UKC

but without a bung like the DUP got

May's deal with a customs union, not what I wanted but at least it would protect manufacturing jobs

Jeremy will get the excuse he needs to avoid People's vote

I will be good watching the ERG loonies writhing in impotent frustration

A bit late in the day, WTF?

This should have been the first thing on the agenda two years ago.

I'd be vary wary if I was Corbyn, she'll be coming out of the meeting blaming Jezzer for f*cking her deal up, and the media will jump on the bandwagon, and it'll be all Labour fault.

This is just May trying to force things to a her deal or no deal vote just before the 22/05.

Once we've agreed an extension with the EU to then and got close to that date it's too late to be part of the EU elections and so they won't grant another extension, leaving the choice as her deal / no deal and no time left for anything else.

It kind of already is.  More or less 50% of the population is desperate to Remain, and would vote for anyone who would guarantee revoking Art 50 at least until a second referendum, the government is an utter shambles, being held to random by fundamentalist Leavers, propped up by the DUP, led by the most unpopular leader since Voldemort, with the possible exception of several of her most likely successors.

If only there were some way for the Opposition to take advantage of this. 

The problem is Jeremy has to make a decision whether to join talks with her, and then he’s got to make some kind of decision about the deal...

Decisions, and Jeremy Corbyn...

I heard the theory that he's purposely not making any kind of (public) decision about Brexit, to be able to stand back and watch the Conservatives implode before coming up with his solution at the best time for Labour, what his approach would be remains to be seen. The person who said that might be crediting him with too much canniness, it's hard to know.

She's not that clever.

So now we are going to find out how scared Corbyn is about EP elections...

He has the same problem as the tories: this EP election will have a large turnout and PR voting will show clearly how popular LAB and CON really are.

EU27 cannot accept such an extension, because it would mean that May can blackmail the EU with the threat of revocation during May, which would make the EU parliament unlawful. So for and extension till May 23rd, UK has to either vote for the deal before April 10th, or commit to EP elections before April 10th.

Just as true as what you meant

She's playing games same as she has been for the last two years.   The EU should tell her to f*ck off and construct an offer which involves a long extension and EU elections.    The Brexiteers are scared that the EU elections will turn into a proxy for a second referendum and they will lose.

David Cameron held a referendum, without defining what Brexit would mean, to try to put a lid on internal party squabbling.

Senior Tory ministers headed up a Leave campaign that told outrageous lies and broke electoral law.

Theresa May triggered article 50 without defining what Brexit would mean, or seemingly having a plan for what she would like to negotiate.

A series of incompetent Tories were given the post of Brexit minister.

The only attempt to create any sort of cross party agreement was a bung to the DUP, but they blew even that support by failing to take the main political objective of the DUP into account in negotiations.

The Tory leadership spent two years running down the clock, trying to play chicken with a trading block several times our size, and avoid tearing itself apart by defining what Brexit would actually mean.

And the mess is Labour's fault?

That's why the Lib Dems did so well at the last GE?

Whilst more labour voters did vote remain than leave, in certain parts of the country that was not the case. More English constituencies could have been lost to the Tories by coming out for remaining than could have been won. Labour were stuck in a corner.

That's true

Looks like they might now. May and Corbyn won't come to an agreement, this latest move is just theatre. I think we'll end up asking for an extension for a general election. SNP, Greens and Lib Dems will come out for remain, Labour for a soft Brexit and the Tories for a harder Brexit. Scotland will vote to remain, England will still vote for one of the Brexit options.

A soft Brexit isn't ideal, but if we do end up still in the single market at least it gives us options. Much easier for Scotland to go for independence in Europe if that doesn't create a customs border at Hadrian's wall. Hopefully England can follow us back in, somewhere down the line.

I'm not aware of any constituency where Labour voters were in a large majority voting leave and only a handful were reported as being in any majority for voting to leave. Remain has always been a large majority within Labour.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-vot...

It's what we've all been waiting for, finally, a man of action to come and sort things....oh, wait a minute.

He'll blow it...?... of course he will 

I sincerely hope  that Macron and the other  E.U leaders only accord a further delay if any final agreement is put to the people in a confirmatory vote. Simple question, leave with this deal, there will be nothing better  or scrap Brexit. It's not a second referendum it simply gives the people the final say. It doesn't rob leavers of their Brexit victory, most voted leave without the slightest idea of what that would entail. If they don't understand now, they never will. 

That's what I'm hoping for, an EU refusal to grant such a short extension.

.

Problem is, there are no advantages  for  the  U.K  with a Soft Brexit.  It's just Brexit for the sake of Brexit.

So, it looks like we'll end up with a deal that will piss off most Leave voters and obviously isn't what Remain voters wanted. In fact very few will actually be getting what they voted for.

It's a funny old world.

It’s called compromise. Unfortunately May has been unable to spin it to the UK in the same way that Blair spun the Good Friday agreement to the Irish. 

Oooh, look, I've alredy got a dislike ! Must be a d*** head leaver who just can't accept that in the bright light of day people would like to have a final say on a decision that will effect  the country for decades.

There’s not enough time for another people’s vote unless you postpone Brexit for a couple of years as we would have to vote in the EU elections.

There are only the three options. 

Leave, deal, or revoke. 

I doubt that will happen. Its just as much in the EU's interest as ours.

Of course there is time if the E.U impose a confirmatory vote, what would it matter if the vote took place in 6 / 9 /12 months time ? I'm sure the E.U would be patient knowing that  , more than likely, the UK   would vote to remain.

This is a trap he's going to blunder right into. Already Labour are wriggling back from backing a referendum focusing instead on environmental and workers' rights. This is no bad thing of course but if he proceeds without the interlock of the referendum, if he facilitates brexit on the basis of these fairly minor concessions or provides the cover necessary to get us past the EU election registration deadline with another short extension then we end up with three problems:

After we miss the EU election registration deadline there is finally no way back, parliament lacks the spine to revoke and Corbyn has no leverage, he's either promoting brexit with or without her concessions to Labour or he's prominently carrying the blame for an ERG no-deal brexit.

She's using Corbyn's differences with his party and reluctance to countenance a referendum to erode the trust of a remain majority voter and activist base in the Labour party as we approach an election.

This is May's resignation statement. Anything not written into the WA by Labour will be binned in short order by her hard-line successor and nothing is going to be written into the WA because May won't budge off her red lines, indeed the key one is also Corbyn's, restricting FoM and there is simply no time, we go past the point of no return where Corbyn loses what little leverage he has over May before WA treaty changes would be practically achievable.

This is a disaster. It needn't be if he'd just listen to the party and prioritise a public vote on what they agree but it will be because he won't. May's played a blinder here, three years of the tories making an utter pigs ear of this tory disaster and in three days time Labour will forever more carry half the blame.

jk

DOR is right, the EU summit next week is scheduled as it is because the candidate lists for the May EU elections have to be submitted by end of April (22nd?, not really sure).

Any Brexit delay longer than this first legal deadline of the election process would put the legitimacy of the next EU parliament in doubt, something that the EU cannot risk under any circumstances: Any EU citizen could challenge any EU regulation or directive passed by the new parliament as illegitimate.

Thus, the UK will have to sign the divorce agreement by next week, or they will have nominate candidates for the elections at the very least, even if you leave by May 22nd and do not take part in the elections after all. 

This also acts as an insurance so that UK MEPs will have been elected in case of revocation or should a longer delay become necessary.

MEPs resigning from the parliament if UK membership ends during the next term is, apparently, no problem for parliamentary legitimacy.

CB

And what do you say to the 40%-45% of Labour voters that voted leave?

"Were supposed to be the party that listens, but we're not going to this time, because you're wrong"

The whole reason we're in this shit now is because we've taken an issue which was across party boundaries and May made it into party politics.

I couldn't agree more that we should all have a second vote, and  hopefully we'll still get one, but it's not Labour fault FFS.

Yes she is and she'll be taking Machiavellian advice. Her cabinet know it too since all the hardliners are sitting tight to see if he falls for it before they quit and bring her down.

jk

If it's seen as being pushed onto us by the EU that's a gift from heaven to the quitters, overnight the EU would destroy remain's lead and we'd vote out at least 55/45

jk

Try Hartlepool for one 70% out 30% remain, a solid Labour constituency since time began.

There's plenty more try this :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_U...

Well, that is the realm of the unknown ! Obviously there will be those that consider interference of the E.U in a negative light but others having understood what's a stake be glad of it. I think there would be a majority  for  remaining.

Come on, you can see the headlines already! EU SAY'S YOU'RE WRONG! WE SHOWED 'EM IN '45 AND WE'LL DO IT AGAIN. FOR ENGLAND!

It's basic psychology, this whole thing is (from the voter perspective) about feeling we're being told what to do by a remote power and not liking that. Just imagine what actually being told what to do with us all in this heightened emotional state will do to us.

jk

I think you need to look at the data.  Look at

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/apr/01/how-did-eac...

I would say that

Oldham East

West Bromwich West

Rother Valley

Derby South

Sheffield SE

Batley and Spen

Rhonnda

Westminster North

are all Labour that voted with a large majority (>60%) to leave.  And that was just up to Chris Bryant on the list.  I counted 73 labour constituencies in total that voted >60% to leave with a good number >70%.  If you add all those >50% leave then you have well over 100.

It is then interesting to see how many of the MPs are following party lines or respecting their constituent vote.

It's a poison chalice for Labour.

This is about what it's always been about:

Making sure the other side can't take credit for what comes next if it is not a disaster

Making sure the other side takes the blame for what comes next if it is a disaster

Now the question is: is Corbin hungry and stupid enough to bite on the worm? he may be many things but he isn't going to be blind to this risk, it's just a question of greed.

Labour obviously faces a risk from the pro-brexit constituency but this is a fickle part of the electorate who have an equal choice between Labour, Conservative and UKIP. 

It faces a bigger danger from remainers who will exact a heavy price for betrayal and one that will last a generation.  The gamble is, will those left-of-centre remainers have somewhere else to go? Many will never vote for the Labour Party again and this could destroy its chances across pro-remain areas of the country. so the question is do you keep Stoke but throw away the SE and Scotland?

It' a question of give and take. Longer   extension for a people's vote. Seems very fair to me and  I would like to think that anyone  capable of a little intelligent reflection would judge it likewise.  If you're right, then a majority of the UK  populace are not capable of intelligent  reflection  and should be left to swim in their own shit. Little Englander  attitude  'par  excellence'.  God Save The Queen !

Even in those very solid Labour seats there can be a lot of conservative/ukip voters or conservative/ukip supporters who don't vote because they're disenfranchised by FPTP. It's quite possible to deliver a strong majority in a Labour seat for brexit while a minority of Labour voters in that seat actually support it, indeed this appears to be the case in most if not all Labour seats. Doesn't mean Labour doesn't have a problem but it isn't quite the problem it superficially appears.

jk

It's not that we're incapable, it's that we're emotional.

FWIW I too consider it perfectly a reasonable requirement for A50 extension but it is one which all-but guarantees we vote again to leave. Just look at the terms in which the Danish ref on Maastricht and the Irish one on Nice are discussed, these weren't even forced on those countries under significant duress as ours would be. We hate being bullied and told what to do, it's just a visceral response and it will for many over ride their more logical response.

jk

Good point and I accept my analysis is overly simplistic.  I think it does highlight though that both conservative and labour MPs are often representing what they think is best rather than honouring the vote of their constituents. 

Why?

The EU's goal is to have the WA approved by a majority in parliament. It would be very happy if this majority comes from both CON and LAB MPs. So the current plan of May discussing with Corbyn is a good development. The hope here is that this can be done fast, so the long extension is not required.

Other reasons for a long extension are a general election. There is hardly any way this is going to resolve anything. The moderate tories will not be able to oust May and the ERG to get complete control of the party. Same with Labour, nobody will oust Corbyn and momentum. LAB and CON are going to get a large majority in the next (hung) parliament.

The other one is a second referendum. The polls are 50-55% win for remain. This is the worst outcome from EU's point of view.

All in all, it is better if the UK does its general election or second referendum business during the transition after the WA has been ratified.

I fully realize that there is much truth in what you say, yet, the eternal optimist that I am would like to think that  even if leavers won again, the choice would be better accepted if it was arrived at democratically. 

You're forgetting that it's in the interests of the EU to have the UK as a member - as long as it's position as such is relatively stable and accepted, which is the hard part.

jkarran's argument is a good one that the UK electorate could be easily talked into voting against Remain if it was conned by the media into thinking it was being ordered around by the EU, so the EU line in permitting an extension needs to be extremely well thought out and well presented.

I wouldn't claim to have the answer, but granting a long extension on condition of a clear mandate for the eventually decided outcome might be workable, explaining that such a mandate could come from a newly elected government with a clear majority or, failing that, a confirmatory vote. Putting a general election as a first option might help get on board those Brexiters who are convinced that their preferred unicorn will triumph.

I think you're being overly optimistic. I don't think rational business people are ever going to accept this lunacy. As Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times put it yesterday, 'The problem with holding out for a perfect Brexit plan is that you can’t fix stupid.'

Oh I agree, if with eyes open we make an informed choice for a version of brexit that's going to be better for the country than anything imposed on us by the tories or the EU, my concern is that the reaction to being told to vote again will render us collectively incapable of making that decision dispassionately, it just puts us right back where we were with a majority having supported something they don't want to live with in the longer run 

I'm naturally pessimistic but oddly I've maintained hope throughout this debacle that we will eventually and bashfully find a way to climb down and reason our way out of it. I can't see how anymore.

jk

I probably am ! The outcome, whatever it is will have little effect on me personally, I just cringe when I think  that 45 years participation in Europe is being thrown away for no tangible reason.

‘Unicorns’ and ‘stupid’.

More evidence, as if any was required, that entrenched Remainers are acting purely with emotions.

When everybody stops using emotional language like ‘the fact is’ and starts saying ‘I believe it’s highly likely that’ maybe we will make some progress. But until they do, the side that is currently riding on the Unicorn and thinks it’s a magnificent stallion won’t understand where the other side is going to find its Unicorn.

“Thrown away”? Really? 

It'll be simply impossible to sell re-application once we leave with the 'threat' of the Euro, 'ever closer union', Shenghen and the loss of our discount actually realised. All that against a backdrop of a very painful and protracted lesson in where we as a mid-sized economy fully alone in the world actually fit in the global pecking order and the economic disruption caused by leaving (inflicted by a veangful EU!).

jk

I think Corbyn has to engage with the offer of cross party compromise at this stage. It's clearly not a genuine offer and therefore bound to collapse, but easier to point out that May refused to compromise after the fact, than to argue there was no need to try to help find a solution that parliamant could agree on.

Scotland is long gone, it took a long time to take effect but Tony Blair chasing middle England saw to that. It would take an equally long time to win Scotland back, so I wouldn't think that's worth taking into consideration for the moment - there are too many constitutional crises to sort out first.

Change would be better obtained by UK  participation in the E.U. Brexit so far has only offered  false promises.

We have had 45 years to manage change. Our MEPs are a waste of space. One of our MEPs is actively involved in trying to leave the EU  

Last month the EU voted to stop changing the clocks. A minor issue. ALL EU citizens were consulted. 70% of the respondents were Germans. I don’t remember being consulted! In fact I don’t remember being consulted on any EU rules and regulations. 

Exactly when do you expect that change of yours to take place?

As much as I would love that to be true, it is quite a selective analysis by a remain pressure group. There are published (paywalled) academic analyses that disagree, and labour will have commissioned plenty of their own. As the labour strategy has always been to try to force a general election, I'm quite sure that if the data available to the labour leadership had shown an anti-brexit stance to be a seat winner, they would have taken that stance.

i think you need to look at the data. Only 9 constituencies voted >70% to leave. 8 have Conservative Mp's, only 1 labour.

One? There are 7 UKIP and 7 Brexit Party plus god knows how many 'eurosceptic' Cnservatives, that's 20% of our delegation without the Con's or any brexity independents.

Whose fault is that? It is our government's job to consult, we/they are the EU from our perspective.

It's been ongoing since it was created, largely in the middle years before we retreated to agitating from the margins driven by Britain. One of the key brexiter complaints is it's changed beyond recognition, often followed by the gripe that we can't change anything ignoring of course the fact 'we' drove most of the change they complain about. It's big and lumbering but it's never ever been static.

jk

Of course, there is no thing as an advantageous Brexit... But if we can't stop it, then the softer the better in terms of damage limitation, IMO.

I count

Ashfield - 71%

Doncaster North - 72%

Great Grimsby - 71%

Barnsley East - 71%

Stoke-on-Trent North - 72%

Kingston upon Hull East - 73%

and 3 others on 70%.  So that is 6 Labour constituencies that voted leave >70%.  Unless I am interpreting the Guardian data incorrectly.

Of course it is. 

But how is that “easier to change from within”?

It won’t change. 

Brexit is about more than just leaving Europe. These petty arguments about facts and how damaging it will be to the UK and how the EU will be vengeful are all a sideshow to what is really happening to people’s feelings in the UK. 

It’s compromise. Something that people in the UK don’t seem to understand. There’s no other way to progress when you have strong feelings on both sides. 

Revoke and you anger 50% of the population. 

Leave without a deal and you anger 50% of the population. 

Present the deal properly and explain it in real terms that people can understand with reference to a withdrawal agreement and explanation that it’s all part of a long process because “it’s complicated” and even a No Deal would be long and complicated, you might anger less. Maybe. 

I'd check again if I was you.

More people voted to Leave in Hartlepool than voted for their Labour MP (percentage wise at least)

Give the vote back to the people, without the bullshit and falsities, and you will anger many fewer people.

The EU has been changing ever since the first inception of a pan-European trade organisation as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. Since joining the EEC in 1973, the UK has been one of the drivers for change. Margaret Thatcher was an enthusiastic proponent of the Single European Act and as such, has been described as "a central architect of European integration". In a speech in 1988 to business opening the Single Market campaign, she declared:

"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.

Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.

It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real. And it's only five years away."

The idea that the EU won't change, or that the UK has not played a part in its changes is nonsense. 

That is sad. But if the euro, Schengen, etc, is really such a big deal, it implies that a solution with the UK just outside the EU needs to be found now.

FWIW, I think rejoin (especially during the transition phase) is possible without the euro. But the UK will have to commit to some european integration. Otherwise there is no point to EU membership

Unfortunately both sides are full of bullshit and falsities so all we get is another 6 months of bullshit and falsities and we are no further down the road.

You misunderstand. 

The change I refer to is the position we now hold. Or rather the position we take. 

Of course the EU has and will change. How much influence we as EU citizens in the UK have is the real question. If the Government were that bothered about staying then they would have spent the last ten years actively involving UK citizens in the processes in the EU. Instead they’re all too worried about staying in/gaining power. 

EU is not the big picture here. 

Is it? That is the question now and there is no clear answer.

Here I agree. But I don't see a stable outcome in the next few years. Some people on this forum think that a second referendum will do the job. I disagree. By the time the question has been settled a large part of the people will already conclude that it is not legitimate. E.g., deal vs remain. 40% of the people want no deal (which is utterly stupid, btw) and they will not accept a remain result from this referendum. deal vs no deal has similar problems. A better strategy would be to accept brexit for now and hold a referendum regarding what type of brexit the people want. One way to make some progress is "Maintain freedom of movement, yes or no". If that one is won, a positive way towards remain emerges, either in a follow up referendum "Is membership not better than this soft brexit?" or by a general election won by a party that writes join the EU in its manifesto.

Bits of this are a big deal for plenty of countries within the EU too, a solution must and therefore will be found for them, we can do this from inside while ideas evolve.

The problem is persuading a Britain suffering the harsh effects of leaving the union it was half in half out of to buy back in fully while every single person even halfway responsible for our mess will be desperately blaming the EU.

Sadly it doesn't matter what is possible, it matters what we can be convinced of.

There will be no way back even to our existing preferential terms, we'll need major new concessions we'll never get. Better for Europe to cauterise the wound and let us go. We as a nation will HATE the EU with a passion it's barely possible to believe right now for for what they are about to do to us and this will last generations not years. It matters not a jot that in reality we'll have done this all to ourselves and that they are merely the scapegoat our press and political parties need.

jk

I'd say that would be among the worst ways to progress. Sure, many people would think of the bigger picture and vote accordingly but for the popular Brexit press it would be tantamount to asking 'do we want to allow foreigners to steal our jobs and clog up our hospitals', with no concern for social or economic consequences.

It would be akin to holding a referendum on the question 'do you want to pay less in tax'.

The referendum settles nothing but that isn't in itself a problem if it moves us forward, it either gets this debate out of parliament back onto the street buying us a few years to actually address some of the real issues underlying this mess or it moves us deliberately forward to negotiate our new place in the world. That won't be easy, it won't be painless and there will be huge resistance and huge resentment but if it's what we're going to do we should get on with doing it. The sooner we start, the sooner its over, I only have if I'm lucky 20-30 good working years left, I don't want them all blighted by Cameron's mistake.

By the time the question has been settled a large part of the people will already conclude that it is not legitimate. E.g., deal vs remain. 40% of the people want no deal (which is utterly stupid, btw) and they will not accept a remain result from this referendum. deal vs no deal has similar problems. A better strategy would be to accept brexit for now and hold a referendum regarding what type of brexit the people want.

Are you in the UK, I'm wondering because of the username, not trying to be rude or diminish your opinion but I do wonder if you're missing the emotion in all this, the degree to which it is utterly and irredeemably irrational. There will be no way back, ever if we leave, the EU will move away from where we have dragged it to and we'll be dangerous and furious like a wounded animal.

jk

Unless they thought actively involving people, educating people, would make more if us want to leave rather than fewer!

I can't see that happening:
1: most people don't care about who or what their MEP is.
2: most people have had this nonsense up to their eyeballs.
3: any MEPs could only be there for a few months anyway, so why bother.

Probably be the lowest turnout ever for Euro elections.

Not sure why you have brought Hartlepool up - they voted 69.6% to leave.....which might well be higher than the percentage that voted for their MP, but I was answering a point made specifically about those cnstituencies that voted > 70% to leave and what party the MP belonged to.......

Yes, but those percentages are for all voters, not those who voted Labour. There are few if any constituencies where the majority of Labour voters voted Leave.

Well, there’s that to it as well.

Either way, we’d at least all be a bit more understanding of what goes on and be able to make an even more informed choice.

You may well be (but then you may not be), as its not quite that simple- The count was not done by constituency, and there was much estimation, with some having an assumed error of 2 to 3%. 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/elections-ele...

I presume you're aware of the strong correlation between education level and voting Remain.

Nice try though.

'Few if any' suggests you don't know the actual position here. (I don't myself know, but some more definitive statement might be useful.)

I presume you’re not really equating degree level education with knowledge of the EU?

Is that an attempt to pretend that higher levels of educational attainment aren't likely to be correlated with better knowledge of the EU?

Oh so you do think that?!  I’m sure your average english lit grad knows EU law really well!

As its a boring day at work;

From the house of commons "best estimates" list (not sure if its the same as the grauniad, but its the accepted list to use by HoC and the electoral commission), there were 21 constituencies that had a leave share of votes cast estimated (or actual, some were counted where constitiuency = voting region) >70%. 14 estimated, 7 actually counted. Of this list, 11 have conservative mps, and 10 labour. Or did have in 2016, i dont know if any of the mps are now independent. Of the top 6, 5 are conservative seats, which is only relevant as there is a noticeable drop between 6th and 7th. 

I think looking at it in slightly more detail only serves to show how the continued division on party lines has helped to screw the whole affair. When your default position has been to claim that "they are wrong on this" - whatever "this" on any and every issue, and whichever party you represent, then to try to treat this as a party issue is doomed to failure.

It's something I read some time ago and I don't have the time to dig it out.

I'll take a little wager if you'd like. If we have EP elections the turnout will be extraordinary. The grassroots machinery is well funded organised and enthusiastic and people however sick of this they are are engaged and opinionated like never before.

jk

Hi Jk,

you are not rude at all. I am Dutch and live in Stuttgart. I argue in brexit matters from the point of view of the interests of the European Union. Sometimes I describe more general views in the EU27, sometimes more my own, which are from the federalist faction in the EU.

Hans

Thanks, your contributions and different perspective are always interesting. I didn't suppose I would offend but I'm conscious a lot of non UK EU nationals including some good friends are feeling very precarious here at the moment, I didn't want my question to come across the wrong way.

I'm with you for a more federal Europe with a place for Britain. Maybe one day if we pace ourselves.

jk

And I'm sure you know more about statistics and correlation than your disingenuous post would suggest.

My heads spins with this stuff at the moment, but Chris Henretty from East Anglia Uni reckons most Labour held seats voted leave (concurs with my observations of post industrial parts of Greater Manchester where I believe most Labour voters did vote leave), and 401 of 632 constituencies voted leave.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that the stats you’re talking about - education level in any old subject - have any correlation with knowledge of the EU.

Degree level education does correlate with age though, more highly educated = younger.  Younger, lacking experience = more likely to vote remain.

Yes they may have done but my point is that the majority of Leave voters in those constituencies weren't Labour voters.

No, of course not. How stupid of me.

That's not what I witness in Wigan - most leave voters were/are labour, lots (possibly most) torys were/are remainers.

Perhaps we should all feel guilty as future generations are going to have to study Brexit for History G.C.S.E or whatever it's called by then ! 

Even if true this does not mean that the majority of Labour voters/members voted leave. 

Imagine something like GE votes 55/45 Lab/Con, and in the referendum Labour voters opt 45 Leave/55 Remain and Conservative voters 70 Leave / 30 Remain.

In this case you end up with 56% Leave in a Labour constituency despite the majority of Labour voters preferring Remain.

The real life situation will be more complicated (e.g. additional parties in GE), but the example is probably not too far off from what happened in quite a few places.

CB

Kind of typical of the British involvement with the EU, everybody was invited to be in the survey. The UK had the lowest participation with 0.02% of the population bothering.

At last, something we can agree on!

I know the most Tory part of Wigan pretty well and I would completely disagree with that.

Edit: I mean the 2nd part, all the Tories seem to be Leave, and pretty staunch!

How are we suppose to know about such votes, this is the first I've heard about it.

That's as maybe, but at least TM can explain what her deals truly means to the UK, that's presuming she understands what her deal entail of course.

I doubt any f*ckwit is going to be posting £350m a week for the NHS, and even fewer f*ckwits believing it if it was.

Not that I want to support this woman (or her politics), who seems to live a life on multiple contradictions, nor do I think we should leave the EU, but she raises some valid points her, points we're not often exposed too. Why do foreign politicians seem so much better than ours?

anyhow :- https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=597526424097479

https://labourlist.org/2019/04/labour-confirms-it-wants-to-end-freedom-of-m...

3rd April, 2019, 3:13 pm "Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson has confirmed that it is Labour policy to end freedom of movement once the UK leaves the EU."

-----

No more votes from me then.

It was in their 2017 Manifesto. Did you vote for them at that election?

Besides, doesn’t leaving  the EU pretty much involve abandoning FOM? Isn’t that one of the main reasons it’s stupid?

jcm

I believe that Boris and Nigel still harbour belief in that statement.

What are you going to say to the 55%-60% of the Labour voters who voted Remain?  Not to mention the 50% of Conservatives who really want to Remain and can't bear what May and the ERG have done to their party, between them?

The way to get over all this Will of the People crap is to have the choice of a party with a realistic chance of winning the election on an openly Remain ticket.  Much as I love the LibDems (and will probably vote for them this time - it certainly won't be Karen Bradley!), if Corbyn promised to Remain I'd vote for Labour irrespective of whatever was else on his manifesto. 

Gisela Stewart has stoutly defended it throughout, and still does.

Sadly, despite being a generally Conservative type of guy, so would I. 

I'd have to hold my nose but I'd do it!

When you have a draw you have

1. A replay(We've had the extra time and it's still a draw!)

2 A penalty shoot out? - god help us all! -I have it on good authority that God has given up as well!

Trouble is Labour have done their polling and it turns out a lot of folk wouldn't vote Labour if they championed remain. No doubt the converse is also true but that's why Jeremy has been tying trying to ride two horses at once.

Of course it could be argued that a leader with charisma and greater powers of persuasion may have been able to champion Remain and taken voters with him..or her but Labour has the leader it has and that's where we are.

I wouldn't mention shoot on a Corbyn thread. Rumour has it the army want all the unused posters of him after he is deselected as party leader. 

No, but persuading people that it does is the great trick Theresa May has played.

Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are not in the EU, and enjoy freedom of movement (with a little more ability to put some conditions on it than EU members do).

Leave won, I don't like it but they did. But it was very very close and the only thing on the ballot was leaving the EU, not leaving the EEA, the single market or the like.

It's an astonishing failure that the moderates in her own party and in the opposition have allowed her to get away with trying to push a hard brexit rather than the obvious, ready-made, reasonable compromise soft brexit that we know at least some of the leavers wanted and we know was available.

Well over 5m people managed.......

That will be a couple of morons in the army not The army. 

You're joking?

Jk

“There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energise the demolition beams.”

There are no other reasons for Brexit . 

You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, and I claim my £5

I'm not sure the Swiss "enjoy" freedom of movement: in 2014 they voted, in a referendum, to do away with it by imposing immigration quotas.  That caused some fairly sticky problems for the Swiss government, as the terms of their agreements with the EU were that if one component of the agreements failed, the whole lot would be come null and void.  The EU regards FOM as being part and parcel of the freedom of movement of goods and services aka frictionless trade.  In 2016 they managed to agree that, while foreign workers would be free to travel to Switzerland, Swiss employers would be able to give priority to Swiss job seekers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative

(In some ways that sounds not unlike the sort of convoluted argument that people have been trying to formulate to get round the Irish backstop in May's deal.  Probably one of the few similarities that might readily be drawn between an ex-imperial power arguably still struggling to come to terms with its change of status - at least in some quarters - and a traditionally isolationist and staunchly neutral country.)

4.7m in total. If 0.02% of the UK population replied that’s c14,000. Certainly the UK don’t even get a mention in the 1% figure that’s left over from adding up Germany and France etc. 

The point is we are not getting a say in the running of the EU and are unlikely to, especially, if as posted above is true, the majority of our MEPs are UKIP. 

You mean you aren't getting a say because you aren't allowed to or because you don't bother to?

The UK has 73 MEP's out of 751 as the number is allocated on population, of these 19 are Labour, 18 Conservative,10 are independent, 7 are UKIP, 7 Brexit, 3 Green, 2 SNP and the rest 1 seat each.

If people don't vote or get involved then there's no point in moaning because someone else makes the effort.

Because those 73 MEPs are not getting their voices heard in the UK. Who is blocking them from asking our opinions? Or are they even asking? Why are we not getting consulted in the numbers that France and Germany are over the issues? Again, I ask, how are you proposing to change that? Because it’s all well and good saying we can only change it from within, but our MEPs don’t appear to be interested in highlighting what’s going on. 

Thats not what the analysis says. I'm guessing in places like Hartlepool more people voted in the referendum.

The stats can easily give a false impression: if say 55% of normal Labour voters  in a constituency of 70% Labour voters voted leave and 90% all the opposition voters did, you get to a baseline of a 65.5% leave vote with the same voters. You only need a bit of extra turnout of people who won't normally vote but who are highly motivated to vote leave  to get back to 70% leave: 10% would do it (even if assuming the same voting split).

You have simply not read my linked article. Also look at the example I just gave above. It is very unlikely there were a large number of Labour voting constituencies where the majority of Labour voters voted to leave.

What's stopping you from telling your MEP your opinion?

The Labour MPs who are sticking out for the Brexit their constituents voted for may come to find that the Labour they voted for ceases to exist. The vast majority of Labour are Remain they are not going to be able to stomach being aligned with the likes of the ERG and the disgusting UKIP. 

The analysis on future policy being a vote winner is not the same thing as the local leave stats. The data does exist for Labour voters overall (a huge majority for remain) and the party has to respond to those views. I'd add that the huge rise in membership and the biggest growth area in Labour is in what might be described as 'young remainers'.

Even allowing for errors in the analysis I don't think its going to be very wrong. So maybe you should link this other analysis (there are people who can cut and paste key summaries from behind paywalls). I am aware of studies that show older white working class Labour voters being solid leave in some regions but they are only part of a demographic.

People also blame the 7 UKIP members not the other 66 for not trying to steer or reform the eu over the years. Perhaps many of the 66 are happy riding the eu gravy train and don't want to rock it. Nice salary, expenses, pension after losing seat. What's not to like. 

I'm no UKIP fan in past and certainly not now they've become the new BNP, but there aren't very many of them in seats of any type, they still seem to take the blame for everything. I think a closer look at the attendance, voting participation etc.. of the other mps wouldn't be wasted. UKIP in theory should be just a quiet voice in the corner if the other 649mps and 66meps were earning their keep. 

My opinion on what? Who is highlighting the laws and processes?

How is it that Germany and France have managed to engage their public?

That might well be true, but how did they hear about it? I dare say many other British people might have joined in, but were unaware of it and that they could vote.

Maybe that's our problem, not know how to engage.

The question then becomes, how do we know what party the voters belonged to, since the Ref. was simply in or out, and not which party would you normally vote for, it makes it difficult to decide either way.

I know, I'm sorry I have a stern word with myself and nanny has beaten me raw, please forgive me.

But that's the point, you're guessing!

Yes but who's to say those figures are correct? Since the Ref. vote never asked for your usual party vote, how are we to know.

The question was vague anyhow what is a large majority?

Opinion polls are the closest you can get to "facts" on political thinking,  see https://whatukthinks.org/eu/ .

John Curtice is a very good, he says what he knows and just as importantly says when something isn't answered by the polls.

No guessing though.

Maybe they don't have a press dominated by anti-EU owners...?

Quite probably. But we now have social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, yet it’s not coming through on any of those feeds. 

So far I’m hearing only reasons why we are not hearing and someone is telling me I could contact my MEP if I was that bothered. 

But no one has told me how this will be changed, more especially; how it would be easier to change. Who is going to change it? 

This data comes from exit polling, a sample was asked. Obviously it's imprecise but the scale and causes of errors (shy tories etc) are reasonably well understood.

jk

Up until I just Googled it, I didn't know who my MEP was.
Apparently, I have six that represent my area in the EU and all of them seem to belong to groups that I've never heard of.  Three of those appear to be anti-EU and the others are Independent, Green and Christian Democrats.
Out of those, I wouldn't have a clue who bests represents me and I believe that most people in the UK are in the same boat in that respect.
The fact that virtually no one in the UK was aware of the EU's proposal to change the Clock Change and of the accompanying survey seems to indicate that UK MEP's aren't doing enough to inform the UK of what is happening within the EU.
Not sure what it's like in other EU countries in that respect, but it's hardly surprising that some people in the UK regard the EU with suspicion when it comes down to 'enforced' rule changes from some sort of Big Brother type of organisation.
I voted Remain, but I do sometimes question at just how far the EU wants to push when it comes to Federalism, etc.     

Up till Jan 2018 Boris was Doubling Down on the red bus lie. At the moment he has gone quiet probably because somebody is trying to crowd fund money to challenge his lie in court.

The important thing, is Boris has not officially retracted his comments.

Because lots of polls have been done.

I only became recently aware that Eu passed a law to stop the undercutting of wages in each country  and to give equal wages and rights to  Eu work-force, now being the same as the country they are working in - basically  employers would now look locally first and not elsewhere first cause no financial advantage in it now. This Could substantially change the movement of large numbers of people within the Eu without inhibiting the concept of freedom of movement of people.

That wasn't publicized.

And you've used social media and discovered you can contact your MEP.

Perhaps you're not listening.

What do you want to happen?

The UK is not very good at public consultations, whether they are EU-initiated or UK Government initiated. For example, there are currently 69 open UK Government consultations (open meaning that they are on-going). Some of these are specialised sector-specific consultations (for example, a Ministry of Justice consultation on fixed recoverable costs in civil cases). Others are more general public consultations, such as the Low Pay Commission consultation on the level of the minimum wage.

However, it is certainly the case that very few, if any, of these have entered public awareness. It seems to me that there is a fundamental problem with government consultations which is that while it may be seen as being desirable that the public has the opportunity to contribute to policy development, there is no effective way to ensure fairness in the ways in which the public is (a) made aware of the consultation (b) given sufficient detail to make informed comment and (c) able to respond in a useful and meaningful manner. I would also suggest there are other factors at play - consultations are also seen as a way of avoiding making decisions, and I am sure there are elements of the civil service which see the public as inconveniences in the proper working of government. 

So there are problems with UK government consultations. EU consultations have added degrees of difficulty. One of these is simply the nature of the EU administration. Contrary to some popular belief, the EU administration is actually quite small, so the numbers of EU civil servants available to service the consultations is limited. Further, the degrees of engagement vary widely from country to country. France and Germany are fully engaged with the EU and its workings, and may have better mechanisms for involving their populations in consultations. The UK has generally been less well-engaged with the EU at a public level, and there has been a popular narrative for many years that the EU bureaucracy is simply interested in pointless meddling. To that extent, it is hardly surprising there has been so little notice paid in the UK to any EU consultations. 

You ask how this might change. One suggestion that has received attention in recent months has been the idea of peoples commissions. These involve bodies of people, drawn from the wider population, across political, social, ethnic and religious bounds, tasked with discussing and formulating ideas, seeking consensus and proposing strategy and policy. Needless to say, these are not popular with some elements of government, who dislike the idea that the public may have ideas that run counter to government plans. 

"The fact that virtually no one in the UK was aware of the EU's proposal to change the Clock Change"

Was widely reported in the French press, so why didn't the British press cover the story ? You can hardly blame the EU for that

I’m not really bothered as I expect it’s a mute point as we are leaving the EU. What I want to happen doesn’t matter. I’m not the person saying that we can change things if we are in the EU. So far we don’t appear to be having the 10% say that we are supposed to be getting. For whatever reason, whether that’s the press, our MEPs, voter disengagement, the government not wanting us to know etc.

The point is remainers are telling us we can change it. So they’re the ones who should be shouting loudly about how the EU should work and telling us why it currently doesn’t and telling us how they’re going to fix that if we remain. 

They complain that leave doesn’t have a plan, but what’s the remain plan to fix the current problem where half the country want to leave. 

All I’m hearing from both remain and leave is things will be better, neither side are saying how or why. 

How do you know we don't appear to be having the 10% say that we are supposed to be getting? What does that even mean - what does a 10% say mean? We have MEPs from across the political spectrum, from right to left. It's unlikely that they will speak with one voice. It's not clear to me what you want. 

Which problem is 'the current problem'? 

Very funny, I said you weren't listening.

What haven't we had our 10% say in?

The point is you don't know what you're angry about, you freely admit to being ignorant and want some else to spoonfeed you. If you could explain how the eu has negatively impacted your life then perhaps we could see how that could be addressed.

What's your plan to fix the current problem where half the country wants to stay?

That isn't true. I don't think things will be better if we remain, but I do think things will be worse if we leave.

I'm not blaming the EU, but the UK MEP's as per one of my comments: The fact that virtually no one in the UK was aware of the EU's proposal to change the Clock Change and of the accompanying survey seems to indicate that UK MEP's aren't doing enough to inform the UK of what is happening within the EU.

Yes but you don't actually believe he or Gove ever believed the lie, let alone that they still believe it? The failure to distance themselves from it is a political choice, not indicative of their personal credulity, it's just expedient and there are no real personal negative consequences, we as an electorate have basically accepted blatant and shameless lying as part of our normal political discourse.

jk

Which of her points do you feel are valid?

Maybe because first past the post keeps the worst extremist and populist demagogues out of Parliament?

Why is that the fault of the MEPs? Is it the job of MEPs to notify the public of EU consultations? 

I am asking whose job is it? 

I don’t need to be ‘spoonfed’ but I would like to be informed. 

No, I was being flippant, but people say all sorts and then there's what sample size, what time of day the sample was taken, etc.

You'd be hard pressed to get someone to admit they voted Tory in Hartlepool, especially in certain wards. And if you only sampled a selection of wards, it would be very difficult to extrapolate any meaningful data from that selection. All of this gives a best an educated "guess" with wide error margins.

I would consider it the job of UK MEP's to try and inform the people of the UK of what decisions they are making.
Especially ones as fundamental as what time we should have our clocks set to.

It could, but you missed out some vital wording. Relatively equal wages when local costs of living are taken into account. It doesn't mean everyone in Romania are now on city of London salaries, nor the opposite.

So I don't think anything will change. Wages already follow local market forces. 

Google is a marvellous tool. 

The fact us leaving will cost Germany proportionally more than any other country, that France then becomes a major player with reduced "checks" on where they want the EU to go. There's few more but I've forgotten then already

I don’t want anything. I’m explaining why people are disengaged with the EU. 

I know we don’t ‘appear’ because half the country are disengaged and don’t feel we are. Again whether we actually are or aren’t is a moot point because it’s appearances that count.

The current problem, in case you haven’t seen the news in the last two years, is that we are in a constitutional crisis because half of the voting public want to leave the EU.

Why? Do you rely on MPs telling you the decisions made in Parliament? I suspect that very few people use their MPs as their primary source of information. 

I think you are confusing me with stating farage as I did not mention that nasty backstabbing Mr Gove. Gove stopped repeating the lie the day that they won the vote.

I have NOT accepted blatant and shameless lying from politicians. Its easy to catch a thief but almost impossible to catch a liar.

Ok. If you can just tell 17m people that voted leave to google every day to check if there's any particular EU issues they should be engaged with, then that will sort out all the problems we have with the EU nicely. 

Not sure why no one has thought of that before. 

You are laying the blame for the woes at the feet of the EU and MEPs. I would suggest there are rather more varied reasons for the UK's lack of engagement. The fact that other countries engage better would suggest that it is possible for the working of the EU to be better understood. For example, it may be that those countries have a less hostile media than we do. 

I'd suggest the eu should pay to deliberately publish a list of all consultations, perhaps an advert once a month in the press, plus a stand alone easy to locate website. Meps can link these on their own website and social media.

On the clocks; 70% of those in the consultation were in Germany. Why are they even consulting central Europe, the hour makes no difference to them at all with their levels of winter daylight. 

You miss my point. You were asking whose job it is to notify the public of consultations. My suggestion is that you use Google to find out. I note that you have not made reference to any of my comments regarding the nature of UK consultations. It seems to me that you don't actually want to learn anything about the processes yourself. 

Exactly. People engage with local issues that affect them with their local MP. 

Who is going to engage with their MEP over something that Japan are asking for like a zero rate tarif? Oh, no one, so what happens when they get given zero rate tariffs and move their factory from the UK to Japan?

Do you not understand what’s broken here?

EU consultations are already easy to find. A stand-alone website would not do any harm, although I doubt it would do any better that the existing lists. Adverts in the press would not be a bad thing for those who still pay attention to the published press. Certainly wide dissemination would be a good thing.

70% of the respondents were from Germany. That simply means that Germans were more engaged. The consultations would have been across the whole of the EU, as you would expect for an EU consultation. 

Maybe via the MEPs earning around £100k, plus their paid for assistants. 

It doesn't prove they were more engaged. Only the overall eu response rate. 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make here and the relevance to your earlier points. 

It might be useful if you stated, precisely, what you consider to be broken. I did ask earlier, but you declined to respond. 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/summertime/news/2018-08-31-consultati...

Looks like they chose the dates when many folk are on holiday. Sweden pretty much shuts down for July into early august, so despite daylight saving having a significant impact the response is one of the lowest. 

Curiously Finland is higher and they aren't even on CET anyway. 

Consultations are handled in the main by trade bodies so most of the people being consulted would either be the trade body or their members. The average Joe in the street doesn’t get consulted on most issues. 

Hence - straight bananas (if there ever was such a law) would have been consulted on with supermarkets and banana importers. No one would have asked me directly whether I wanted a straight banana. This is where the issue arises. Communication. 

Who handles the public consultations?

The majority of the public are completely unaware of how these processes happen and just see the EU ‘imposing’ laws and regulations on us. There’s no one debunking the anti EU press in large numbers. 

The problem is the press are too powerful. Democracy is broken, parliament doesn’t carry out the will of the people, it carries out the will of the press who tell the people lies.  

What is broken? Seriously? You’re asking that question. I already replied several times. 

Half the population want to leave EU and half want to stay and Parliament is in constitutional crisis. 

Thats what is broken!

Not having a go, I just couldn't tell if you were joking or not. Ignore my adding Gove, my mistake. I'm still just not sure if you actually believe Johnson and Farage believe or ever believed the £350M claim?

Farage disowned it on TV the morning after the referendum which indicates not to me. That leaves Johnson.

Individuals might not like where we're going but the lack of negative impact on careers shows the parties have seen the public en masse have no intention of or real ability to hold liars to account.

jk

I'm sorry, but I've completely lost track of your concerns. At one moment, you're complaining about EU consultations and the next you're talking about something very different. I don't believe you're really interested in a discussion, as I've been trying to offer, so I'll leave you to it. Good day to you. 

Can you explain why the eu which claims to be only about promoting trade etc.. needs to meddle with daylight saving? Europe already operates across 3 time zones, talks to Asia in the morning, the USA in the afternoon. 1 hour is largely irrelevant to business. If it has that much spare capacity, there are real problems it could be fixing or just cut 10% of its staff loose. 

No. I really don't know. 

If the one hour is irrelevant then why bother with the change? You do understand that it doesn't actually create more daylight, don't you?

You think this consultation occupied 10% of the staff? I'm not claiming they're the epitome of efficiency but that seems a bit unlikely.

Irrelevant to business yes. But depending where you sit in the time zone in the more northern parts of Europe it can help equal the daylight part at either end of the day. For example for us it's already light early on a morning, far earlier than 99% get up for work. But it's dark on an evening. So shifting an hour is generally much better for life in general. 

Indeed this week, many sports clubs start their outdoor evening programme after gaining that hour of day light. 

No. But if they have staff just thinking what they can occupy their time with then they need to be thinned out. 

Is that because you are not engaged? Or your mep hasn't told you?  

And yet, of the respondents to the consultation, most weren't happy with the clocks changing - perhaps they weren't sporty.

Clubs start outdoor programmes in spring?!?! No kidding?

I still think your 10% estimate might be a little pessimistic.

He sure did and very promptly.

Boris however, up until somebody starting a crowd-funder in January 2018 for private legal proceedings, was still carrying on with the lie. It was only then he went quiet but he has never denounced the lie.

Trump has been successful with his lies and made it all the way to the White House. And when called-out on them, Trump just shrugs them off. The lie did its job and he simply casts them aside and moves on.

They’re inexorably linked. 

A large number of people have voted leave because they see the EU as a bunch of meddling bureaucrats who don’t listen to us. 

Parliament are also now being held to ridicule as a bunch of bureaucrats who don’t listen to us.

I’m not arguing, I’m trying to explain. 

The main problem is that individual countries can choose which time to adopt.
Current CET countries could be an hour apart by just crossing an invisible border and I can't see that being beneficial in either a social or business setting.
UK and Ireland could have different times.
UK and France, etc. could have a time difference of two hours.
UK and Romania, etc. could have a difference of three hours.
If Scotland gets independence, they could have a different time to England.
It would make some sense if they stopped the Clock Change on a certain date for all countries so that they all stayed in sync, but they haven't.
I personally think that they should retain the Clock Change, but that's a whole new discussion...

I knew about it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45366390

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46017347

Maybe the problem is how few people actually follow reliable news reporting or read a paper but get their 'news'. from social media.

Anyway, presumably it won't affect us - we'll just refuse on the grounds it's an evil EU idea irrespective of any factual considerations.

From memory, the rationale behind the original directive was to get all the member countries to change their clocks on the same dates which is very useful to business & particularly for transport. At the moment Israel has summer & winter time but due to religious reasons doesn't change at the same time meaning the time difference between eg London & Tel Aviv  is variable, whereas eg between Stockholm & Helsinki its always 1 hour

Both of those reports are after the consultation period and therefore proves that you actually didn't know about it until too late.

But those points are, at best, highly arguable and, at worse, deliberate untruths. 

I'm just surprised that you are not a bit more sceptical about claims made by the leader of the German far right party. 

Is not the proposal to alter CET- central european time....completely irrelevant to the Uk anyway?

It claims nothing of the sort.

All three time zones in the EU area would be effected and the UK would be included if it is still in the negotiating period of Brexit.
Obviously, if the UK actually stays in the EU, then it will definitely have to adopt either GMT or BST as it's one and only time and potentially be out of sync with one or more countries by one, two or three hours at any one time.
If the UK still does Daylight Saving on Brexit, then it will definitely be out of sync with one or more countries in the EU.
 

70% were in Germany. Why would it bother them at all.

No, when the clocks change because it pushes as a bit of excess early morning day light to the evening. It's also safer for travel. Obviously most in the UK won't notice the benefits as they drive everywhere any way. 

Having more light on evening 9,10,11pm is beneficial. If it starts getting light at 1,2,3am is pretty irrelevant. Apart from cycling vattenrundan where the prized post 3am start doesn't require any bike lighting by race adjudicators.  

The figures were similar in Sweden.

You do come out with silly blanket statements.

You're a bright chap, can you think of a solution? How about this - now the clocks have gone forward leave them there. That way next year it will still be this light in the evening in the first week of April.

But the look at the proportion of the population consulted. 

No. there are benefits to extra daylight on an evening. Safer roads, less electricity used for lighting etc..  If it's light at 3 or 4am its has no impact on this. 

For us come November the opposite is true. It's pitch black when the kids head to school, but only duskish when they finish. The light is needed in the morning.

The whole convention of changing the clocks in the first place, didn't start for fun, there was some method in their madness! 

I did say as much in  my OP.

If we leave whose going to chip in our bit?

Is what she said about the proportion of votes and France's powers not correct?

It's a fair cop!  I was aware it was being proposed (it is still only a proposal) but you're right, I didn't know about the consultation.  I do, very occasionally, get involved in EU consultations when it's something I have a professional interest in.

To be fair, I don't think this is limited to EU issues.  UK government does this too and I suspect a there's usually a pretty dismal response unless you have a special reason to be interested. 

Not over to Corbyn. May will hang out for referendum on her deal. No deal now legislated so Corbyn can't revert to any leverage. She just needs to hang out till Wednesday next week. She knows Corbyn already announced he'll do referendum on her deal. He can't not have a referndum. No confidence in government won't win a vote. Cynical but true, I think.

You're confusing "consulted" and "responded".

Yes. "Obviously most in the UK won't notice the benefits as they drive everywhere any way" is a silly blanket statement.

And now we have that extra hour. 

The kids'll get used to a one-off change. Who knows, in the winter schools could start and finish earlier.

The world was a bit different in 1916 (not the earth's rotation around the sun, that was quite similar) time moves on.

You can't respond to something you don't know about in the first place. 

And work places change to for parents. Might be easier to change a clock, most of which change themselves anyway. 

More people travelling, going to work, school etc.. greater pressure to reduce electricity consumption. All the arguments are still valid. 

No one is going to 'chip in our bit', but the EU's cost will go down as well as there will be no need for other net contributors to cover the UK's rebate and the UK won't receive the billions in spending from the EU anymore.  The UK is a net contributor, so leaving won't be cost neutral to the EU, but UK contributions aren't as big as for some other states because of the rebate. Also for the economies of individual member states there might be jobs or GDP advantages to the UK exit, particularly if its no deal as it will rather effectively deal with British competition!

It's no longer a proposal as the EU voted for it last month.
The only option that individual Countries have got is to decide which time to adopt.

And the only discussion May will allow with Corbyn is whether the referendum will be advisory {subject to negotiable changes eg on backstop if her deal wins] or legally binding { That  means the deal is it and no more discussion over backstops etc if it wins}.

Do you follow your MEP on Twitter or Facebook...?

Twitter and Facebook are likely to reflect the media-biased views of the people you know. Maybe if you had more pro-EU friends, you'd see more positive stories about the EU. Or maybe not; maybe the UK is apathetic about the EU.

I'd certainly like to see the EU make an effort to promote itself to the UK; a 'what has the EU ever done for us?' story (I've seen very such things posted by my Facebook friends).

Perhaps you could start buying 'The European' newspaper?

Just in case

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/04/no-deal-planning-oper...

Perhaps a little bit late now...

Years ago a colleague/mate from my work in Helsinki went on to work in the Commission office in London. They've been there for decades, plus there are/were Euro-centres (IIR the name C) at university- and big municipal libraries around the country that held copies of all the official publications of the union (now all easily available on the internet of course).

The Commission was doing the Euromyths from the early 90s but my understanding was the British press just wouldn't cover them - the right wing press because they were publishing the bollocks stories in the first place (the Mail's Brussels correspondent talking about Johnson's time there for the Telegraph on that R4 documentary series last year was shall we say "enlightening", on the utter lack of any journalistic ethics that Johnson showed). Meanwhile the centre and left press in the UK wasn't really interested in the EU. Before Cameron had dreamed up the referendum, it was received wisdom that the only British media that really understood the EU and reported on it well was the FT and the Economist. The BBC had good correspondents but didn't cover the EU well domestically.

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

In some ways the strength of the remain vote and sentiment is quite surprising considering the pitiful levels of coverage of the EU pre-2015

It’s not me you have to convince. 

It’s 17m Brexit voters. 

My gut feeling is that a lot of Remainers are scared of change. They’ve heard project fear, Remainers are typically well educated, well off people. These are the type of people who are likely to have very comfortable lifestyles that will become not very comfortable if project fear predictions come true. 

Brexiters on the other hand are the opposite and believe they’re already at the bottom and any change is a good thing. 

Remember this isn't  just about leaving the EU, it’s about all government power.  

What all 17 million of them? I think not.

Ah yes, sovereignty. The power to set our clocks forwards backwards or sideways twice three times a year or never without having to agree anything with a whole lot of other countries. Ok, maybe that's a bit facetious but what is it that scares you about sharing sovereignty with 27 other countries? Can you give me an example?

I know of several leave voters who have died / gone insane / changed their minds / applied for an Irish passport etc and that's just the few I know; I don't think there are 17m of them

Nope. As I’ve said loads of times, you’ll have to ask the 17m odd leavers why they voted leave. Many of them have explained their reasons over and over again. The same as the Remainers have explained their reasons over and over again. 

Its just a shame that neither of the idiots on the two sides are getting together to work on a compromise. Meanwhile the rest of us look on in wonder at the stupidity. 

I know several remain voters who didn’t like the outcome but want the result upheld.

and several small business owners who need it to happen quickly. 

Some are threatening to move to Europe FFS!

You've contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences. You've just admitted there's a cost and no one is going to chip in, so how do they make up the shortfall

A lot of this point comes down to what national governments allow the EU (specifically the european commission) to do and what not to do. Actively promoting itself tends to be forbidden, because the national governments want to keep a monopoly on communicating with their citizens. For example, Cameron forbade the commission to explain what the EU is and why the UK benefits from being in the EU during the referendum campaign.

So in the example discussed above about day-light saving time and the fact that most respondents were German. This is very likely due to the German goverment taking more effort to spread the information than the UK government did.

So for UK citizens that want to be kept informed, the first and most effective way would be to vote in MPs that want to actively communicate about the EU.

I am also happy with everybody who thinks that the EU should directly communicate to EU citizens. But please keep in mind, if you think like this, you support EU federalization

It is a fundamental mistake to think costs in terms of budget contributions. The benefits of the single market in terms of trade facillitation are at least 10 times the budget. So the real cost of brexit for the EU27 is much more than just the UK's budget contribution.

UK's net budget contribution is around 5 billion per year? So brexit will cost the EU around 50 billion per year. It will cost the UK a similar amount. The power in the negotiation comes from the fact that we (EU27) share this cost with a larger economy.

How will the EU deal with this?

Budget: the numbers are peanuts. There will be a lot of discussion about it, but the countries will pay and it is no big deal.

Real cost to the economy. This is paid by everybody in terms of smaller economic growth than would have been possible without brexit. There is some mitigation here in economic activity moving from the UK to the EU27.

(All numbers I mention depend crucially on the type of deal agreed, the closer the economic alignment, the smaller the numbers)

That's pretty much my understanding and recollection; there had been no desire to promote the benefits of the EU, but a significant desire to undermine confidence and support for the EU. Johnson being one small part of that.

That is certainly an element, but actually Brexit voters are much more likely to be secure in their key needs. If we look at housing, that means people owning properties mortgage free or in social housing with protected tenancies. 

As exemplified by Boris, JRM and Fromage - those well known working class icons ? 

And you think someone living mortgage free or in protected tennancy has anything to be worried about if house prices plummet or interest rates hike? 

Hardly your normal leave voter. In fact hardly  your normal UK resident. 

What do you think they have to be worried about over a lot of change and what do you think that have to gain?

It's gut feelings that have got us into this mess. It seems that gut feelings are easy to manipulate without people realising they're being manipulated. Then they vote.

Better off sticking to facts and objective assessments.

I’m not sure what your point is here?

40-45% of Labour voters didn’t vote leave, it was 30%. Furthermore, Labour voters are the largest group shifting from Leave to Remain, so leave support amongst Labour voters is probably nearer 20% now.

May asking for an extension until 30 June, does that mean Euro elections?

I wonder why the tough Brexiters are so scared of a confirmatory vote ? Given the total vagueness of the original referendum question - leave- offering another vote to confirm or reject what's on offer seems perfectly legitimate. Of course, the old saying 'only fools never change their minds' must be taken into account and there is no shortage of them in the leave camp, but hopefully sufficient with a little intelligence to reject Brexit by a larger margin than the leavers won the first referendum, thus reinforcing Remain.

Whole text  available on The Guardian on-line.  Legal obligation  to  organize elections, necessary measures  underway.

Not necessarily, as I believe there's some option for existing MEPs to stay in place temporarily, but opinion seems divided.

Not that her June 30th extension will happen anyway, and I don't think she ever expected it to. It's just a way for her blame the inevitable longer extension on the EU rather than it being even more apparent that it's simply down to the inability of her government and of Parliament (and of the population) to agree on any particular flavour of Brexit to implement.

Edit: to counter this blame-game, I expect the EU to come back with something along the lines of 'You're welcome to leave on 30th June if you've made a decision by then, but if not then your membership continues for the rest of the year.'

to my 'dislikers'

Petition to Leave Deal or No-deal - 177 376

Petition to Revoke Article 50 - 6 064 498

Perhaps one may deduce from these figures that there are many more Leavers who are not even computer literate ? 

Or it could just be that we don’t need to discuss in Parliament whether to leave as that’s the default position?

That’s my take on it. Extend for a year. They’re now holding all the cards since the MPs showed our hand by preventing a no deal exit. MuPpets. 

It would appear that the remain camp is full of just as many fools then.

Read the post you replied to previously again then.

Remainers are typically scared of change. 

You're right. Holding a gun to our national head was always such a valuable bargaining chip.

The kind of change that No-deal Brexit promises probably wasn't even imagined in the wildest dreams of most of those that that voted Leave.

PS  

Looking at the number of thread hits there are now only a few people bothering to read it, time for something new ?

That’s an arrogant condescending remark. 

Do you really believe what  you write or are you playing Devil's Advocate ? 

Suggested that many brexiteers had nothing more to lose so want change, I pointed out that more brexiters than remainers where insulated from the damage of Brexit.

Fear that you might lose your home isn’t fear of change.

I really believe what I write. 

Neither Brexiters nor Remainers are listening to each other. It’s like there’s a massive brick wall between them they’re both shouting at. 

Too much emotion and entrenchment. 

I’m afraid it is fear of change. A big change but fear non the less. Which puts people into an emotional position. Something remainers have been doing all along and continue to do. Relying on fear of the unknown to push their agenda. 

And it’s not whether they are insulated or not, it’s been whether they feel insulated. There’s a big difference. Especially in politics. 

Or fear of the known. 

If you believe, like I do, that the mood of the country has considerably changed, it is manifestly unfair to push for Brexit based on a undefined 'Leave' decision, made 3 years ago. A confirmatory vote is the truly democratic way to go. If a proposed Brexit plan gets a majority, it would be  more acceptable than May's weak compromise that she's trying to force  on a bitterly divided  Parliament.

MPs haven't prevented a no deal exit, it's still the most likely outcome in 7 days time and it was never any kind of leverage to begin with. At most May is compelled to ask for an extension which she has preempted anyway, an offer may not be forthcoming and if it is she's free to reject it.

jk

You don't think it's just the people who voted Remain might just think they'll be better off in the EU in a variety of different ways.

Which way did you vote by the way? You make pro leave arguments and then say they're not yours.

That is why I asked if he really believed what he wrote, or, alternatively playing Devil's Advocate on a forum clearly in the Remain camp.

And the people who voted leave might just believe the same?

It doesn’t matter which way I voted. That was 2 years ago. What matters is we reach a resolution. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s not a war! I make pro leave statements faced with people who are clearly entrenched remainers. 

I do the opposite with pro leavers. 

I believe that anyone with an entrenched view based on emotion needs to get over themselves and listen to the arguments from the other side. Otherwise we are going nowhere and it’s all going to drag on for another year. 

Firstly expecting people to be emotionless is absurd.  We are humans, not robots, and our well being comes as much from our emotional state as anything else.  Telling people to "get over" emotion makes about as much sense as telling them to "get over" being hungry or ill. 

Second, as demonstrated on here, the arguments for brexit were never strong and are now so thin as to be non-existent.  "Will of the people", "brexit means brexit", "citizens of nowhere" are not compelling cases.

And then what?

Apart from the fact we’ve been listening to them for ages. ‘We’ll be free to make trade deals with the whole world’ for instance. How could anyone *possibly* believe a nation of 60 million workshy layabouts ((c) D Raab) is going to be able to negotiate better deals than a trading bloc bigger than the US.

Especially if we put Liam Fox in charge of achieving it.

jcm

If you think that people ranting on (in a somewhat bellicose manner) with either the chant "Brexit means Brexit", or its companion "Leave means Leave", rather than give any REASONED argument, then I believe you have a strange definition of the term "argument".

Go on then, do your worst. I'm all ears.

But don't expect me to agree unless it genuinely has merit.

This isn't a piggybank or a family's holiday budget - the costs and the benefits are multilevel and dynamic. There is the EU's budget, the national budgets and the budgets of millions of businesses and other organisations that will be affected by Brexit and are in a feedback loop with their national budgets and ultimately the EU's budget.

If the EU has a net reduction in budget after the UK leaves, they can ask for an increase in contributions or they can spend less. Either way it's not a massive issue and your Germanic Le Penn soundalike is being disingenuous by saying Germany will bear the cost - that's simply not known yet. Change in market access seems to be a far bigger issue to the govts of the other 27 than the EU budget implications of Brexit.

And no one seems to be willing to try and price in the political costs and benefits of UK exit - probably because those intangibles are so difficult to value. But what cost for the EU for losing "its" second seat on UNSC P5? etc etc.

What is your evidence base for who is a "typical" remain or leave voter? When the actual referendum result was so close, it seems there aren't really any typical voter types.

Where I live and work there was a strong leave vote, but strong means that still nearly four out ten people who voted, voted to remain - I'm sure you could do a class analysis of the returns, but it can't be just that working class went one way and middle class votes went the other or something, the figures don't add up.

Quite, which is why it comes down to personality and gut feel and emotion. As other posters have said, it’s very difficult to separate the emotion from the voters when it comes to politics. “I’m working class and always will be, I’ll never vote Tory, I’m labour through and through.” People who vote without even looking at the pros and cons. 

Thats why there are absolutely no facts when it comes to Brexit, there’s emotion, probabilities and predictions. Economics and politics are all about human behaviour, certain behaviours are predictable, certain events create predictable outcomes, others don’t as the interactions are highly complex and actions have unforeseen consequences.

Hence remainers are risk averse and leavers are happy to deal with change. 

Hence remainers are risk averse and leavers are happy to deal with change.

I don't think that's true at all; it's the reverse. Leavers in general are frightened of the changing world and rather than deal with it prefer to retreat from it. Most obviously, they dislike the changing culture movement of peoples brings.

jcm

Maybe emotion, etc are more important  but there are some facts. And, based on family & friends (so anecdotal rather than data), I'd disagree that remainers are more risk averse -  all those who moved around, often to elsewhere in the EU for varying periods, made major career changes etc voted remain while those who voted leave mostly live close to where they were born.

which is why brexit is pre-dominantly promoted by the membership of the conservative party. The clue is in the name, right?

Leavers aren’t burdened by having to understand the consequences, are they? Aren’t stereotypes fun!

Name a Labour voting heartland that also voted remain? 

Corbyn is anti eu, but was elected leader by a predominately remain party membership.

Brexit cuts through all traditional divides. 

Agree. Which is why I was making some lighthearted fun with the concept that remain is risk-averse and leave is happy to deal with change.

Stupid move, in my humble opinion....

No idea . But a labour heartland constituency voting leave does not imply that the labour voters in that constituency voted for leave in majority. On the other hand, the MP is supposed to represent all the people in their constituency, so compromise is a reasonable proposition. This also holds for ERG MPs who represent pro-EU citizens as well.

Well, it seems that it wasn't over to Jeremy after all:  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/05/labour-says-may-unable-to-...

Seems the hard right in her cabinet are doing what they can to wreck any chances of compromise. I guess that's their objective though, just obstruct until they hope No Deal becomes the only option. Nihilism wins in the end.

Barry Gardner was on the radio this afternoon talking about compromise and Brexit. He pointed out and those who don't want to believe this can check up on the voting records, that on average, Labour MPs voted in favour of maybe 5 or 6 options in the indicative votes. The tory MPs, on average, voted for 1 or 2. 

I think the country should be left in absolutely no doubt which party or parties, as I haven't mentioned the rest of them who weren't much better, are not prepared to make the compromises necessary to find a solution to the problem David Cameron and Theresa May have dumped in our laps.

I'll make a wild assumption, there are those who never vote as they say it's pointless and those who always vote as they'll say it's their duty etc.. with a small percentage swing each way, but nothing markedly high. 

So Labour has been supporting the Withdrawal Agreement all the time. Sorry, I hadn’t realised.

I’m no fan of the ERG but Corbyn has been as big an obstacle to the avoidance of a no deal outcome.

depends on your definition but some parts of London which are & have long been strongly Labour also voted remain

Most leavers I have met have been fearful for the future and wanted to go back in time. Most remainers appear to be relaxed about such issues as immigration and the global economy. It is surely the other way round. 

Pure obfuscation. You know very well why Labour are opposed to the current WA and the future relationship. They asked the government to sit down and talk to them about what would be acceptable two years ago. Two years ago and the government decided no, they would ignore the opposition and plough on regardless of the warnings Labour gave them. Guess what's happened? Labour were right, the deal hasn't gone through and rather than compromise, which Labour are prepared to do, the government set up meetings that are supposed to thrash out a compromise and then spend hours, hours talking about anything else.

Why personalise it? It's not about Jeremy Corbyn it's about the majority of the Labour party and probably the majority of this country, this country, neither wanting May's deal or a No Deal Brexit.

The personalities are important though - May’s incredible grit/ bullheadedness is a defining feature of the process

Labour would come out of this looking better if they had tried to force the government to make a plan and to have parliament to set up guidelines before voting to send the a50 notification.

I think you mean pigheadedness.

Geoffrey Cox, for the government, opened the meeting explaining that they were prepared to embrace a customs union. The FT reports that no red lines have been set. Could it be that the Guardian isn't the most disinterested observer?

No one's arguing that the Tories didn't get us into this mess. My assertion, and it seems many agree, is that Labour, in the person of JC above all, was complicit in the original outcome by campaigning so limply for Remain. And that the Labour party en masse has stood to side waiting for the inevitable Tory meltdown instead of standing up for the 70% of their members who voted Remain, let alone safeguarding the nation's future from the risks of a hard Brexit.

Any failure of the negotiations will be down to both sides playing politics. They are all to blame.

I got bored half way through the Nicomachean ethics.

 Mays resilience in the face of extraordinary pressure is clearly having an influence on events. As is Corbyns come to that.

We will only really decide if they have been helpful qualities in the aftermath.

Didn't labour say it is either a General Election or a Referendum on a deal, any deal? Well there is no prospect of a General Election {no confidence in gov requires 2/3 majority of Parliament to succeed}.

So why is not a Referendum absolutely included in his talks. Saw the Andrew Marr show and there was a lot of mealy mouthed evasion on this idea by Labour and it made me annoyed as I feel it goes against the Labour conference decisions. The Green MP was more committed to this idea than those Labour negotiating with May.

Labour will argue that the GE/Referendum options are subservient to the objective of a customs union that meets (a reasonable proportion of) their six tests. I think they are keeping to that policy unless or until talks break down.

I certainly agree that the UK's invoking of Article 50 before an adequate and agreed plan was in place was a fundamental mistake.

It is a pity that most of the European leaders took a hard line after the referendum here, saying that Britain should declare article 50 the sooner the better, and that there would be no negotations beforehand. Only Merkel took a noticeably different line, as the article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36639846 (from June 27 2016) recalls:

  "However, European leaders have been quick to ask the UK to invoke it quickly. Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, told German newspaper Bild am Sonntag: 'We expect the British government to deliver now'.

  "'The summit on Tuesday is the appropriate moment to do so.'

  "But German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was not in favour of pushing for a speedy withdrawal.

  "'It shouldn't take forever, that's right, but I would not fight for a short timeframe,' she said."

That’s because both sides need to cross some of their red lines for a compromise to reach an agreement 

youtube.com/watch?v=oqMl5CRoFdk&

The mistake was to trigger art 50 before we were ready to, regardless of whether EU leaders wanted us to do it sooner, or whether EU leaders were willing to negotiate pre-article 50. The UK knew what the EU would or wouldn't accept, we just chose to ignore it. Which is why Ivan Rogers left.

I'm not sure the problem is 'red lines', it's that there is quite reasonably zero trust that May can deliver whatever is agreed unless it is written into the withdrawal treaty or some other clever lock can be devised to bind the hands of the zealots and charletans lined up behind her sharpening their knives.

Jk

Nice to see that Merkel predicted it right. It took 9 months for a50 to be triggered, so no speedy withdrawal....

Anyway, I think EU leaders took the right line after the referendum. Sidelining the talks with the UK into a well-defined process that could run parallel to the general running of the union was a smart move. I must admit that when the negotiation guidelines with the concept of sequencing the talks came out, I thought that the EU was overdoing it a bit on the formalities of the process. Mainly because I thought the UK would agree about citizen's rights and the money in a week, and commitment to NI should not have been in doubt either. But I was wrong, history shows that sequencing was necessary.

In my opinion, nine months was still far too speedy: it should only have been done when the internal UK position on the final desired endpoint had reached some resolution. So I was contrasting that suggestion, with the undue haste with which some European leaders (apart from Merkel) were asking for the process to be initiated.

For clarity: in no way am I attempting to 'blame' those European leaders. Maybe the atmosphere would have been better had they all been as relaxed as Merkel appeared to be - but maybe not. In any event, the triggering of Article 50 was entirely in the UK's gift and, in that respect, I agree with Bob Hughes' summary a couple of posts above.

Here I agree. But it is different for the EU compared to the UK. For the EU, having brexit before the elections was a good idea. For the UK, a longer time would have been good. But I honestly think the chance for this was already gone at the resignation of Cameron. He essentially said "I lost, I am out of here". He should have said "The vote was very close and leave won it. In the interest of the country we need to take both the vote to leave the union and closeness of the result into account. I will set up a cross-party committee to prepare for a plan for leaving the union. And then I will resign.". T. May never had a chance to do something like this, she has too little power over her party. (It can of course be argued that Cameron did not have enough power either.)

This is how a Dutch PM would have killed a referendum whose outcome he did not like. Put it in the long grass in a committee. Consider lots of details. Once the public is over it, have a vote in parliament to kill it off. I realise it does not fit well with the British all-or-nothing political culture.

Yes. The British have a very adversarial attitude to everything. Sometimes it’s good, other times, it’s really not. 

and how long do you think that would have taken?

The rest of your post is pretty good though. I like being surprised.

The blame lands squarely with the tories, simply because they are the ones in power. It was their job to deliver the wretched Brexit they created and they spectacularly failed so far.

Its not labour’s role to make life easy for the government, in fact their job is to do the opposite, and if the roles had been reversed no doubt that the tories would have been as unhelpful as labour has been.