UKC

I thought somebody would have started a discussion on this yesterday as I thought it was Big News.

Is this just a flash in the pan idea, or could it actually happen. And is the real stumbling block the person proposing it, Jeremy Corbyn?

Would Jeremy have to swallow his pride and let somebody else lead the caretaker government?

The two most likely leaders of such an emergency government are Corbyn and Kenneth Clarke. For Clarke to be entrusted with the role it would take one person (Corbyn) to swallow his pride. For Corbyn to be entrusted with it would require over a dozen Tory MPs to commit to throwing themselves under their party bus.

Dominic Grieve yesterday described JC as totally lacking in self awareness - sadly, I think that's true. He has no idea how unpopular he is, or how compromised he has become. I'm not sure all his MPs would support him becoming PM, yet alone anyone else.

Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman, Keir Starmer, Hilary Benn... there are potential candidates... does the caretaker govt thing have legs? 

The first stumbling block is passing a vote of no confidence.

And the second is getting Boris to pay any attention to it !

I think that is the easy bit. I suspect parliament preventing Johnson leaving with no deal before an election is more likely than the formation of an emergency government 

It's the least contrived way to do it and the biggest stumbling block is 'centrist' MP's such as Jo Swinson who clearly see undermining Jeremy Corbyn as more important than stopping a no deal Brexit.

And yet even Grieve didn't absolutely rule out the possibility of working with Corbyn. If Grieve can manage to hold his nose for long enough, one would hope that others, including the LibDems would manage similarly

It could do. Of those names, I suspect Ken Clarke would represent the best hope - at least it would look like the grown-ups were retaking control. However, I can imagine Corbynite Labour MPs balking at the idea of supporting any Tory, even one as decent as Clarke. Keir Starmer and Hilary Benn are decent enough details men, but neither are leaders and aren't that well known in the country at large. Harman is a good woman, but lacking in the kind of gravitas needed. 

I'm really not a fan of Swinson - I think she's dishonest, style-over-substance, and further right than I'm happy with. But I'm pretty sure that what she's actually doing is bigging up herself and the Lib Dems - her actual job - not undermining Corbyn (who, as leader of an opposing party with quite different ideals, is not someone she has any responsibility to support or promote!)

I would add that Corbyn has only, finally, shown any interest in this after he has seen the Lib Dems take up the anti-no-deal banner in the UK and threaten to swallow a huge chunk of the Labour support - he has had his hand forced by an existential threat to his party, not because he believes in it, for the good of the country, or out of any lofty ideals.

Yes, I was about to start a thread on how the LibDems have committed politics suicide for the second time.

I'm baffled, completely baffled. Jo Swinson seemed quite happy to sit in David Cameron's cabinet for a full term of office but regards allowing JC to head a government for a few weeks in order to obtain a second vote and achieve her aim of stopping Brexit is beyond the pale.

Her party regards stopping Brexit as a matter of national and historic importance but has started squabbling and being awkward as soon as a way of achieving her goal is proposed. No wonder democracy does not serve us properly.

Unfortunately I see this as being the truth of the matter.

Will Corbyn listen to those who will advise him of this and swallow his pride  or will he listed to his sycophant advisers and stand firm and wreck the chance of this happening?

If he insisted on a Labour temp leader then Kier Starmer would surely gain enough cross party support.

There is also a real danger if this Corbyn as leader of a national unity government thing becomes the central planning assumption that attempts to do other, more likely to succeed, things get squashed.

For instance, take the case where it's clear fairly early on that Corbyn hasn't got the numbers but (if Labour went along with it) a Harman or Clarke led temporary government would be a goer. You don't want Corbyn to be able to say "But all the opposition parties said they'd be happy with me" until he's run the clock down, then just blame the tories for no deal and get the election which is all he cares about.

The FT had some really good analysis of it yesterday. It sounds like from earlier non-public discussions it became clear that getting anything with Corbyn at the head of it through parliament was highly unlikely. Corbyn knows this and just wants to make it look to his voters like it's someone else's fault that he won't swallow his pride and let someone who's not the leader of any party take the caretaker role.

It very cleverly ensures he doesn't actually have to stop Brexit and makes the Lib Dems and anyone else who calls him on it look bad

... and leaves him able to pretend that the ensuing national disaster was nothing of his doing and could have been avoided were people to been allowed his red unicorn all along.

I may be a bit dim here, but I think the ensuing national disaster was planned and soon to be executed by the Tory party.

I can't recall anywhere that any other party had a hand in this.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Which, to be fair, is basically the mirror image of what the Lib Dems are trying to do - calculating that letting Brexit happen while remaining principled opponents of both Brexit and Corbyn will do them better electorally than actually stopping Brexit but losing the support of soft-right voters who are convinced that Corbyn is basically satan.

I agree with the sentiment regarding the Opposition (and indeed many Tories), but I do hope that you're not describing Jeremy Corbyn as a "good man". He's done a very effective job of neutering opposition to the Tory extremists, rather than actually opposing them.

In failing to carry out his constitutional role as leader of the opposition Corbyn bears as much if not more responsibility for this fiasco as the Conservative party. If the government is proposing something bonkers that most of the electorate (including the vast majority of the Labour party) opposes, i.e. a no deal brexit, it is Corbyn's job to oppose it. Instead he has wrung his hands for 3 years and not come out either way allowing the conservatives to do whatever they want.

A competent leader of the opposition would have dispatched a government that lost votes (plural) by the largest margins in history and was the first to be found in contempt of parliament.

All of the above doesn't touch at all on his other politics, which you may agree or disagree with, but I believe on the basis of the above alone he's unfit to lead a government.

Even if your party doesn't win you are still a full time paid MP employed to represent your respective constituency. The leader of her majesty's opposition is also a very specific role that even attracts an additional salary, which the current occupier is happy to bank. 

Does this statement relate to members of the Tory Party, who actually have the ability to affect decisions in general?

As far as I can tell good men and women in the Commons, of all parties, are doing quite a bit more than nothing to stop this national disaster.

That's not what's on offer though. What Corbyn gas offered, is to bring down the government, form a time limited caretaker government, which will extend article 50 and the call a general election.

He has then promised to fight that election on a platform of a second referendum, in which remain will be an option.

I'm not sure that he can be trusted to do that second part, and even if he does, and he wins, what other policies will he be looking to implement?

Why can't the caretaker government introduce legislation for a second referendum?

You really believe that the opposition bears more responsibility for this fiasco than the ruling party?

I don't think you posed a question or even made a valid point towards my last comment or indeed the actual OP.

Simply stating a job description of an MP does not add anything.

About the same yes. Cameron obviously is more to blame due to calling the referendum in the first place, but since the starting gun was fired I think the Labour and Conservative parties are both equally culpable in allowing it to continue.

I don't have a problem with Corbyn being pro-Brexit, he's entitled to his own opinion. But he should be open about it publicly. Weak campaigning from the labour party during the initial referendum, followed by pretending to be the party for remainers whilst doing nothing to push their interests is just as much to blame as Theresa May's counterproductive anti-immigration red lines.

The system only works if when the country is split the opposition actually opposes. It's a crucial part of the way our government works.

No, this stuff all comes from a position that puts visceral hatred of Corbyn first and any sort of reality second. He's got to oppose the government and try to stop Brexit, but apparently doing things like tabling motions of no-confidence in the government, whipping his MPs to vote for a second referendum and proposing a temporary caretaker government to avoid a no-deal brexit doesn't count because he's doing them wrong in some way. It's religion, not politics.

If you really wanted to stop something and were told "Look we're all in favour of what you're doing, but you are toxic to too many people, let X take the leading role instead. They're a member of your party but not a leader of any party. That's the price to get this thing you want and then you'll get your election." What would you do?

The fact he's been told this many many times and refuses to do anything about it is what makes a lot of people think he's not really interested in doing anything productive.

Rather than visceral hatred for him or his policies I just don't think he's very good. Thinking someone incompetent is different to thinking they're satan. He's trying to play this long game that he thinks will eventually let him enact the policies he wants to, but it's risking running the country into the ground. Note again that all of the above is completely agnostic to what those policies are.

Really ?    Who ?

On the other hand, if they really wanted to stop something, the Lib Dems or the centrist-remain Tories could bite the bullet and support a Corbyn-lead caretaker government to extend article 50 or a Labour amendment to support a second referendum. But apparently they can't be expected to do that, and that's Corbyn's fault for being "toxic", ie not doing up his tie properly that one time and wanting to nationalise the railways.

Plenty are trying, yes. What I'm still unconvinced about is to what extent Corbyn is one of them.

(and I'm not referring to whether or not he can be described as 'good'!)

I think it mostly stems from realism.

An interim rainbow coalition is going to face widespread cross bench opposition for a variety of reasons from brexit to factional infighting, questions of legitimacy, fears for career prospects and personal security.

If it is going to find sufficient support it won't be by whipping labour, brexit has become a matter of conscience, rebellion the norm. To pull that coalition together you don't need a great inspirational leader or one with big ideas and ambitions, you need a bland expendable one, respected, end of career from the traditional middle ground. The last thing you need is a divisive figure from the far fringes of their party, someone even Labour MPS will find hard to vote for let alone the probably 30+ Tories they'd need to balance Labour pro-brexit/constitutional-concerns/anti-Corbyn rebels. A handful of hardcore Conservative remainers with nothing left to lose won't cut it, this idea needs wider buy in or less Labour-rebel opposition. Also it must not be seen to be of party-political benefit, allowing Corbyn's Labour to take what credit may be available form taking this risk, that was never going to fly with the anti-brexit/pro-referendum parties.

Corbyn can't be that man, it makes sense the idea is nipped off asap so other avenues can be explored. However ugly that looks coming from Swinson it's necessary.

jk

We have a political cluster-fek with a policy that is apolitical. The Tory civil war that has been ongoing for over 40 years surely can't be Labour's fault when this whole episode is set to engulf part of Europe in the fallout.

A fire has three parts, fuel, heat and air. Removing the Conservative government removes all three parts and either reduces or extinguishes the fire that is raging right now.

Just for sh1ts and giggles why not attribute analogies for the fire, heat and air?

Realistically at the moment can we have any confidence in any government? Without some form of sweeping change I just fear we will swap one shower of shit for a different shower of shit. 

We would probably do better assigning every government a random 6 digit number then use the national lottery machine to produce numbers and we can enact anything that is drawn, at least that way we have a 14 million to one chance of something workable becoming law. 

You don't seem to have grasped the less than subtle point that Libdems supporting a JC-led caretaker government may still not be enough to bring that about, given the need for disaffected Tories also to support whoever would be leading it. If a No Confidence vote is tabled, it is only likely to succeed if the likely caretaker government leader is already identified and is not notably objectionable to like-minded MPs from all parties. Going into a crucial match without fielding your strongest team doesn't make sense.

Maybe, but what is needed at the moment is a shower of shit that offers another referendum. Then we can either forget this Brexit fiasco and get on with sorting other stuff out without the disaster of being outside the EU, or else accept that the country is still stupid enough to leave the EU, England can try to make the most of a bad job and Scotland can abandon ship.

They could* but they'd have to also deliver the referendum, they couldn't bind the hands of any subsequent government.

*in principal, in practice I can't see anyone getting close to a majority on that platform.

Delay for election is I think the most radical action we could hope for from what is already quite a radical idea in a British context and even that comes with the slim risk the EU gambles and says 'no' to force the hand of a government which will rightly or wrongly be seen to be more willing to revoke A50 that any likely subsequently elected.

jk

This is all hypothetical.

While the Tories, actually and not hypothetically, are ruining the country into the ground right now.

Here's a few examples:
Brexit

Reduced police levels

NHS in crisis

Teaching in crisis

Millitary under manned and under funded

Social services in crisis

Mental Health in crisis

Prisons in crisis

Violent crime on the rise

Petty crime on the rise

Drug abuse on the rise

I'm sure there are other things to add to the list. My point is that this has all happened under the Tory's watch.

Will a remain vote in a second referendum really make Brexit go away?

You’ve just described the UK as far back as I can remember.

Depends on the question posed and how educated the electorate are on the subject.

And if Fake News can be eliminated and all lies called out during the Referendum.

Yes, I understand why it might be more difficult to firm such a government with the leader of the opposition at it's head but he is the leader of the opposition and therefore should be the automatic choice for such a position whatever people think of him.

Further, this is all hypothetical at the moment. Why make such black and white statements rather than just say you're studying all options and will do whatever is necessary to stop a no deal Brexit and bring about a confirmatory referendum?

Seems to me the LibDems and perhaps some tories are putting party before country.

The tories failed to deliver Brexit on time and it has cost them their leader and about a third of their vote. If the opposition parties screw up opposing Brexit because because they can't agree on how to go about it I think the electorate will be similarly unforgiving and quite rightly so. I want to see people working together not squabbling like primary school children.

Sorry, my question wasn’t worded clearly enough.

I should have said- would remain winning a second referendum really make Brexit go away?

It gets it out of parliament for a few years.

What those few years are then used for determines whether it returns with new momentum. My guess is it will but that's not entirely beyond our control.

jk

Yes.

A leave vote would ensure Brexit continues for another decade. Trade deal after trade deal after....

How does it get it out of parliament for a few years?

The leavers won’t roll over and accept the result any more than the remainers have.

This things got a life of its own and is going to go on for ever!

But if, precisely because of what people think of him, he is unable to fulfill that role, a role which may still need filling, he has to step aside, there is no point flogging an obviously dead horse.

I want to see pragmatism. If a Corbyn lead temporary rainbow coalition can only secure 95% of the confidence votes it needs it can do 0% of the work we need it to. So we move on, who could pull together all the votes needed?

jk

Would you care to explain how voting to remain in the EU makes Brexit go away?

If remain won by a substantial majority (much bigger than leave one the last one) I think it would go away. A bit like smoking being banned in pubs ... the whole issue just fizzled out.

A much larger majority combined with government policies to address the real domestic issues that helped lead to Brexit could indeed see the demise of Brexit 

Well we won't be leaving for a while so they can stop spending all their time trying to figure out how, they won't need to do all the disaster planning and mitigation, they won't need to spend a decade or more rebuilding treaties with the EU to get us back to a starting position from which we can spend another decade finding our new place in the world.

I don't suppose for a second they will but the campaign goes back to the streets, it isn't paralysing government and choking off our economy.

Not necessarily at a significant scale, demographic change will do it's work against the anti-EU propagandists, we'll have to see which is the more powerful force for change, could easily go either way especially if we do leave and Britain suffers a brain drain.

jk

While not disagreeing with what you said it doesn’t address the immediate aftermath of a second referendum being announced let alone what happens if remain wins the vote.

There’s not a hope in hell that things will revert back to normal, either in politics or society, in the short term.

While remainers, quite rightly, concentrate their thoughts and efforts on stopping Brexit, there doesn’t seem to be much thought going into what that would actually lead to except in an economic sense.

IF there was say 60:40 vote to remain, followed by an election with say  a Lib-Lab-SNP alliance and a general economic relief as some certainty returned,.  I think it would die for a while as a political topic.  Probably there would be 20% or so who would continue  supporting whatever obnoxious party Farage decided to invent.

Someone needs to state it - loudly and unambiguously prefereably - because there seem to be a number of MPs who don't have the first clue about their role and responsibilities.

Let us assume, purely for the sake of discussion, that the public remains uneducated, that fake news cannot be eliminated, and that there are too many lies told during any referendum, which too many people want to believe, for them ever to be effectively ‘called out’.

jcm

Well I think that's obvious isn't it.

Of course the whinging will continue but no one other than the Brexit party will be putting another referendum into their manifesto in 2022 or 2025 will they?

We're staring down the barrel of probably two lost decades. I can cope with another 6 months of uncertainty while a referendum is delivered.

Or do you mean there'll be unrest? There will. We'll have to face that. What do you think happens this November? You know it's not all going to be alright don't you.

What gives you the impression I think they will or should? Still it's a simple fact, a government not tasked with brexit isn't consuming parliamentary time doing brexit. This last three years has been the quick easy bit.

There's plenty but no unified message because quite like leavers we don't all have the same vision. We do though have mechanism to deal with that, we'd have to see what emerges from post no-brexit elections to see which ideas win out. Personally I favour a radical pivot toward a green economy underpinned by social democratic ideals. One fight at a time though.

jk

It wasn’t obvious when remain lost the first referendum.

If it was then we’d be out of the EU by now.

But remain supporters didn’t just lie down, they’ve quite rightly fought tooth and nail to deny Brexit

All political parties will find themselves accountable to millions of people who will have been denied their choice, do you think they’ll just forget about Brexit?

I just don’t get the idea that we hold a second referendum, remain win, we stay in the EU and the millions of people who still want Brexit just forget about it and relatively quickly things settle down.

You remainers didn’t just accept the first referendum result.

You thought it was worth fighting to overturn that result.

Why would leavers, already disaffected with the UK political system and the EU just give in?

I did. But I was only 10 at the time and didn't have a lot of say in the matter.

It was the second one in 2016 that I've got a problem with...

I actually did accept the referendum result,  though I disagreed.  But at what point was no deal ever mentioned as the outcome? 

My current conclusion is:

Conservative - can't be trusted

Labour - inept

Lib dems - ineffectual

SNP - unrealistic

Dup - I grew up in NI, enjoying the rest of the electorate getting a view of what we have to deal with

So generally disillusioned.  It makes you wonder what the point of politics is these days?  I always try and give people the benefit of the doubt, Mps must care to get into it,   but really struggle to see it in our current system.  What happened to consensus for the great good of the whole population? 

I was on the winning side in the first referendum, and it really was a win 66% or so in favour

That is what I call a clear mandate from the British People.

How can the politicians who talk about a scraped jamority after a campaign of deceit and automated lies and rumours spread to the inbox and facebook page, particularly to the undecided who perhaps might have otherwise sensibly abstained, call themselves honest when they talk about 2016 as a clear signal.  If there was any clarity it was that there was a noisy result that required further examination

It could be argued you need a similarly decisive result to reverse 66% in favour of being in the EU

A second referendum would be confirmatory. In other words it's a final say.

Whichever way it went there would be a lot of unhappy people but I doubt there would be any appetite to re run it if a euro sceptic government were elected in 2024.

You voted leave, what do you think would happen if the result of a second ballot were that we call the whole thing off?

Fair enough that you don't get it because it's a nonsense, it's not what anyone here is claiming or so far as I can see, believes.

A vote to remain now gets brexit out of parliament. It opens a small window of opportunity to seriously address some of the issues driving brexit. It does no more, no less.

More likely a new vote to leave on known terms, eyes open, the costs, the compromises, the risks laid bare: with luck that provides our democratic institutions with sufficient protection to weather the coming storm when brexit fails to deliver for the ordinary citizen. It leaves open the possibility of a way back.

jk

'It's the will of the people'. Or is this an uneven playing field where only those in favour of remain have to give valid and compelling arguments?

Very difficult to confirm this, but my view has always been that a large number of Brexit voters were motivated partly by the lies they were about how much better off they'd be, with no real downside- there's no shame in that, there's a current thread on here which shows how anyone can be taken in by bare faced lies told with conviction. Then there were those motivated by their own circumstances, e.g. residents of places like Boston which and genuine grievances against the rapid change in their local communities and lack of support for social services. But even more were registering a protest vote against primarily Cameron but also the political establishment. The referendum could have been about the right to strangle kittens, and if Cameron and Corbyn had been opposed to it we would all be strangling kittens by now. I wonder whether all these groups aren't having serious misgivings.

Then there is a hardcore of fruitcakes, swivel eyed loons, racists and out and out Nazis that have extraordinarily load mouths - but how many of them are there, really? 100,000? 200,000, max?

17.2 million apparently!

I think Vince Cable is right to say that the assumption of Corbyn is a reversion to the two party system and here in Scotland he does not command that much interest. It is right of Swinson to suggest a more efffective choice might be found though she would in priciple support Corbyn if he could command the majority of support in Parliament but that seems remote so one could say that his ego prevents the caretaker government from forming.

I mentioned in Boris Part 3 the role of compelling a 2nd referendum and a GE on a caretaker government by the Lords to prevent any abuse of caretaker power.

Do you have a problem with it because you lost or because you don’t agree with leaving the EU?

Or both.

Because if there’s a third referendum and I lose and we remain in the EU I’ll have a problem with that.

Can we then go to another referendum and then another, ad infinitum?

Will that be because the will of the people won't have been respected?

Or because it will?

Nobody knows how another referendum would go.

So it’s a gamble for both sides especially if it’s the final say.

Except leavers have already won, if I can use that awful term.

Now you want them to gamble what it took them 40 odd years to achieve.

My understanding of a gamble is you have to take the chance of losing something.

But remainers have already lost so they’re actually gambling nothing.

So it’s no wonder remainers want another referendum, it’s like getting another chance with nothing to lose and it’s no wonder leavers don’t want one as there’s nothing to gain for them but everything to lose.

Nobody knows what would happen if Brexit were to be cancelled. iI’ll guess that the economy would receive a boost and people whose families and jobs would be directly and immediately affected would breath a sigh of relief.

How the millions of losers would react is unknown but it won’t be a positive reaction.

The will of the people is bollocks.

Remainers quite rightly disagreed and fought against the referendum result.

Leavers would probably do the same if another referendum result was for remain.

The will of the people is a nice sound bite but means nothing.

Whether there’s another referendum or a general election doesn’t matter if Brexit isn’t delivered. If that happens the economy might be saved but the damage to the political system might be irreparable.

Listening to remain politicians abandoning everything they’ve stood for in order to stop a no deal Brexit is unedifying.

They’d convince a lot more leavers to change their minds if they’d come up with a concrete plan to address the domestic issues that fuelled the leave vote.

Instead they’d rather score political points.

I’m sure that there are many leavers who would change their minds if something concrete was promised to address the issues that as you rightly stated led to a protest vote and to Brexit.

Yet there doesn’t seem to be a plan to persuade leavers to change their minds except for scare tactics.

It doesn’t matter if those scare tactics are probably based on the truth if you’re asking people to vote to keep the status quo - as in remain in the EU and keep your shit lives.

What matters is a promise to make people’s lives better.

Do this and remain can change leavers minds.

What do you mean by this, people agreeing to cooperate across party lines, to do their duty?

They will, then we vote for the version we like. Or for Farage plc and his 'intentionally left blank' manifesto.

That's their job, it's how things get done in a democracy.

jk

Have a like.

This is what Remain fails to get; that many Leavers chose to ditch the EU because even more moderate desires weren't being attended to.  Articulating those (be that by flying a St. George's Cross or simply highlighting EU failings) excluded them from polite company and a seat at the table.

Then after the vote, rather than meeting the Brexit voters on those issues, the Remain camp has simply doubled-down.  They seem to have taken the Brexit vote as evidence of how depraved half the population is, that the country is on the verge of falling to Nazism, and re-doubled efforts at ensuring (through any means necessary) their own status quo.

It is embarrassing and points towards the same small-minded self-centredness they accuse Brexiteers of.

I disagree with Rob that so many Brexiteers were motivated by how much better things would supposedly be.  At least not in an economic sense.  Poll after poll indicates the willingness to take an economic hit in order to achieve a less tangible benefit which they feel Brexit will bring.  Sovereignty and a choice of policies beyond that offered by the only 2 political parties with any chance of electoral success.  

Serious question: what policies? And how are they to be achieved if it's a two horse race?

Did anyone else hear the monstrous f***wit brexiteer conservative MP on the R4 Today Programme today talking about the prospect of Ken Clarke leading an emergency government? I don't think I've even ever screamed as much foul abuse at the telly when Farage is on.

I justr started counting off his oft repeated untruths - there was little other content

It was the way he repeatedly said Clarke had had his chance to become Prime Minister by challenging Johnson for the party leadership and that the matter had been put to and decided by the country (ie Conservative party members). I don't know whether he is fantastically hard of understanding or was just refusing to engage in discussion.

How about because it was one of the most blatant examples of wholesale electoral fraud in modern political history.

I'm reassured it's still somebody else's fault for victimising people. I like your consistency.

Really?

So who has gone to prison for this?

Give it time, the Electoral Commission have submitted a file of 2,000 documents to the Metropolitan Police for criminal investigation.

Is this the same Electoral Commission who held three investigations into BeLeave only to have the verdict overturned and Darren Grimes exonerated?

At a cost to the taxpayer of how much?

Yes, that’s them, isn’t it?

If nobody goes to prison no crime has been committed? I stand in awe of your "morals".

I couldn’t care less what you think.

I would say rather that it is a moving thing.

If the settled and informed will of a clear majority was to leave the EU, I think most of us remainers would accept that. I would, at least, even though I'd still think it was a bad idea. Also leavers wouldn't be so terrified of a confirmatory referendum.

The reality though is that opinion has been generally in favour of remain with a brief period with leave ahead, which happened to coincide with the referendum. Vocal leavers know they fluked the win, by a wafer-thin margin, thanks to a confluence of lies, manipulation and a general sense of dissatisfaction with austerity and the negative aspects of the way the world is that had nothing to do with our membership of the EU.

Not to say that there aren't principled and sincere leavers who think any economic sacrifice and loss of personal opportunity is a price worth paying to reduce the (arguable) compromises of sovereignty that go with EU membership but they aren't enough to win a referendum.

The conceit of Jeremy Corbyn.

Unity government won't be happening any time soon. This is quite amusing but probably accurate: 

‘National Unity’: the fantasy flick that will never make it out of development

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/16/national-unity-govern...

So what are these moderate things that the EU is stopping you doing that you will be able to do when we leave?

Emergency Government is a much better term. We have an emergency because a lack of unity is pushing us towards the default catastrophe of no deal.

Lack of unity?? ---- nooooo ---- I was just thinking how wonderful it is to see the whole country pulling together as one in these merry days, backs to the grindstone (?), nose to the wheel (?), all on the same wavelength in one happy team and full of bright hope, all united in the fantastic Dunkirk (Dunkerque?) spirit we are all enjoying these days!!! What happy days to be alive in the oh-so-United Kingdom!!! One mind, one soul, one happy future!!!

Darren Grimes wasn’t exonerated. I think you actually know that. Show me the verdicts that they have had overturned!

Yes, the Electoral Commission, the people given the role judging if electoral fraud has taken place, yes them.

On the 19th of July 2019, in the Central London County Court, Grimes successfully appealed the £20,000 fine levied for breaking electoral law in the lead up to the Brexit referendum, and the fine from the Electoral Commission was quashed. Judge Marc Dight said, "even if Grimes had committed the offence, it would not have justified the fine of £20,000, the maximum possible under current law."

Doesn’t sound like the greatest electoral fraud in recent times to me.

That is one specific case, you will note that the judge only said that the fine was unreasonable, not that he didn’t commit the crime. He wasn’t exonerated, claiming he was is fake news. Grimes is a tiny cog, a tedious little prick of tiny cog, but a tiny cog all the same.

Did you miss the bit where the judge said ‘even if he had committed the offence’?

Why would you quash a fine and comment on its excessive nature if Grimes was guilty.

Your claims of huge electoral fraud are the fake news.

You just can’t accept that people voted to leave the EU of their own accord and not because of some sinister plot.

That most of those people would make the same decision again despite all that has happened since the referendum should tell you how little influence any information, real or false, has on people’s decision making processes.

And I don't value the opinion of a person who thinks a crime hasn't happened if someone hasn't gone to prison.

You seem to be struggling with basic comprehension. Grimes is still guilty of electoral fraud.

People voted for whatever reason, that doesn’t change the fact that massive electoral fraud took place.

Judge Marc Dight said that Grimes’ actions were not dishonest.

You seem to be on a witch-hunt.

A bit like the electoral commission.

You don’t work for them do you?

No I don’t work for the Electoral Commission, but I have an interest in democracy as a citizen and a voter.

You brought up Grimes, he is small fry. You are clinging on to the idea that you haven’t been duped by misinterpreting a ruling in one of many court cases.

I haven’t been duped by anybody.

I would have voted leave if there hadn’t been any campaigning at all.

I cannot speak for any other leavers but the constant whinging and whining about how unfair the referendum was just makes me more determined that Brexit should happen.

You’re more than happy to concentrate on the overspending by the leave campaign while totally ignoring the amount of money and resources  spent by the government on promoting a remain stance.

You’d be better off spending your time making a tin foil hat.

'just makes me more determined that Brexit should happen.'

OK let's try another tack. Let's suppose you leavers are correct, that there are sunny uplands once we leave. Well, deferring leaving by a few months - or even years - isn't going to change that, it will just mean those benefits being deferred for a short time.

But let's suppose we remainers are correct. Virtually everyone - from WRM up - accepts that it could be up to 50 years before we fully see economic benefit. In the short term we *know* that people will lose their jobs,  because they already have, we *know* farmers will go bankrupt - because their main export market will be snuffed out - we *know* there is going to be shortages of food and medicine - the government has admitted as much, we *know* there is going to be a surge in organised crime - the government has admitted that, too - we *know* we are going to cause massive disruption on both sides of the Irish border which no-one has an effing clue how to resolve, but could incredibly easily escalate to a return of the Troubles... And when the bombs start going off again, it could be you, your children or your grandchildren who become victims. Only you won't be innocent, even if your children would be. 

In short,  there is huge asymmetry between the two different outcomes. And you're supporting Leave on a whim, a petulant spasm, a contrarian sulk and sod the consequence.

I am not supporting leave on a whim, a spasm or a sulk.

My reasons for voting leave have been well documented on this forum in many threads over many years.

I said that constant whinging and whining about the referendum just made me more determined that Brexit should happen.

I don’t consider myself a die hard Brexiteer, I offered to vote remain if we could have the same financial arrangements as most of the other EU countries but that apparently is a non starter.

I offered that concrete proposals for improving the lives of people should we remain in the EU could persuade many leavers to change their position but that doesn’t seem to have gained any traction.

It seems like it’s either all in or all out of the EU as far as debate on this forum is concerned.

You’re list of leaving the EU effects may or may not be true.

They’ve certainly been well publicised.

Yet there’s been no massive swing from leave to remain.

Someone, I think it was on this thread, said there were 17.2 swivel eyed loons when referring to Brexit supporters.

Maybe that what leavers actually are or maybe, a bit like me, the tone of the debate just entrenches our position a little bit more.

'Someone, I think it was on this thread, said there were 17.2 swivel eyed loons when referring to Brexit supporters.'

I don't think that's true. What is it with you Brexiters and false facts? I've certainly referred to 100,000 loons, and I stick by that; the 17.1 million I have rather more respect for, though obviously think they are misguided.

I actually feel quite sorry for the 17.1 million whose minds have been poisoned against the EU by decades of lies and distortions, culminating in the referendum campaign, propagated by the eurosceptic right wing press controlled by the loons. I counts some of them among my friends.

Are you a globalist brexiter or a protectionist brexiter? Did you want unrestricted trade with countries with cheaper wages and lower employment, pollution and health standards so we can buy cheaply (and also maintain our tax havens)? Or did you want restrictions on Eastern European workers taking UK jobs in fruit picking, warehouses and trades? 

Are you a left wing brexiter or right wing? Did you want the government to have the opportunity to nationalise key industries and make long term investments or did you want the bonfire of regulations on human and employment rights to cut the red tape? 

The 52% did and still does contain all of these flavours. The campaign sold all the benefits of every option, but when brexit is defined we have to decide which one, and its very unlikely that 52% will be happy with any option. The withdrawal agreement was a half decent stab at resolving this problem, but was voted down by by hardline Brexiters

See Wanderer100’s post of 16.40 Friday for the 17.2 million reference.

I didn’t get the number wrong or state false facts.

In actual fact I think I understated Wanderer100’s description of leave voters.

And the voting down of the withdrawal agreement is an example of politicians pursuing their own agenda while claiming to have the best interests of the country at heart.

I say this having thought that the withdrawal agreement was a poor agreement and my preference would have been to remain in the EU rather than accept that agreement.

My first post on the Brexit issue - exciting!  I few weeks ago, it occurred to me that I had not heard anything that could be classed as a benefit to the country by leaving the EU with no deal.  I have since asked various friends of mine who are supporters of the no deal approach what they think the benefits are.  These friends range from full-on right wingers to someone who initially voted remain, then accepted the leave vote, now supports the hardest of hard exits.

As might be imagined, I encountered a lot of anger and rhetoric.  I get that, and I was not being confrontational.  Finally, each person boiled the only benefit to leaving with no deal down to "we can make our own decisions", " we can sail our own ship" etc.  Not one material benefit, just a belief that the grass will be greener.  One person went to great lengths to explain it is just a belief.  They (almost) all accept there will be significant damage to the country with no deal.  I say almost all, there were some dissenting voices shouting about fake news.

So why the drive and desire to knowingly cause damage to the country just for a belief?  And seemingly one that can easily be questioned?  I suspect that is the question remainers will need to address.  What is it in a large proportion of the UK psyche that needs to believe in greener pastures, despite the evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps Boris Johnson sums it up with his self image on Churchillian bravado and war cabinet approach.  Maybe he believes the Eagle comic from his schoolboy days are reality, and many others are following suit.  I guess people don't like the idea that they (and the country) have lost the power and control that they believe used to be on tap for them by virtue of being British.  It can be hard to accept times have changed and moved on, not necessarily for the better.

Whatever the reasons (and please feel free to add your own!), the sooner we leave this period of madness, the better.  I'm hoping it will be brief.

I think the withdrawal agreement tried to find a middle way, while also leaving most of the big decisions to the future. This is why Ken Clarke as a member of the government get able to vote for it. But Jeremy Corbyn felt he couldn’t unless there was some guarantees on the future decision. 

I’m not sure that there are enough benefits to warrant leaving the single market, but if there are, the withdrawal agreement definitely didn’t show them 

I think you're missing his point. My take on his comment was that we are being dragged out of the EU by fanatics who claim - on no grounds whatsoever -  that the 17.2 are all as rabidly committed as they are. 

I wonder what else you have misunderstood?

I agree that the withdrawal agreement was, as you said, an attempt to find a middle way.

I think it took too long to negotiate given that it was only concerned with withdrawal and not any future arrangements and the use of the word ‘deal’ served to confuse matters in some people’s minds.

Boris said it’s dead, the EU said that they won’t renegotiate so who knows where we go next?

You keep telling yourself that.

This is truly imbecilic. My evidence for electoral fraud is widespread convictions for electoral fraud and a file with the Metropolitan Police, your evidence of otherwise is your belief that there is some sort of conspiracy going on at the Electoral Commission.

Jeez, there’s no winning with you, is there?

You claim that I gave a false number, I point out with evidence that I didn’t, you say that I have misunderstood and then extrapolate that into my misunderstanding of gosh only knows what else.

I’m off to the pub.

I stand to be corrected - if Wanderer was claiming that then I would disagree with him. But I think my take is correct, with pretty much the *opposite* meaning to what you thought.

Perhaps Wanderer could clear up the confusion, then a simple apology from you would be quite enough

I get the impression a lot of leavers aren't so much voting against the EU but against their pro-EU countrymen.

If you sit back and look at your own post you might just start to see why that is, and why they're willing to gamble away the EU.

Economic loss might be a price worth paying for their cultural win against yours.

Widespread convictions?

How many?

Does your fraud merely involve overspending or is there some Russian plot involved?

Or is it all the work of nefarious business leaders and speculators.

Heaven forbid that they should get involved in politics for the first time ever.

A file with the Metropolitan Police isn’t a conviction.

Innocent until proven guilty?

That reminds me baron. You never answered my question about why on the one hand you feel it is fair that rich people in the UK should pay more tax than poor people, but on the other feel instinctively that it is NOT fair that rich countries should pay more into the EU than poor ones.

I'm still interested in your answer.

I think you'll be waiting a long time. I'm waiting to see his response to my suggestion that he completely misunderstood an earlier post; so far there has been only a deafening silence...

Sovereignty and the concept of states being unique entities?

Welcome! And a fine opener too.

I'd say many or even most people in the UK are justified in thinking the grass should be greener than it is now but blame for the brown grass has been consistently and deliberately misattributed. A very large swathe of the UK public have been shafted not by EU membership but by austerity and by plenty of other UK government decisions over the years. I can well believe there's theoretical potential for their prospects to improve even after many of the milder forms of Brexit, in what would inevitably be a very difficult post-Brexit environment. But that would require a very sharp change of direction for UK government policies. The problem is that the people most keen to push Brexit are precisely the people who have been responsible for the inequalities forced on the UK over the last decade, so the realistic chances of seeing the kind of social and economic policy reversals that would be needed for those people to prosper are vanishingly small.

Of course Corbyn will have other ideas, and probably not unreasonable ones in theory, but he simply isn't the kind of party leader that will ever get elected. So we'll never get to find out whether his red unicorn could ever improve people's lives, but we're very likely to see how the blue unicorn can further damage them. 

There is a need for people to pay tax to support essential services in a country.

I don’t actually know if it’s far for rich people to pay more tax than poorer people but that’s the situation in the UK at the moment.

When there was an attempt to introduce a slightly different system i.e. the poll tax all he’ll broke loose in certain sections of UK society.

The EU is not a country.

I accept the need to pay for administration of the EU bureaucracy necessary for it to function as a trading block but not to fund social, environmental, etc projects.

I don't understand your point, perhaps you can expand?

I understand that you don't like what the EU does, but that is an entirely separate point from how government should be funded.

"All hell broke loose" with regard to the poll tax, because most people believe it is unfair that the rich should pay the same in tax as the poor. If you believe that, say, Richard Branson should pay the same in tax as you do, then your position with regard to paying for the EU is consistent. Do you? 

Hi John, I don't disagree with what you say, but I am always sceptical about the austerity-brexit relationship. So I'll argue the other side for a bit....

It seems to me that the left-leaning remainers in the UK see austerity as the root (or one of the main roots) of society's problems. Leading to the conclusion that doing something about austerity removes the need for brexit. Clearly some leavers were motivated by austerity, hence the effectiveness of 350 million for the NHS. But not all, maybe not even most of them....

A poll among UKIP voters in 2014 showed that the majority of them wanted more austerity, not less. (see https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1142049815859257346) This is similar to the forces in the US (part of the republican party) that actively want to reduce or abolish state structures. This "freedom from the tyranny of the state" movement is naturally against the EU.

Another large group of leave voters are the relatively well-off elderly conservative voters. Is austerity such a big issue for them? Does a political party that wants to tackle inequality in the UK have a message for them in order to motivate them to remain in the EU?

The social projects, and to a lesser extent the environmental projects, are a necessity for the EU to function as a trading block. Just as political integration is a necessity for being a trading block. There is actually a need for much more common money for the EU to function properly as a trading block.

I'll give an example. In the UK, most jobs are in London and this is where most money is being made. The UK is a single entity with free movement of people etc. So people move towards London. This is unsustainable in the long term, so the state invest money from taxes paid to a larger degree in London in the rest of the country. The goal of this redistribution of money is to try to maintain a similar standard of living in all regions of the country and so to contribute to the social cohesion and security of the country. (The UK is not particularly good in this BTW, Germany manages better...). The EU works the same, money from the richer countries has to be invested in poorer countries. Otherwise there won't be a single market and thereby no trading block.

As I was hoping to have made clear when I said "by austerity and by plenty of other UK government decisions", austerity is just one example of ways in which the UK electorate could have become disaffected with their lot. I don't think you could really class the bedroom tax as part of austerity but that's another good example. Ditto the spread of zero-hours contracts. And as for UKIP voters wanting more austerity not less, there's no cure for some conditions!

True that last! Sometimes a subset of the population just needs to be voted out. But the leave group is too large for that. Remain needs a proposal for a UK-EU relationship that can garner the support of >65% of the population. Back to Cameron's deal isn't going to cut it.

You’re not comparing like with like.

My dislike of how the EU spends taxpayers money is the point.

Some people are happy to see it used to improve the lives of poorer people with the added benefit that this allows us to sell them things.

I don’t want to be part of that.

Wow. Just...wow.

In other words total morons then... 

If you want more brexiters to change their mind, I wouldn’t concentrate on the ‘we must send more money to Romania’  angle. 

Im an ardent remainer, but I think we send too much money to farmers and to Eastern European’s who don’t necessarily follow the rules (ps not my apostrophe but my phone won’t let me remove it) 

Perhaps Mr. baron chose his words poorly, but I don't want to change the minds of people who think that their personal prosperity is more important than helping those truly in need. I want nothing to do with anyone who can be that selfish.

I know it’s selfish, but there are very few people in Britain who would be happy to be taxed to the point that they were on the median worldwide income of £2500 per year. 

As we’re  the fifth largest economy in the world I’ll hazard a guess that the vast majority of people in the world are far, far poorer than we are.

Are we going to help them all?

It’s not a matter of not wanting to help people it’s a question of how much help and to whom.

In a  perfect world we’d help everybody.

Some people think we should help those in the EU who are worse off.

That’s a line that they’ve chosen.

I just happen to have chosen a different line.

There’s enough people  in the UK who need help.

If you really want to help those who need it most then I’d suggest that the money that we donate to the EU would be far better off spent in many African countries.

The cynic in me says that we don’t do that because they don’t want to buy our goods.

Just to fully understand your position: what are your thoughts on helping the domestic poor?

We need concrete policies that address the many and varied problems that blight many communities and individuals.

If those policies need a massive injection of cash then so be it.I don’t believe money is the answer to everything but some things won’t happen without it.

And I don't have a problem with that. But 'I want Britain to leave the EU because I don't want to help poor people' is, well it's just plain wrong isn't it? Especially when leaving the EU is likely to cost us far more than we spend on foreign aid to begin with.

The very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Ok, I disagree with you on several issues, and think you have been a little fuzzy in your thinking/ articulation in the past, but finally I think we are getting somewhere, and I am beginning to understand your position. But let me just try to articulate my understanding to check with you that I am right. 

You DO think that progressive taxation is fair within the UK, and you probably DO think that progressive taxation (ie rich countries pay more) for the EU, as it is currently set up, is fair.

BUT, you don't agree with the way the EU is currently set up and you wish the EU to function more like a golf club, where there is a set membership fee, in which you think all should pay the same because all are buying the same thing. And I imagine that few people would disagree with you about a golf club, although even then some organisations may offer 'student' type memberships for the less well off, and sometimes even special membership plus for those who wish the kudos of paying more.

However, HansStuttgart at 13.06 gives a rather nice explanation of why the EU common market isn't like a golf club, of which I'm sure you were already aware. I guess your original sense of unfairness about the UK's contribution to the EU derived from an earlier time - back in those halcyon days before 2016 when we all knew a lot less about the EU - and that you haven't quite shed off the old feeling in the light of the new reality. Not a criticism of you, I think we're all like that, our feelings are only slowly eroded by facts.

Anyway, Best wishes to you, we disagree, but that's no reason not to get along.

Really?  The left routinely votes against its economic interests - morons too?  Ever consider that your viewing Brexit voters as morons is exactly the attitude they are voting against?  They've been labelled racists and morons for expressing an opinion you don't like.  Shouldn't come as a surprise they decide to vote against the entire project that seems to oppose them.

Remain still isn't getting it.  After everything that has happened in the last three years.  Clueless.

It's fair to regard as morons those who think a winning  a cultural war as more important than the interests of the nation.

That does not mean such moronic cultural warriors are a majority of brexiteers or even a lot of them which is what you said. You seem to have a low opinion of brexiteers as cultural warriors rather than something more positive.

I am not calling all Leave voters morons just those who wete/are looking for some pathetic 'victory' against pro-EU people whilst at the same being willing to damage the economy of the country for their 'victory'... total morons. 

I think you touch on some very good points, but it's one thing to vote against your own economic interests for what you perceive to be the benefit of others in your country, but totally different to vote against your own and everyone else's.  And it's not just economics, Brexit will be a massive giveaway of sovereignty, global standing and influence; just the vote to leave alone already has been.  A bit like climate change no one will wake up to the reality until, too late, it comes knocking at their door.

The UK's net contribution to the EU is approximately 9Bn. The vote to leave the EU - not even leaving it - has cost us about 30 Bn a year.  We could help our own people and contribute to international aid if we weren't pursuing this folly.  

Or we could stay in the EU and not pay them any money and yet still retain all the benefits of EU membership and more like about 20 other EU countries do.

Oh, sorry, that’s not allowed, is it?

Of course it's not. You're not a simpleton, you're more than able to understand why that doesn't work so why cling to such a stupid simplistic idea?

Jk

I guess that when we remain in the EU and reform it from inside, as suggested by many remainers, financial contributions won’t be one of the reforms on the agenda?

Even though a large number of people in the UK would like to see our contributions reduced or stopped.

It won’t work because the EU doesn’t want it to not because it can’t.

You need to get the idea of sovereignty. It is not a UK only thing. Other countries have it too!

Hence if a single country or a group of countries decide something they don't always decide what we want.

Ireland is now experiencing how in a group Ireland does not get exactly what it wants but the clout of the group membership means it gets more of what it wants.

Ireland is finding they have more sovereignty from the inside. 

So are you saying that all the talk about ‘it’s better to remain in the EU and change it from inside’ is, if I may use jkarran’s phrase ‘a stupid, simplistic idea’ because other EU members won’t allow it?

A large number of people in the golf club might want to see their subs reduced or spent differently, but they aren't going to achieve that be leaving the club.

But this is entirely normal. Every election is your tribe attempting to take control from the other. It's also about making value judgements and tradeoffs between economics and culture.

Pro-EU people dont seem to realise they represent a cultural bloc with shared attitudes to economic issues and culture. And guess what? Not everyone agrees with those value judgements. They're not morons for disagreeing with you.

How on earth so many Remainers fail to grasp this is beyond me, especially as this arrogance and religious self belief is ensuring Brexit will happen.

No. But nations shape change by consensus building, votes and veto rights. 

No, it means consensus not dictates and demands from the UK. It's quite simple. The EU and its predecessors has done this for decades. 

You did read the bit where I mentioned staying in the EU and changing it from inside?

So there’s no hope of 20 countries who aren’t net contributors ever voting to reduce the contributions that other countries make, is there?

The sentence is actually true, but the way in which a lot of prominent remain campaigners (e.g. Gina Miller) use it is indeed stupid and simplistic.

Well CAP reform happened.

Because the alternative of a state where the rich people who pay the taxes automatically get to decide all issues is such a great example of democracy in action...

So all the talk of meaningful change in the EU is nonsense.

We might see a two speed EU develop with a few countries becoming more integrated  but that doesn’t help the UK if the status quo isn’t to our liking.

Of course if you’re happy with the UK’s present position within the UK then all is well but there aren’t many leavers who’ll change their minds and vote to remain if they think nothing significant is going to alter within the EU.

Whereas countries who make no contribution having as much say as those who do is really democratic isn’t it?

How about no representation without taxation?

You are a prime example of eating your cake and wanting it, and I know you're not that simplistic,  naive

small countries also pay. You are using net payments vs actual payments. Someone in the UK who has a salary below 20000 pounds a year pays less tax then he/she gets back in benefits from the state. He/she still gets to vote.

What? How to you get that way? Meaningful change via consensus, like in most organisations. 

Yes I did read that, and of course the result is the same. If you want to effect change you first of all need to be at the table, then you need a case strong enough to carry your argument among the others present. In any case it's likely to be evolution toward your goal rather than revolution.

Which is fine if the richer countries get to choose which countries to help and in what ways.

That’s not what happens in the EU.

But we’re not talking about individuals in a sovereign country.

We’re talking about a relationship between sovereign countries where some make a net contribution and the vast majority don’t yet all receive the same benefits.

What would happen to this relationship if the balance of contributions changed e.g. all countries paid in the same amount to just cover EU administration costs?

I'm not sure you understand democracy  versus populism.  

  On a more personal note - you're retired?  Get state pension? For 90something % of the population the money you've contributed doesn't cover your pension.  But you expect to decide how to spend it? 

So while many get more out of the system than they put in there won’t be any great demand for real change in the EU.

there are two options:

countries pay on the basis of their population or countries pay on the basis of their GDP.

Currently the latter is the standard (with the exception of the UK who pay less than they should). I agree with this.

In a bigger picture it does not matter. In all cases the financial advantages of being in the EU outway the financial contributions of all memberstates by at least a factor of 10.

PS: I agree with contributions of on the basis of GDP. I obviously do not agree with the UK's rebate.

I agree with this as well, but it is possible to agree with the ratio of payments but not the size of the payments. Does the EU really need 1% of GDP from all countries? EU administration only uses 6% of the budget. Do we need £80bn+ spent on agriculture and development by the EU? In principle I am happy to support agriculture, but EU subsidies and the UK tax regime have created an alternative property market in agricultural land that benefits almost no one. 

I am retired.

I have been for 5 years.

It will be another 5 years before I receive my state pension.

Comparing individuals or individual countries finances to international finances doesn’t really work.

I think stevieb’s post at 11.32 today probably sums up my position.

The UK managed to get a rebate because in the days of a 9/10 country EU, the UK was one of the biggest net contributors despite being one of the poorest nations because of our small agricultural sector. 

Since the expansion east, and the increase in the development fund, this ‘unfairness’ is less marked. 

The children were delighted when the teacher started handing a free sweet to each of them, even giving two to each of the smaller ones.

"Is everyone happy with your free sweets?", the teacher asked, "or would you prefer to give yours back?"

I don’t disagree that being a member of the EU brings great financial advantages.

However, is it not possible for all member states to enjoy most of those financial benefits without some paying far more than others?

Shouldn’t your story read ‘The teacher took sweets from several children and handed them out to the other children. The teacher asked the sweet recipients  “are you happy getting your sweets for free” but didn’t ask the sweet donators  “are you happy with me taking your sweets off you”.

They get more than they put in to strengthen their economies, as that happens their contributions increase until, if all goes well, they’re putting in more than they get out.

If it really bothers you we could wreck our economy to the point where we became net recipients... (As it is the master plan seems to be to wreck the economy but not to be in a position to benefit).

No, of course not. Even the biggest contributors are receiving more from the deal than they are putting in, unless of course you take a blinkered bottom-line view that doesn't recognise any advantages unless they're financial ones that are paid directly into your bank account. Surely that's one of the main attractions of being part of the club? 

Well that’s a nice plan isn’t it.

We can pay poorer countries to help them develop and at the same time we can provide a work place for their people to come to where they can earn far more money than they can at home.

Then, at some undisclosed time in the future they might be able to become net contributors.

All this plus the other non financial benefits of EU membership.

No wonder the EU is so popular in many member states.

So when will they start.? I live in Europe and the attitude I see now is basically bye bye uk, leave on the 31st and come back when you know what you want

I do understand the benefits of being a member of the EU and I do understand that many of those benefits are not financial ones.

I just struggle to see why most of these benefits aren’t possible without huge contributions from some member states.

Would freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital cease?

These are, after all, the four pillars of the EU and surely don’t depend on member states paying for them.

Yes, I think so.

CAP or something very like it is required for both strategic interests (food security) as well as cultural interests (maintenance of the european countryside at current status quo as opposed to US style massive farm lands). The latter also connects to social stability in society between rural areas and cities.

The structural funds are required for stability of the single market.

UK's problem with its land subsidies is really a UK problem. It is mainly due to both LAB and CON being unwilling to tell high-class landowners that they should not get EU farming subsidies.

I don't understand this. In gross contributions everybody pays let's say 1% of GDP. This means on a country level larger countries pay more and richer countries pay more. Once you are looking at net contributions there will be positive and negative contributions from individual countries in any system, because the point of the contributions is financial redistribution. Therefore some are always paying more in the net contributions than others.

The only way out I see is to leave the country contributions out completely. So direct taxation of EU citizens by the EU state. I'll happily support that model once it comes up in EU politics, but I guess I'll have to wait for that one a while....

Fair enough if you think that level of spending is required. But the land subsidies is not a problem only for the UK, it is inherent in the Pillar One payments, and has opposition in many of the donor countries. 

What does ‘the structural funds are necessary for the stability of the single market’ mean in layman’s terms?

I understand the original argument. As you say with the EU's expansion it is less relevant. Now it does not matter anymore, because for the next financial framework (2021 onwards) the UK is either out or the rebate will be gone.

I still think the original rebate was a bad idea though. It fed British ideas about special solutions being possible for UK's position in the EU and we all know where that led. No rebate, but an increase in structural funds invested in the UK to tackle its poor regions would have been my preferred solution.

This is what I wrote yesterday:

The social projects, and to a lesser extent the environmental projects, are a necessity for the EU to function as a trading block. Just as political integration is a necessity for being a trading block. There is actually a need for much more common money for the EU to function properly as a trading block.

I'll give an example. In the UK, most jobs are in London and this is where most money is being made. The UK is a single entity with free movement of people etc. So people move towards London. This is unsustainable in the long term, so the state invest money from taxes paid to a larger degree in London in the rest of the country. The goal of this redistribution of money is to try to maintain a similar standard of living in all regions of the country and so to contribute to the social cohesion and security of the country. (The UK is not particularly good in this BTW, Germany manages better...). The EU works the same, money from the richer countries has to be invested in poorer countries. Otherwise there won't be a single market and thereby no trading block.

Structural funds is the name of the EU money redistribution system that has the goal of increasing the living standards in poor regions in the EU (no matter what country the regions are in, so not only most of Romania, but also eastern Germany, NI, northern England, etc).

I know, my countrymates (the Dutch) are complaining all the time, because a system based on subsidizing food production vs land area would massively favour NL. But interestingly the last attempt of CAP reform was blocked by the Germans (Bavarians to be more precise) and not by the French!

So the idea is to take money from successful countries and give it to less successful ones?

Aren’t the recipients of said money as liable to spend their new found wealth via the internet in China as another member state?

Later in his post Hans stated:  Structural funds is the name of the EU money redistribution system that has the goal of increasing the living standards in poor regions in the EU (no matter what country the regions are in, so not only most of Romania, but also eastern Germany, NI, northern England, etc).

It isn't, as you seem to think, taking ALL the money from UK, Germany etc and giving it ALL to Poland or Lithuania. It's distributed across the EU, including the poorer regions of the UK. Now I know you're going to say if we weren't in the EU there'd be lots more money to spend in the UK. However we wouldn't, (in the opinion of the vast majority of economists and industrialists), have the same GDP outside the EU. Plus, given the state of UK investment in the regions, what money there is to distribute would be spent in an already weathy region in the South East.

You're confusing individuals and countries. The population of Poland don't all get a cheque for a few thousand quid every year to spend on fags, booze and Amazon, it's for infrastructure projects and the like. Improve the economies of the poorer EU states and the EU trading bloc has a better negotiating position against China and the USA. Outside of that bloc this country has very little economic influence on other countries, and the Americans, Chinese and EU will be calling the shots when it comes to trade. 

There's a lot in the EU that could be better, and I think truly free movement would be a mistake, (although we could have controlled that much better by applying the same rules that the rest of the EU does...). However I can't see any way in which leaving will improve the lot of the UK, it's just wishful thinking by people who can't accept that this country hasn't been  the mighty superpower it thinks it is for over a hundred years.

You actually think individuals, or even countries, get cheques from the EU to do what they want with?! 

You mean that they don’t?

Gosh, you’ll be telling me that there’s no Father Christmas next!

Clearly you did think that until 10 minutes ago.. and if someone notes you are ignorant you go all snowflake! 

So when I said that the aim was to take money from rich countries and give it to poorer countries I actually meant give it directly to poorer people?

I did presume that somewhere along the line some of the new prosperity might filter down and make the general population wealthier.

If this isn’t the case then why do we bother sending what amounts to aid to these places?

You said "Aren’t the recipients of said money as liable to spend their new found wealth via the internet in China". Latvia doesn't have buy things on the Internet. Individuals do. 

I do think that asserting that leaving the EU is like an election does not argue well to establish common sense

I suppose that, had the majority been 20 votes, like an election, this would have been a clear signal and mandate.

If not then how does such a narrow margin as we had overturn 66% previously?  Where is the line?

Most aid we send to developing countries is by funding programmes that are designed specifically to improve the lot of the poorer people in those societies. It doesn't rely on any fabled trickle-down nonsense.

Are you determined to ignore what I post?

Again I said that I presumed - I should have said expect  - some of the new found prosperity of some member states to filter down and increase individual wealth.

It’s this that could be spent buying goods from China and not necessarily from the EU.

Although now you’ve mentioned it why wouldn’t a country purchase goods from another country?

Indeed.

However, I was referring to UK contributions to the EU as opposed to the UK foreign aid budget although I suppose that in some ways they are the same.

Quite.

We do - nuclear power stations from China / France, passports from France, the list goes on.....

That's the whole point! 

So? 

Of course it will but not as you implied. 

We were discussing the importance of countries net contributions to maintaining the EU single market.

Hans suggested that the contributions helped stabilise the single majority by redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer places.

I was trying to make the point, obviously not very clearly, that just because countries and individuals become wealthier doesn’t mean that they’ll spend any extra wealth within the EU and therefore the aim of stabilising the single market might not be achieved.

Yes. We follow the scheme whereby advanced cooperation instead of competition benefits all.

That would be a perfectly acceptable outcome. The Chinese get richer and can better afford German cars. More business for the car companies -> more tax for the German government -> they can pay my salary...

How does people buying stuff from outside the EU affects its stability? 

Hi, I am talking about stability in a much larger sense than this. I am talking about the stability of society. It comes down to ensuring that all people are happy enough with their increases of welfare that the countries' political systems remain stable, massive strikes that destroy productivity are avoided, etc.

If you’re redistributing wealth throughout the EU to make people happier then isn’t it better if that money, when spent, goes to supporting industry and services within the EU?

A) its not the redistributed money we are talking about. That is simple used to expand the economy so there is more money all round.

B) In any case, no. Trade with China is good for both China and tbe EU as explained to you above. 

Is it not important that EU based industries and services are supported and in some ways protected from globalisation to maintain high employment?

We don't seem to be joining the dots here. The direct assistance that a poorer country receives from being a member of the EU, funded from more prosperous nations, isn't given in any format that allows that country to spend it as or where they choose. It largely will come as funded infrastructure projects, or effectively subsidised collaborative projects. Just like you already accepted was the case for more traditional overseas aid.

It might not be the redistributed money that you’re talking about but that’s exactly what I’ve been going on about for gosh knows how many posts on this thread.

No it isn't because that money isn't spent in China (I'm sure you'll find some miniscule exception) - its spent on specific EU funded projects. 

Are you really as thick as you are beginning to sound? Do you really think EU social funds consist of bureaucrats driving to Romania and handing out readies to poor people ? It really isn't quite like that. I can't be a*sed to explain it to you, Hans has tried and not for the first time on this thread you've completely misunderstood the point.

Unfortunately it is clear many brexiteers are indeed staggeringly ignorant. Also noteworthy it was China not the US Baron took as the example. I'm sure he's not racist, however. 

Are you really as rude as you sound?

Are you implying that I’m racist or as your mate Rob said am I just being thick again?

We're about to enter the most calamitous period in our history since 1939; it's going to blight my life, my kid's lives and my grandchildren. You and yours too, of course.

And when posts like yours tend to demonstrate that this is being brought about through wilful ignorance then yes, I'm sorry to say I may just get a bit rude. I think I have posted quite enough logic, reason and facts over the last 3 years.

You will remember that I joined this thread, which had little to do with eu contributions but like many uk threads it went off at a tangent, to discuss ways of remaining in the eu. One of which could be to address the legitimate concerns of leave voters in order for them to change their minds.

I’m sorry if my ignorance offends you, although several posts here have demonstrated that I don’t have the monopoly on not understanding the workings of the EU, but if you are intent on stopping Brexit then I’m afraid that you’re going to have to deal with people far less knowledgeable and accommodating than I am.

Very good question without clear answers. It is one of the fundamental divides between leftwing and rightwing politics.

The EU protects some industries directly, some indirectly by regulatory control, and some hardly at all.

direct: strategic interests such as food production, military industries, Airbus, etc

no protection: industries where the EU will clearly be not competitive at all. A lot of raw material mining falls into this category, because the resources are just not in Europe. Also clothing production and other low-value labour intensive industries.

indirect: The EU uses a lot of regulatory control. This is in the first place to protect the safety of consumers (think rules for toys that prevent kids from dying if they try to eat the toys). But it has a secondary effect in that a high and complex level of regulation can be used to prevent outsiders from penetrating your market.

The latter point is changing nowadays, because most of the world is taking over EU standards for almost all products. So the EU advantage goes from excluding external competitors from our market to being the agency that sets global standards and thereby tries to favour EU companies.

I'd say they are just good at turning a blind eye. Germanys lignite mining? 

Like diesel car emmission testing?

I seem to remember him applying a three line whip to vote for A50, so he absolutely, 100% has a lot to do with this. Sorry.

I read Boris is going to use the 30 day "seek but not find" a backstop replacement as an excuse to vote no confidence in himself so he can set the agenda for a general election after we have left EU by default on November 1st. That is why he was so eager to accept Merkel's challenge- not cause it is possible but because it is impossible and gives him a devious way to implement this contrived and devious default No Brexit move. It is not attending to the principles of democracy at all but uses  procedure for unmandated enforcement. Looks like a cross party discussion will have to move fast to find a legislative process to delay article 50, delay no brexit and compel either a 2nd referendum or a GE or both without actually going through the process of  no confidence in Boris . The no confidence approach seems flawed. Also Tory rebels are unlikely to coalesce around a caretaker government idea and their votes are essential to form a majority to stop No deal Brexit. Is the solution possible through indicative vote majority of Commons and House of Lords legislative enforcement upon PM Boris??

Basically Boris stays but Parliament rules.

I feel this really is a fight for democracy now. My understanding of autocracy is that it is a simple swift beast that has the advantage of singular actions to assert itself. Democracy is a slower evolving procedural and inclusive beast. But once autocracy is established it is immensely difficult to reestablish  democracy  because democracy is this slow process of growth. I think we are in a perilous position now of the loss of democratic process to be replaced by a swift ruthless autocratic one.

I don’t think that a caretaker government is beyond the realms of parliamentary majority. One with Corbyn at the helm is however. No matter whether one supports Corbyn or not, the fact is that him attempting to be the caretaker PM is the easiest way to ensure there is not going to be a caretaker government. That leads me to believe that what he actually wants is for his bid to fail and elections to be called, preferably after Brexit, so that he can reshape the country the way he wants while the conservatives are shattered from the aftermath of a No Deal Brexit.

On the the other hand, that would be politically clever and I have seen no indication of anything /politically/ clever coming out of that corner in a long while.

I believe the chances of Corbyn actually winning a General Election are small, even in the turmoil of a post-no deal Brexit, and I'm somewhat bewildered by the numbers of people who think he would win an election. In fact, despite any no deal turmoil, Johnson would reap the rewards of delivering Brexit, which as we have seen, is a strong motivating factor for many voters. Almost all elections that I can remember have been won by the party with the leader who stands out above the crowd. Regardless of whether you like him or not, Johnson has the air of a winner. Corbyn fails, rather miserably in my view, in that regard. 

The UK parliament when it works normally functions like a time limited autocracy, cabinet cowed into backing PM for fear of their jobs, majority party cowed into backing cabinet for fear of allowing the ideologically opposed opposition into power and in hope of promotion. In normal times there's no real prospect of meaningfully opposing the government or removing it in the inter-election period. It's debatable whether it's now working better or worse with no real majority and party discipline broken, it's certainly less capable and it's not clear the trend is, as one might expect, toward compromise but instead toward subversion of process and extremism.

I think you're right to be concerned.

jk

That  view of Corbyn, which I do also share, proves we have two autocratic personalities trying to control the situation and what loses out are the democratic rights of an electorate to mandate an idea and mandate a PM. Putin uses procedure to side step the electorate and erode their direct involvement claiming he knows what the electorate think! He's the master of it!His is autocracy by endless procedure.

I think Corbyn is a complete dick but that is obviously not a reason why he shouldn't be PM, just look at Boris.

Theresa May made that mistake at the start of the Brexit negotiations by calling a snap election. That did not go well for her or the Tories.

Remind me of the result of that election? Corbyn 60 seats short of a majority wasn't it? That after one of the most useless campaigns imaginable from May. 

The current UK political process reminds me a lot of the 3rd and the 4th Republic in France. Maybe our Boris should look to General De Gaulle rather than Churchill for inspiration! A stronger executive requiring the majority support of a multi-party HoC.

HoL unaffected, as I think their role as moderators is good, although it should be more democratic. Generally I prefer this to looking to the USA, which appears truly awful to my poorly educated European viewpoint.

With respect to Brexit, it doesn't really matter as long as we can dig ourselves and the rEU out of the current hole. I watch the political process in the EU between the major powers and the new EU executive with great interest. Maybe Macron will be able to push forward and let us see what the reformers propose.

FF

The result was that TM made a stupid decision to call an election which weakened her authority and negotiating ability during Brexit.

Labour came second, but they did rather well putting the willies up the Tory faithful.

Just to diverge a bit to the G7 meeting. It gave a real insight into the situation. Boris clinging onto piecemeal notions like pork pie sales and shower tray exports with little over view of an economy as it seizes. A "wing it" attitude as in disarray as his appearance. A Trump on the only competent ground he excels at- exploitation of weakness with flattery, knowing he is in an incredibly strong position over a begging bowl UK.  It says it all. 

There were no Lords created because they were Remain- they just voted as they judged. But to create Lords because they are Leave is another procedural contortion and designed for a single purpose only by an unmandated PM for an unmandated idea