Yeah, I think they might make that "point".

Jesus wept.

My point was that if there was a deal that meant we got a better deal and it benefited the EU they wouldn't do it because they need to make sure we get a worse deal just to make a point.

This is a hypothetical that isn't even hypothetically possible. A deal better than membership that also benefited the EU? What on earth could that be? Could you outline it?

Yeah it's not hard to understand. My point was that if there was a deal that meant we got a better deal and it benefited the EU they wouldn't do it because they need to make sure we get a worse deal just to make a point. They won't do a single thing that gives us any sort of advantage because we are a competitor, rights and responsibilities don't come into it.

If you join a club because of the benefits that it provides then you can't expect those benefits to continue if you leave, so you will probably be worse off.

It's like leaving the Freemasons and still expecting to get your planning permission nodded through or being let off your speeding fines.

The clearest argument yet against a burkha ban -

The clearest argument yet against a burkha ban -

How about bad hair days?

Meanwhile, Nicola Murray prays that Malcolm Tucker will find a way to get her out of her latest foul-up

The "point" being that you can't leave the EU and end up with a better deal than a country in the EU.

 

Yeah, I think they might make that "point".

 

Jesus wept.

Are they not trying to negotiate a free trade deal with Canada? I assume Canada are not going to have to put up with free movement of people.

Are they not trying to negotiate a free trade deal with Canada? I assume Canada are not going to have to put up with free movement of people.

Of course. The EU wouldn't sign up to it until all 27 nations all agreed it was offering much better terms than they had.

Jesus wept.

Of course. The EU wouldn't sign up to it until all 27 nations all agreed it was offering much better terms than they had.

 

Jesus wept.

Your version of Christianity sounds really depressing.

Of course. The EU wouldn't sign up to it until all 27 nations all agreed it was offering much better terms than they had.

 

Jesus wept.

What are the terms of the Canada deal then?

What are the terms of the Canada deal then?

It's, like, loads better than the deal the EU members have. They insisted on it they did.

What have you heard from Corbyn that you have not liked?

 

So why did you vote Tory ?

Mostly on delivering the Brexit I voted for in the referendum. No more free movement, no more being over-ruled by European courts, back to our elected Government of the day running they country.

I am also concerned how Corbyn could deliver on his promises. Not really sure his economy is a job creating one. I am confident though, that just like his mentor, Tony Benn, he is a Brexiteer.

It's, like, loads better than the deal the EU members have. They insisted on it they did.

Free trade, without free movement. Sounds ok to me.

Mostly on delivering the Brexit I voted for in the referendum. No more free movement, no more being over-ruled by European courts, back to our elected Government of the day running they country.

 

I am also concerned how Corbyn could deliver on his promises. Not really sure his economy is a job creating one. I am confident though, that just like his mentor, Tony Benn, he is a Brexiteer.

That was the Brexit in your head, not the one on the ballot paper. The UK will be leaving the EU. Nothing more, nothing less. Since both parties agree on ending freedom of movement, a Norway type deal seems highly improbable, though there's no reason why it can't be the basis of a temporary arrangement which could last for years. Even within these constraints, however, there's still space for different variants of Brexit (inclduing modest curbs on FoM) which fall far short of the viagra-hard Brexit pursued by the loons. See the Charles Grant quote earlier.

At the very least, the election arguably delivered a death blow to leaving the customs union -the DUP doesn't support it; Labour doesn't support it and many Tories, including Davidson's Scottish phalanx don't support it. By extension that will end the UK's ability to strike its own trade agreements, always a fanciful, economically illiterate aspiration given the price that would have to be paid for that right. Perhaps someone should tell Liam Ffux-Adam that he's likely to be out of a job or worse become a glorified head of UKTI.

Free trade, without free movement. Sounds ok to me.

I miss the days of the referendum when you were saying you were voting out because you were sick of big business having too much power. And here you are drooling over CETA. Quite wonderful.

Of course. The EU wouldn't sign up to it until all 27 nations all agreed it was offering much better terms than they had.

 

Jesus wept.

That would be 28, captain. The UK parliament's assent is still part of the ratification process.

Just to wind up our flailing Brexiteers, if Brexit happens after ratification of CETA, Britain will be subject to the 'investment provisions' of the agreement (effectively the Canada/EU disputes court) for a further twenty years. So we may escape the EU but we'll be stuck with the EU in trade with Canada, regardless of some hoped-for bilateral deal.

And just to wind them up still further, the EU has just said this evening that they may have to delay the start of negotiations...for a year! All because of May's attempt to insist on negotiating divorce and trade agreement simultaneously.

The EU's position seems to have hardened considerably since the election - they are pretty amused and amazed at the feebleness of May, even to the extent of trolling her by saying the idea to hold a snap election was actually Juncker's idea.

Anyone get the sense that Brexit isn't looking so likely any more?

That was the Brexit in your head, not the one on the ballot paper. The UK will be leaving the EU. Nothing more, nothing less. Since both parties agree on ending freedom of movement, a Norway type deal seems difficult, though there's no reason why it can't be the basis of a temporary arrangement which could last for years. Even within these constraints, however, there's still space for different variants of Brexit (inclduing modest curbs on FoM) which fall far short of the viagra-hard Brexit pursued by the loons. See the Charles Grant quote earlier.

 

At the very least, the election arguably delivered a death blow to leaving the customs union -the DUP doesn't support it; Labour doesn't support it and many Tories, including Davidson's Scottish phalanx don't support it. By extension that will end the UK's ability to strike its own trade agreements, always a fanciful, economically illiterate aspiration given the price that would have to be paid for that right. Perhaps someone should tell Liam Ffux-Adam that he's likely to be out of a job or worse become a glorified head of UKTI.

Thanks for the lesson.

Personally, I think what you've written is a load of sh*t. But then, that's just my opinion. Not the fact that is 'in your head'.

The Labour Manifesto was not far left it was just an anti austerity one there are plenty of labour politicans who are against austerity

It could have been written by Ed Milliband. However, what will the next one look like. Ken Livingstone was quoted by Andrew Neil saying "the electorate had a taste of Socialism and they liked it. We need to give them more socialism,if we're going to make the final push". If Corbyn, Milne, McDonnell, Abbott, Len & the rest of the head bangers think the same,they're ****ed.

Thanks for the lesson.

 

Personally, I think what you've written is a load of sh*t. But then, that's just my opinion. Not the fact that is 'in your head'.

Always happy to educate and enlighten, pal.

I miss the days of the referendum when you were saying you were voting out because you were sick of big business having too much power. And here you are drooling over CETA. Quite wonderful.

I never once said that but I'm not surprised you didn't understand my point, you seem to have a problem with the simplest of concepts.

My point about big business was that when they all spoke out in favour of remain they were just thinking of themselves not how Brexit would effect the general population. Every time the remain campaign wheeled out these bankers and rich business leaders to plead their case it just made a protest vote more likely.

That was the Brexit in your head, not the one on the ballot paper. The UK will be leaving the EU. Nothing more, nothing less. Since both parties agree on ending freedom of movement, a Norway type deal seems difficult, though there's no reason why it can't be the basis of a temporary arrangement which could last for years. Even within these constraints, however, there's still space for different variants of Brexit (inclduing modest curbs on FoM) which fall far short of the viagra-hard Brexit pursued by the loons. See the Charles Grant quote earlier.

 

At the very least, the election arguably delivered a death blow to leaving the customs union -the DUP doesn't support it; Labour doesn't support it and many Tories, including Davidson's Scottish phalanx don't support it. By extension that will end the UK's ability to strike its own trade agreements, always a fanciful, economically illiterate aspiration given the price that would have to be paid for that right. Perhaps someone should tell Liam Ffux-Adam that he's likely to be out of a job or worse become a glorified head of UKTI.

Do you really think all 27 nations will agree a deal that would get through our parliament in under two years?

Always happy to educate and enlighten, pal.

No pal of mine Sensei.

Do you really think all 27 nations will agree a deal that would get through our parliament in under two years?

Its pretty clear that transitional arrangements will be required - only question is what those arrangements look like. Good chance they look pretty similar to the status quo in order to minimise disrtruption.

Its pretty clear that transitional arrangements will be required - only question is what those arrangements look like. Good chance they look pretty similar to the status quo in order to minimise disrtruption.

Yeah, but it will be a transition to WTO rules if there is no deal by the deadline.

Yeah, but it will be a transition to WTO rules if there is no deal by the deadline.

The two-year negotiation period only applies to the withdrawal agreement under Article 50. Negotiations on the future UK–EU relationship can take much longer, depending on what the goal is e.g. bespoke vs. off-the-shelf deal. In other words, not everything has to be agreed within two years.

McDonnell on Peston today discussing the single market.

"I don’t think staying in is feasible. Let’s be clear, we’re respecting the decision of the referendum. We are democrats. I think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum".

He also added that he didn't thing staying in would even be on the table .

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

McDonnell on Peston today discussing the single market.

 

"I don’t think staying in is feasible. Let’s be clear, we’re respecting the decision of the referendum. We are democrats. I think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum".

 

He also added that he didn't thing staying in would even be on the table .

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even that leaves plenty to play for. Per Charles Grant (a remainer)

"A softer Brexit is unlikely to mean staying in the single market, since the EU would insist on free movement of labour – a price many Conservative and Labour MPs would not want to pay.

But a softer Brexit could mean introducing only modest curbs on free movement, staying in EU regulatory agencies and avoiding a dogmatic rejection of any role for the European court of justice (ECJ). It could even mean maintaining the customs union. There would then be no need for controls and perhaps queues on the EU-UK border – or for customs posts between the north and south of Ireland. But the UK would have to adopt EU tariffs and could not negotiate its own free trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Staying in the customs union would madden the Tory right as much as it would please businesses".

It would also madden the kipper mentalists on here; but it would be perfectly compatible with the statements made by McDonnell. Whatever transpires, the Brexit, including exiting customs union that the mentalists were looking forward to a few days ago is arguably now gone forever.

McDonnell on Peston today discussing the single market.

 

"I don’t think staying in is feasible. Let’s be clear, we’re respecting the decision of the referendum. We are democrats. I think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum".

 

He also added that he didn't thing staying in would even be on the table .

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeremy Corbyn said much the same thing. It encouraged me to be honest.

Jeremy Corbyn said much the same thing. It encouraged me to be honest.

And me, but I'm glad it's DD doing the groundwork rather than Labour. Gove going to DEFRA is also a good sign.

One thing for sure is we're a lot further away from the dead hand of The EU than we were 2 years ago.

The Tories should do their deal, then call a GE. Take it or leave on WTO rules. There are 2 linked, but separate issues here. Terms of leaving the EU & then future arrangement. You can have the first without the second. If the people reject the Tory future arrangement & want labour to go and negotiate one, that's democracy at its finest. Exactly why I voted Leave in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The two-year negotiation period only applies to the withdrawal agreement under Article 50. Negotiations on the future UK–EU relationship can take much longer, depending on what the goal is e.g. bespoke vs. off-the-shelf deal. In other words, not everything has to be agreed within two years.

And if the two years are up and the EU are not interested in a deal?

And me, but I'm glad it's DD doing the groundwork rather than Labour. Gove going to DEFRA is also a good sign.

 

One thing for sure is we're a lot further away from the dead hand of The EU than we were 2 years ago.

 

The Tories should do their deal, then call a GE. Take it or leave on WTO rules. There are 2 linked, but separate issues here. Terms of leaving the EU & then future arrangement. You can have the first without the second. If the people reject the Tory future arrangement & want labour to go and negotiate one, that's democracy at its finest. Exactly why I voted Leave in the first place.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. This remainer or whatever insulting and ridiculous word you persist on using to describe me has always stated that the democratic result from June 2016 has to be upheld to preserve democracy in this country. What sticks in the craw is the petty insults you resort when responding to people who don't agree with your view. I'll say it here and now. I've never voted Tory, never will and despise UKIP and all it stands for, but I accept the referendum result.

I never once said that but I'm not surprised you didn't understand my point, you seem to have a problem with the simplest of concepts.

 

My point about big business was that when they all spoke out in favour of remain they were just thinking of themselves not how Brexit would effect the general population. Every time the remain campaign wheeled out these bankers and rich business leaders to plead their case it just made a protest vote more likely.

Oooh, If there's one thing big business hates it is free trade deals.

As I said when you were dribbling this sh ite out last year, big business are not planning to suffer in Brexit Britain. And if they do end up in difficulty, I have a tiny suspicion that the people who will pay the price for that will be, you guessed it, "the general population".

As usual, you're all over the fu cking place.

It could have been written by Ed Milliband. However, what will the next one look like. Ken Livingstone was quoted by Andrew Neil saying "the electorate had a taste of Socialism and they liked it. We need to give them more socialism,if we're going to make the final push". If Corbyn, Milne, McDonnell, Abbott, Len & the rest of the head bangers think the same,they're ****ed.

Not sure how true that is. Socialism is dangerous because it always looks good on paper and in theory. People will vote for it because it offers hope and positivity with little thought for the long term consequences. If labour do actually get in eventually under corbyn then we will see socialism in action and the consequences could be disastrous. I hope the Tories manage to sort themselves out by then or preferably another party pops up that is worth voting for but I'm not holding my breath.

Not sure how true that is. Socialism is dangerous because it always looks good on paper and in theory. People will vote for it because it offers hope and positivity with little thought for the long term consequences. If labour do actually get in eventually under corbyn then we will see socialism in action and the consequences could be disastrous. I hope the Tories manage to sort themselves out by then or preferably another party pops up that is worth voting for but I'm not holding my breath.

I think Corbyn's choice of his shadow cabinet will tell us what direction the Labour Party are heading. If he reaches out to moderates, then that would suggest to me he won't lurk any further to the left from his current position. Time will tell.

And me, but I'm glad it's DD doing the groundwork rather than Labour. Gove going to DEFRA is also a good sign.

 

One thing for sure is we're a lot further away from the dead hand of The EU than we were 2 years ago.

 

The Tories should do their deal, then call a GE. Take it or leave on WTO rules. There are 2 linked, but separate issues here. Terms of leaving the EU & then future arrangement. You can have the first without the second. If the people reject the Tory future arrangement & want labour to go and negotiate one, that's democracy at its finest. Exactly why I voted Leave in the first place.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure another Brexit influenced General Election would be a good thing to be honest. If the choice is as stark as what you say, Parliament can decide. The best time to sort future arrangement would be in the next 2 years, where we still have a few cards up our sleeve. To leave, then go back to the EU cap in hand, would immediately put us in a position of weakness.

Oooh, If there's one thing big business hates it is free trade deals.

 

As I said when you were dribbling this sh ite out last year, big business are not planning to suffer in Brexit Britain. And if they do end up in difficulty, I have a tiny suspicion that the people who will pay the price for that will be, you guessed it, "the general population".

 

As usual, you're all over the fu cking place.

Try reading.

Careful balancing act for May DUP or Scottish conservatives whose she going to keep happy...

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBCyf4E?m=en-gb

Mostly on delivering the Brexit I voted for in the referendum. No more free movement, no more being over-ruled by European courts, back to our elected Government of the day running they country.

I am also concerned how Corbyn could deliver on his promises. Not really sure his economy is a job creating one. I am confident though, that just like his mentor, Tony Benn, he is a Brexiteer.

What have the Government of the Day been doing for the last several decades if they haven't been running the country?

From various rumblings from Cabinet members and others, it seems the not-really-Brexit-at-all Brexit is coming along nicely. Also, where the Scots Tories and the DUP unite is in having a strong preference for an 'open Brexit', with membership of the single market and the customs union. Which would leave May with some negotiating to do around the margins of freedom of movement, to arrive at the sort of minor restrictions that the Swiss and Norwegians have. She could also avoid a big divorce bill by agreeing - as she'll have to - to contribute, minus voting rights, to the EU budget.

Everyone's a winner!

Not sure how true that is. Socialism is dangerous because it always looks good on paper and in theory. People will vote for it because it offers hope and positivity with little thought for the long term consequences. If labour do actually get in eventually under corbyn then we will see socialism in action and the consequences could be disastrous. I hope the Tories manage to sort themselves out by then or preferably another party pops up that is worth voting for but I'm not holding my breath.

Socialism is dangerous? Seriously? It might be different but it is no more "dangerous" than capitalism. No surprise to see what side of the political divide you are on. Hopefully this current sham of a Government will fall apart soon and we will be rid of this dreadful PM. Let's get a bit of "dangerous" politics in, save the NHS and stop pandering to the stupidly rich.

What have the Government of the Day been doing for the last several decades if they haven't been running the country?

Since 1992, a lot of governing has been done by unelected Eurocrats. That was my point, sorry if it wasn't obvious.

From various rumblings from Cabinet members and others, it seems the not-really-Brexit-at-all Brexit is coming along nicely. Also, where the Scots Tories and the DUP unite is in having a strong preference for an 'open Brexit', with membership of the single market and the customs union. Which would leave May with some negotiating to do around the margins of freedom of movement, to arrive at the sort of minor restrictions that the Swiss and Norwegians have. She could also avoid a big divorce bill by agreeing - as she'll have to - to contribute, minus voting rights, to the EU budget.

 

Everyone's a winner!

A good few Labour MP's are Brexiteers.

From various rumblings from Cabinet members and others, it seems the not-really-Brexit-at-all Brexit is coming along nicely. Also, where the Scots Tories and the DUP unite is in having a strong preference for an 'open Brexit', with membership of the single market and the customs union. Which would leave May with some negotiating to do around the margins of freedom of movement, to arrive at the sort of minor restrictions that the Swiss and Norwegians have. She could also avoid a big divorce bill by agreeing - as she'll have to - to contribute, minus voting rights, to the EU budget.

 

Everyone's a winner!

What would this entail? There are ‘safeguard mechanisms’ contained in Articles 112 and 113 as part of the EEA agreement, though for a country the size of the UK -unlike Norway which has less than 1/10th of the population, it's difficult to envisage situations in which immigration would be so problematic as to justify the UK triggering these mechanisms.

Freedom of movement was phased in stages in Switzerland via a quota system, though it wasn't particularly restrictive and meant only to be temporary (5 years). In return, the Swiss were granted partial access to the single market thanks to a mindboggling web of 10,000 bilateral treaties, though it has fallen far short of full liberalisation of trade in goods, services and capital. Attempts to renegotiate freedom of movement have cut little ice, other than largely tokenistic compromises such as recent legislation to give local residents priority in new job vacancies.

In other words, not sure how these precedents would be sufficient to placate the loons.

What would this entail? There are ‘safeguard mechanisms’ contained in Articles 112 and 113 as part of the EEA agreement, though for a country the size of the UK -unlike Norway which has less than 1/10th of the population, it's difficult to envisage situations in which immigration would be so problematic as to justify the UK triggering these mechanisms.

 

Freedom of movement was phased in stages in Switzerland via a quota system, though it wasn't particularly restrictive and meant only to be temporary (5 years). In return, the Swiss were granted partial access to the single market thanks to a mindboggling web of 10,000 bilateral treaties, though it has fallen far short of full liberalisation of trade in goods, services and capital. Attempts to renegotiate freedom of movement have cut little ice, other than largely tokenistic compromises as in recent legislation to give local residents priority in new job vacancies.

 

In other words, not sure how these precedents would satisfy the loons.

One variant I heard discussed prior to the referendum is that you retain freedom of movement, but you have to have a firm job offer before you move. Mostly window dressing but could satisfy both sides.

A good few Labour MP's are Brexiteers.

Are they as many as the Tory remainers ?

Are they as many as the Tory remainers ?

Nope, though Corbyn's ambiguity -as much strategic as out of principle- doesn't help. Guess that's a privilege of being in opposition.