UKC

So what's it going to be?

Election
Resignation
Second thoughts on Brexit

In reply to MG:

my monies on snap election.

In reply to MG:

Very odd. Wild guess would be resignation due to health issues?

In reply to Removed User:

You win!

In reply to MG:

It can't be the Birmingham City job, Arry Redknapp's been announced for that.

In reply to MG:
No resurrection for JC.

Blue landslide. Time for Labour to seriously re-think its rule book and come back to the centre to provide some belated opposition.

In reply to Removed User:

Sounds like you're right!

In reply to Removed User:

Bugger. My money was on that she needed just one more dalmatian to finish her coat.

In reply to Oceanrower:
Cue (un)civil war in Labour party.

In reply to MG:

Oh that's a bit unkind, kicking a man when he's down...

In reply to pasbury:


Indeed - it's going to be bloody. Time for all those who rate JC so highly to step up to the mark and get out campaigning. I fear they'll find out there's a bit more to winning an election than signing a form online and liking a few Facebook posts.

In reply to Removed User:

Will she get the 2/3 majority needed to overturn the fixed term election act?

Interesting times.

Let the politicking begin.

In reply to MG:

Ok...so she's called a snap general election in June. Can someone please explain why she has done this? Thanks.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Apparently too much opposition to Brexit!! What does she want - Turkey's constitution?

In reply to 1234None:

Arguing she can't get the best deal for brexit if the other parties and the HofL are trying to undermine her.

In reply to 1234None:

No opposition worthy of the name.

In reply to MG:


An election......

In reply to 1234None:

Loads of reasons.

Ostensibly to strengthen negotiating position re Brexit.
20% poll lead probably helps her take the moral high ground.
Fascinating what will now happen with Scotland.

In reply to TMM:


Simple majority only needed - it was a very misleading piece of legislation from the start.

In reply to MG:

In a curious way it could be good news for Labour. Assuming (not a given) that they lose badly they can then ditch JC and move on instead of hobbling along for another three years.

In reply to 1234None:


"Research by Opinium suggests that given a two-way choice between Corbyn and Theresa May, 14% of voters would choose the Labour leader, compared with 47% for the prime minister. Among Labour voters asked the question, 45% said they would like to see Corbyn in No 10."

In reply to Postmanpat:


Disagree. Labour lose badly, then either find a compromise leader who will suffer the same fate as Corbyn, or split into two or more parties.

In reply to MG:

I suggest we have a referendum:

Do You think the Government should make some changes?


Yes or No

In reply to Big Ger:

Yup, but if that is the outcome then it has just been accelerated.

Lib Dems should get a good bounce which may precipitate a realignment.

In reply to 1234None:


Because it's just been announced that she's got a massive poll lead. Pure self interest.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Apparently their support drops to 10% if JC is thrown out...

More seriously, I can't see a route for them to recover as a national party. There needs to be a centra/centre-left party formed somehow.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The boundaries are going to remain on the current basis as the new changes won't have come into force.

In reply to MG:


Yup, so if the Libdems capture the brexit vote they will have the muscle to engineer a realignment?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Side issue.

Oh goody, the UK hasn't had a large, disruptive political event for a few weeks. Let's have an election to stop us getting bored. That will really focus everybodys minds on the starting negotiations, unless we assume the EU will let us have a break in our two years

In reply to MG: If you're talking about Scotland as well there isn't a national party in the UK, period. I am going to agree With PostmanPat here, and do wonder how the Lib Dems will do.

In reply to MG:

if she wins she gets a new cabinet - perhaps that is her scheam

In reply to wbo:

>
I think Alan James has put her up to it to boost traffic on UKC

In reply to wercat:


She can chop and change her cabinet anytime she wants - she doesn't need an election to do that.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The latest polls in the Gorton byelection ( which voted remain) suggest that labour had a strong chance of losing the seat to libdems.

The libdems are about the only party capable of capturing the remain vote... an interesting election in store.

In reply to tony:

perhaps there is such writhing therein at present as to make it difficult

In reply to wercat:


It'll be interesting to see how Boris fares.... (though he does have a pretty massive majority)

In reply to Postmanpat:

Brilliant...LOL

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Really? Wikipedia is quite explicit & I'd have thought this is a page which is quite well reviewed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011#Provisions

"Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:[2]

If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

In reply to TMM:


Certainly, Corbyn, although he never wanted to lead Labour into a GE, just has to vote for it now. Otherwise he's voting for 3 more years of Toryism and looking like an even bigger failure.

If May's gamble pays off (and it certainly is a gamble, a real possibility of a reverse Cameron) it will make Corbyn look like a disaster for Remainers.

It's a shame that given this huge opportunity to overturn Brexit we are going to be led by Corbyn, what a mistake it was to offer that £3 vote. Miliband and the team that put it in place have already spoken of their regret at so doing, as have MPs that signed Corbyn's nomination, if May wins it'll be even worse, the biggest fcuk up by Labour since Attlee decided to secretly develop nuclear weapons.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No, it needs a two-thirds majority, but Labour have said in the recent past that they would support an early election. Of course they may change their minds now they're staring down the barrel.

In reply to MG:
She knows there is going to be nothing but sh*t coming her way for years when the Brexit negotiations start for real and she may not have a big enough majority to survive. She also knows that Labour are in complete disarray and she will get elected unopposed and be able to do what she likes for 5 years if she calls an election now.

It's going to be a complete disaster. She's fundamentally authoritarian and she's going to get to do whatever the hell she likes. It is going to be a disaster for immigrants, the poor, the sick, the environment, the devolved governments and a lot of businesses. And fundamentally it is Jeremy Corbyn's fault for leaving the country without an electable opposition. It is time for mass defections of Labour MPs to the Lib Dems.

YouGov;

Conservatives 44%
Labour 23%
Liberal Democrats 12%
UKIP 10%

13-14 Apr

Labour are pretty much toast, Conservatives to get a 100+ seat majority.

In reply to wbo:


Lib Dems and Tories are both widely represented in Scotland and elsewhere. Northern Ireland is the real exception, although the Unionist parties are essentially the same as the Tories.

In reply to MG:


There is a crumb of comfort for remainers in that if May gets a large majority she will be less beholden to her hardline brexiteers.

In reply to zebidee:

Yes but you only need a majority to remove that legislation!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not really. The centre of gravity of the Tories is now back to where it was 20 years ago. The time of them being a liberal, centre-right party a la Cameron is over. The saner ones should try and help form this potential new centre ground grouping.

In reply to zebidee:

Yep, I might be wrong on this, but I remember a principle from studying constitutional law about Parliament binding itself.

So although a 2/3rds majority is require to call an early general election, only a simple majority is required to repeal the act and therefore free up the PM to go back to the old ways. No of course it's not straightforward to repeal an act, but in the unlikely event that Labour decided to reject the election it might still not cause any delay.

I'm presuming the act doesn't state that a 2/3rds majority is also required to repeal, as I'm sure that would be unconstitutional

In reply to MG:
Economy suffering jitters and likely to weaken toward 2020, deeper cuts to faltering services still to come, current strong lead in the polls, Labour probably riven by brexit, Lib-dems likely still unforgiven (but maybe able to rally anti-brexit support), SNP still popular enough to block Labour out of any hope of national victory, UKIP beheaded, defunded and mired in even more scandal and infighting than usual... the time's right if the goal is one-party domination.

I guess also she may be hoping to reduce the influence of both pro-brexit hardliners in own party (and cabinet) and the remain leaning mass of parliament by winning a majority so strong she can essentially handle brexit by decree, assured parliament will simply follow her lead, rebellions be damned.

All quite depressing.
jk

In reply to MG:

Jesus feckin wept, Corbyn's first statement on the snap election and he doesn't even mention Brexit (the single chance he's got to win it!), he thinks he's going to win it by offering free school meals to 7 year olds!

Clueless w@nker.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I feel no comfort at all. Just when I thought things can't get worse with the British political situation ... ... Many people are wondering just when this sustained, ever-worsening nightmare will come to an end. It's now looking like things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and the UK will probably have to go through a nightmare scenario lasting several decades, and even then, may never recover. I suspect it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Unsurprisingly, I disagree! I don't think May is actually as hardline as is portrayed, so I suspect we might get a more centrist Tory party and the realignment of and creation of a credible opposition.

In reply to MG:

No surprise at all in the announcement. This was always going to happen, it was predicted months ago, it is an obvious strategy. Call an election while the opposition is in disarray and with an unelectable leader, win a landslide majority and have 5 years to deal with the big issue of the EU.

Tiny, tiny chance it could backfire on her, but the lady has balls to do it!

In reply to MG:

Just seen on Reuters that Putin has congratulated TM on her forthcoming victory

In reply to winhill:


Care to explain how? Brexit is toxic among Labour voters, with the divide between the traditional voter who is sceptical about the EU (and more likely to vote for UKIP if Labour promised to overturn the ref result) and the younger internationalists.

Way way better for Labour to concentrate on all the horrible things that the tories are doing to the NHS, social care, social mobility, tax cuts for the wealthy... etc etc.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Fraser Nelson pointing out that if the election turns into a rerun of the referendum then the Tories could be in trouble...

Stop being so pessimistic!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, all I can say is that I hope your wildly optimistic theory is correct, Nick. All the signs point the opposite way, to someone who is frankly not a clever politician, indeed out of her depth and having deeply reactionary instincts.

In reply to jkarran:

>
Markets like it. Sterling sharply higher.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


We'll see. I'm not a big fan, largely because she appears to have a bee in her bonnet about immigration.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Either wishful thinking knows no bounds, or you've started on the cava early.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, I shall be fighting my damnedest to see the Lib Dems do as well as possible ... but I feel a little bit like an E1 climber looking up London Wall at Millstone right now.

In reply to Postmanpat:


So what? Markets always twitch on big breaking news. The underlying issues remain, there'll be little change from trend by the end of the day.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's what the Liberals will be hoping. We could see them wipe Labour out yet also seriously queer the pitch for the Tories. We can guess where Eurosceptic traditional Labour voters might turn this time, but how are pro-EU Tories going to vote?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes but labour aren't going to do that are they? Corbyn is totally flaccid on that issue. The Lib Dems are left to carry that flag - they may make a half decent job of it too - but it won't be enough.

In reply to Big Ger:

So, she's called an election because she knows she will win? If it's a dead cert then why waste the time and money? On that basis it appears infantile.

In reply to MG:

As a guy not from the UK I keep hearing about Labour being screwed up. What are they doing wrong?

She has triggered Brexit which was her mandate as PM. Job done.

If people want her to continue then they'll vote for Cons, if they think the negotiations would be better handled by someone else they'll vote for that party.

Waiting for the full 5 years would mean a general election 12months after Brexit completes. Which would be an interesting concept.

That's not to say there won't be another one in two years time...

In reply to TheFasting:

They elected an incompetent 1970s throwback who is incapable of tying his own shoelaces. Twice.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Just to go back to what you said above. I think it is just possible that you may be right, in that what's going on behind the scenes is that the pundits are telling her that Hard Brexit just aint going to work, and it's going to be a huge disaster, and, as you say, she sees a centrist position as the only possible way out now. I suppose all one can do is try not to fall into hopeless despondency on a fine day like this ... and on my previous analogy, set confidently up The Mall, and then gaze at a distant object

In reply to pasbury:

Problem for the Lib Dems is they start from a very low base - If they get up to be a bigger westminster party than the SNP they will have done incredibly well. I expect we will end up with a fair sized Tory majority, reduced labour and increased Lib Dem, no real change for SNP - so an even more fractured opposition.

In reply to 1234None:

Because it undermines those such as Miller et al who will put endless road blocks in her way, thus weakening her negotiating position, and because it weakens the power of the hardline brexiteers.

In reply to pasbury:

The problem is that the Libdems may weaken the already weak Labour vote without getting the seats to justify it. One would hope that the Lib dems do enough to win 30 seats or so.

Still no spokesperson for the Labour party for the media to talk to.......Tories and Libdems already quick out of the traps....

In reply to Postmanpat:

Just listened to her speech. "The country is coming together but Westminster is not." Really? How can anyone really suggest, unless they are truly deluded, that the country is coming together? That's not how it appears to me at all. I think the country is just as divided, if not more so, than the numpties in Westminster.

Either way, this kind of game-playing is a symbol of what's so wrong with politics in my opinion. I hope it backfires for her, but I'm not overly optimistic that it will....

In reply to zebidee:

Is there anything to stop her calling a motion of no confidence in her own government? That would only need a simple majority, under the act, which she has.

In reply to MG:

Well I never, going back on her word again

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-calls-election-ti...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Poor JC leaving him only 7 or 8 weeks to put together his resignation statement. On the bright side he will have less commitments in the summer when the real jam making season gets going.

Wonder if JC will discover Question Time or Any Questions etc.. in the next 2 months. I doubt it.

In reply to summo:


He'll be busy. Have you any idea how long placards take to produce?

In reply to MG:


He's just been on TV. Pitching the election as one about austerity, the NHS, the economy etc.

In reply to MG:


Fair point, I expect he might squeeze 1 or 2 rallies in Kensington in though, hoping that sways the opinions of 29,999,950 other voters across the country who he won't speak to at all, through any medium.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"I don't think May is actually as hardline as is portrayed"

Have you got any evidence for that?

In reply to Postmanpat:


That must have really hurt him, forced onto tv with almost no notice.. perhaps Diane Abbott shoved her hand up his... and worked him like a puppet.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Yes, she was a eurosceptic but not a brexiteer. Most of her supposedly "hard" brexit strategy has been the inevitable result of the the EU's refusal to countenance anything but free movement. She was the first high profile Conservative to try and detoxify the party, and the thrust of her policies is to favour the lower midlle aspirational classes, as opposed to the multi milionaire rentier class. She has a much more balanced view about the role of the State in the economy than her predecessors.

In reply to cragtaff:
Agree - she'd be mad to not call a general election with the hand she has.

Was just listening to LBC when announcement was made.

James O'Brien was having a rare moment of lucidity and a well balanced and thoughtful debate but has gone absolutely berserk now....

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
"what's going on behind the scenes is that the pundits are telling her that Hard Brexit just aint going to work"

Fits with this Irish Times piece the other day - don't know how reliable this info is of course:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/british-government-realises-bre...

The official quoted suggests there are big internal divisions in the govt. so that might be a further motive, to strengthen her position.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Are you saying that the EU are being unreasonable to say you can only have free trade if you have free movement?

In reply to Postmanpat:

My heart sunk when I heard the news, but I think there are possible good outcomes to this, even assuming the tories get an increased majority;
- Theresa May gets to govern without depending on the votes of the outer fringes of her party, so we may have a more functioning government. It has seemed really out of its depth for the past 12+ months.
- The election to some degrees supersedes the referendum, so Theresa is actually brave enough, she can give a better definition of what Brexit means, rather than being hobbled to everything UKIP wants
- The Lib Dems hopefully get a significant bounce
- Corbyn has a chance to really speak to the country, and Labour gets to see how popular his message is.
- If we're really lucky, then UKIP tumbles further in the polls and starts to look less and less relevant.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


I'm saying it's what they are saying. It's not an economic sine non qua that be the case but it is one the EU's principles so she can only react accordingly.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thanks. I can see she isn't as extreme as some on the Tory party's lunatic fringe, but as you pointed out above her position on immigration is pretty right wing. She's also not changed tack on austerity, even if the word seems to have been quietly dropped from the government's discourse. She seems to have bought in to the hard Brexit line whole-heartedly, I suspect because she has been looking inward to the need to keep her party unified. That may change if she strengthens her position via this election.

In reply to 1234None:


Ladbrokes are offering 10-1 on, that's bet £10 to win £1, so it's not even worth a punt, although William Hill are offering 14-1 on Labour, unusually high, so maybe the value bet?

In reply to winhill:


There will be many Labour voters who will bet on it, regardless. It's just good odds to draw in money to offset the pay out on the Tories.

In reply to stevieb:

I think UKIP will have nil points by June. Their day is over, their existing mps/councillors etc.. are gong independent, almost as if they saw this coming.

In reply to summo:


The odds are so bad they could simply invest all the £10 and probably earn enough of a return over 6 weeks to pay the winning gamblers back. If the Tories win of course.

In reply to Postmanpat:


She's more hardline than she portrays herself, her belated support for Remain was just a tactic in the leadership race, if she thought Leave was going to win she'd have been an avid Leaver.

Having Tories to the right of her doesn't make her a centrist and Cameron never was a Centre-Right politician in the way the One Nation Tories in the 50s were.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm still not sure if you're saying they are being unreasonable or not? It's a simple yes/no [plus reason if you like] type question. "Forced" and "refusal to countenance" suggest you do think they're being unreasonable, no?

In reply to Cú Chullain:


And as we know, polls have been very accurate recently.... Brexit .... Trump.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

If she strengthens her position her own party will be *all* she needs to think about. Without an opposition forcing them to the middle ground party leaders have no excuse for not following through on the most radical daydreams of their own support.

She thinks she's on a mission from God and the country has to unite behind her. But a Tory government with a big majority and a 5 year term just gave the SNP a real chance of winning IndyRef 2, if they have the nerve to hold one without permission if Theresa May says no or sets unreasonable conditions. Ireland is possibly up for grabs too - maybe Sinn Fein will get a referendum on a united Ireland.

In reply to BnB:


True. But provided there are no bomb shells in the Tory camp, Boris and gove are muzzled... then Corbyn isn't likely to even get close to winning. So any Labour bets are easy money.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

The main problem I have with May is that she can not be trusted. She it not true to her own word, as she keeps on demonstrating. How on earth can the rest of us know what she really believes?

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Not really. If they are wedded to the idea of free movement then it is entirely "reasonable'; and they are. The more interesting question is whether to be wedded to the idea of free movement is wise or necessary. But clearly it is wishful thinking, maybe "unreasonable", to think that they will abandon the principle at the behest of the a country leaving the EU.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Brexit isn't as toxic as people make out, I was at a meeting recently where one of the speakers was from the FBU (they look set to take over Momentum ATM) and he was one of the national organisers for TU Against the EU. Lots of Spartist talk about Free Movement being the Commoditisation of Labour etc but he was also supporting Blue Labour events, so happy to work with the right of the party. Those guys will never vote Tory, come hell or high water, Brexit isn't worth it. He got a reasonable reception even though I don't think there was another brexiter in the room, nothing toxic about it.

That's why it's stupid and quite offensive when remainers claim that brexit was about racism, they just don't have real life experience.


Except Corbyn's already done that, with his little Policy Blitz recently but his personal approval rating stayed down at 17%, less than Trump in the US at 18%!

In reply to John Stainforth:

She seems to be a classic opportunist - as shown by her leadership campaign, and her adoption of a hard Brexit position despite being a (half-hearted) Remain supporter before the referendum.

In reply to winhill:
"That's why it's stupid and quite offensive when remainers claim that brexit was about racism, they just don't have real life experience."

So over 16 million of the British electorate don't have real life experience? Are you sure about that?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thanks.

So how has May's approach been an inevitable result of the eu's refusal to change a core principle to suit us leaving? Basically we're having a negotiation where May can choose a harder or softer approach, and there's one thing there's absolutely no way the other side will concede, it's also quite reasonable that they won't, but you think their refusal to do so means May must inevitably play hardball?

In reply to John Stainforth:


Such as saying repeatedly there would be no early election ?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/18/the-many-times-theresa-may...

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Because one of the key issues and reasons many people voted brexit was to regain control over immigration (one can argue how tight people want this control to be, but most seem to have wanted control). Once May had accepted that, as she accepted the outcome of the referendum, she had to accept that it was incompatible with membership of the single market. That is what she has done.

It's not "hard" or "soft". it's just the only logical outcome.

In reply to 1234None:

I think one aspect of this election will be that the Tories will have 2 extra years (2022 rather than 2020) to the next election to sort out the post Brexit mess and be in a position to be re-elected then.

Plus all the other comments already posted

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Spotting and seizing a chance isn't that bad a trait?? She is guaranteeing her election battle is against Corbyn. Why wait until 2020 and risk red len putting someone else in the leadership seat?

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Did over 16 million of the electorate claim the brexit voters were racist? I'll take your word for it.

What they lack experience of is brexit voters who had genuine reasons for voting brexit that weren't anything to do with race.

In reply to MG:

Theresa May was advised by Davis, Fox and Johnson that Brexit is truly undeliverable and will cause irreperable harm to the UK, causing it so split, and leading to a drop in economic wellbeing. The penny finally dropped for Davis last week:

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/uk-hasnt-given-keeping-european-medicines-age...

May wants a way out of Brexit but doesn't want to lose face by resigning from the leadership, or coming out and stating that Brexit is a bad idea.

The LibDems are the only main party on an anti-Brexit platform so May is banking on them winning the election (given Corbyn's impotency), and saving the UK from a massively embarrassingly reverse ferret. Of course we'll be eating some hunble crumble from Farron pulling the plug in digestion, but the bitter pill will be made sweeter by claiming that democracy has won!

In reply to winhill:


I spoke to a few of them in my time out campaigning. I spoke to quite a few more with views that could be characterised as xenophobic, racist or religiously bigoted and many more than both those groups who simply didn't have a clue or couldn't articulate what they were, often quite viscerally, opposed to.

All about racism? No, far from it but racism is apparently still rife at least in my quaint little bit of the uk and the racists appeared to be all for voting leave.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, it is a reason *many* people voted for Brexit. That doesn't make it the reason for *all* the Brexit votes. There were prima facie a substantial number of Brexit voters who expected Brexit to mean staying in the EEA and maintaining freedom of movement. Staying in the single market in the event of a leave vote was in the Tory manifesto.

The logical outcome of a vote where 48% of people don't want to leave the EU at all and perhaps 20% want to leave the EU but remain in the EEA is to leave the EU and stay in the EEA. You don't need to pander to the 30% or so who favour a complete exit.

In reply to Shani:


Do you have a mole inside Dopwning Street who keeps you informed on these things or is that just wild speculation on your part?


Now that really is in the realms of fantasy, both that the Lib Dems could actually win the election and that a serving prime minister would call an election in the hope of losing it in order to save face.

In reply to Shani:

Both the decisions on the new locations of both the Pharma and banking agencies have been put out to tender by the EU and a decision is expected shortly.

Its down to about 4 or 5 citys in each case.

In reply to TheFasting:


And who are the 12 labour MPs who will lose their seats and why are they so worried?

In reply to Shani:


Can't help feeling you're mostly right, except for the optimistic ending. Still, some very strange things happen when people go to the ballot box ... as we know.

In reply to Shani:


I'm stealing this!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I hope voters are made aware of the possible consequences of cementing her in place for the next 5 years with a big majority before they actually vote.

I listened to her speech and it seemed rather like "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" in that she congratulated the crowd for coming together (lie number 1) and then pointed to the enemies in Westminster and Parliament who would betray (lie no 2) the country into danger by lack of obedience to her single unified purpose, the only true safe way. Included in this was an attack on the House of Lords as "unelected" and therefore invalid (Lie 3) even though I'm sure she would not turn down Lords support if it suited her purposes.

God help us

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>
Well, we don't know the numbers. But even on your assumptions, why would one pursue the wishes of the 20% over the 30%?

In reply to dunc56:

The polls have always overestimated labour support. In 2015 the tories and labour were even and look what happened. Now they're 21 points behind....

In reply to Postmanpat:

Because practically all the 48% would prefer EEA membership to nothing, so it is actually a course of action supported by about 70%.

In reply to wercat:

There are probably all enemies of the people. Like those terrible judges.

In reply to MG:

With a majority of independence supporting MSP's in Holyrood with an explicit mandate for a second referendum and a majority of independence supporting MP's at Westminster with an explicit mandate for a second referendum......then we're on for 2019. How many Scots will want to stay part of a UK that will be governed for many years by an extremist/ hard right Tories without any of the protection previously offered by the EU.

In reply to alastairmac:

I'd guess about 52-55% would vote no in a second IndyRef. What do you think?

In reply to alastairmac:
and that prospect of choosing years of hard line rule is something the SNP and Labour, indeed all of the opposition parties, can play to


The botched and amateur referendum were about fixing problems in the conservative party and so is this election, in good part, disguised as the "national interest"

In reply to MG:


Essentially you are arguing that the PM should second guess the inner motivations of people who voted both for and against brexit. She is PM, not a clairvoyant.

It is now very clear that immigration has been the great elephant in the room that has been ignored for decades. How do you think the Westminster elite would look if they ignored the one chance to voice a view on it ever? Even the Labour party has now acknowledged that. Be careful what you wish for.

And this is before one even gets into the practical issues of how one would govern when ignoring the wishes of the people who effectively put you into power.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Instead of which you want her to make no judgement at all, ignore 70% of voters, and go with the 30% loony right!?

In reply to MG:


You're off with the fairies if you think that she could have become PM as a result of brexit and then decided to ignore the immigration issue and continue free movement as before.
She wouldn't have lasted the month and nor would her party.

That may have suited you but in the real world it would have been utterly mad.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Immigration is said now NOT to be the issue, it is the indefinite leave to remain in the UK. that is said is best to be counted ( as the immigration numbers apparently include many thousands of short term stays.)

Many of them students and lots from outwith the EU that are inter company transfers.
( source Select Committee for leaving the EU)

So watch this space after May's election victory, for a bit of jiggery pokery to get the ' immigration' figures down to 10's of thousands, but by now only counting those given indefinite leave to remain.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So, in short, yes you do want her to ignore 70% of voters? Bizarre.

She could easily have gone for EEA membership had she wished, making a very strong economic case. It wasn't a referendum on immigration, even if that was one issue.

In reply to Postmanpat:


This is not the 'real world' but the logic of Tory party internal politics when the opposition is too incompetent to hold them to account.

In reply to MG:


Many of the remainers I know would prefer UK control of immigration. You simply don't know, and neither does she, what 70% of people want.

It was absolutely clear that voting for brexit meant the UK would take control of immigration. Therefore we can infer that the majority accepted that and the implications that followed from it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


No, it's the logic of the result of a vote in which there is a high turnout, particularly of people who have felt disenfranchised for decades and see a chance to have their say. I realise that many of them are the great unwashed but unless you want Nigel Farage as PM then ignore them at your peril.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Bollocks. Many Brexiters were (and are) arguing for EEA membership. That May won't counternace this or other moderate options show your view of her as a moderate to be nonsense.

In reply to MG:

The woman who said she wouldn't call a general election asks nation to trust what she says, as she calls a general election.

WTF!!!, yet there are people already applauding her, how many lies and U turns do they need FFS!!

She's already pissed people off in Brussels with her veiled threats and demands.

At least we can now get rid.

In reply to krikoman:

I htink the people in Brussels should be more concerned about the French election at the moment, well I would be if I was in their shoes........

In reply to neilh:

You don't need to be in Brussels to be concerned about the consequences should Le Pen prove convincing.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


I disagree. Until the campaigning began in earnest last year, nobody gave two hoots about our membership of the EU. Reverse the decision, implement PR and invest in those disenfranchised constituencies. I doubt it'll be of much consolation to people that they're getting shot in the foot because they voted for it.

In reply to krikoman:

She didn't have a choice, she needed to announce this before the CPS return their verdict on the Tory overspending in the last election and whether there needs to be by-elections in those marginal seats.

In reply to krikoman:

We can't actually because of the fool leading Labour.

In reply to MG:


A 'fool' who's forced 30 government u-turns? Or were those u-turns down to poor tory leadership?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Genuine question..... has he? If so, on what?

In reply to MG:


That May seems to have strong views on immigration doesn't tell us anything about her broader views on which she seems to sit more in the one nation camp.

In reply to galpinos:
Not sure if this link will work:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9sQFT0XYAAX2ss.jpgarge

No it didn't, but it's easily findable on twitter. There's loads though, from all schools becoming academies to firms listing foreign workers, the Brexit white paper and MPs vote on the deal and the NICs for self empolyed. As well as less substantial (on a national scale) stuff.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Or a back bench revolt from within the Conservative party,,, take your pick...

In reply to MG:

I'm increasingly convinced that a steadily growing majority will vote for Scottish independence in a free and fair referendum. The latest polls suggest that and membership of the UK is much less attractive than even a few short years ago.

In reply to RyanOsborne:
MPs voting was a high court case. How.is.Corbyn claiming that!?

What's your guess as to how many seats Labour will win under Corbyn?

In reply to alastairmac:


Which ones? There has been one here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_refer...

In reply to Postmanpat:

I had a thought while cycling past some knackered looking people doing roofing a while ago that it wasn't hard to see why they might have voted Brexit, when there's EU migrants coming over to earn a living - hard not to see why they'd see them as competition.

If one looks at the figures though(I'll cut and paste them if I get time), we actually need EU migrants to work within the construction, hospitality, NHS/healthcare, and agriculture industries. I'm not arguing against their right to be heard, but the 'Immigration' motive for Brixit could (I think) reasonably be seen as something used to lead people towards a goal which others wanted for different reasons. .

It's the nature of politics, but it's not straight forward or something which feels like integrity to me.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


From that I can only conclude you are as deluded as most of the circle around JC. Is any of that really anything to do with his leadership?

Labour have, have had, and really really need so much better than him. Sincere, serious and he might be, he is also unrealistic and short sighted as a leader.

In reply to Doug:

Well, exactly! And the rest.

In reply to Wainers44:


No, she did it all herself because she's such a great leader!!


Blame everyone else besides Labour, that sounds like you're really taking notice.

In reply to Postmanpat:


She is a hardline Brexiteer, despite supporting Remain. Her deluded talk about the country coming together annoys me, because she's done or said nothing to make that happen. All her talk is of the "will of the people", completely ignoring the 48% who supported her position(!) and voted Remain, and the significant percentage of people who voted leave and regretted it when they realised Farage, Gove and Johnson had lied through their teeth.

I naively had high hopes of her, but she's done nothing but pander to the Daily Mail and her own self-interest.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

"deluded" is being charitable. It is a lie designed to identify non-collaborators as out of step and unpatriotic. School bully/dictatorial tactic

SoIn reply to krikoman:


Sorry that's a bit deep for me, what are you on about?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Therein lies the problem. The country is populated by more people who side with the Mail / Express than not which is why we are where we are and we have the government and PM we have. They are almost certain to be democratically re-elected.

In reply to GrahamD:


And of course it reinforces itself.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ah, sorry, I thought you meant it was a reason for her 'hard' approach to negotiations - not agreeing to guarantee EU citizens can stay etc. Had a look a back at earlier comments and clearly you didn't so apologies for that.

It's still a silly thing to say though. A majority of tiny majority is very probably a minority. So there's no democratic obligation to get rid of freedom of movement at all. And if she was obliged to it would have nothing to do with EU intransigence and just be doing what people voted for. Which they didn't.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

'people who voted leave and regretted it?'

That is just your deluded, wishful thinking. We are leaving the EU and every brexiter I know is joyful, optimistic and excited by the prospect of the adventure. Unlike the spineless remoaners, shivering and trembling in dread that the the UK is doomed, thank god they are not in charge!

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

>
As I said (to MG?), anybody who voted for brexit without realising that it would mean the UK taking back control over immigration must have been living in a cave. The 52% were therefore voting for it.

In reply to Wainers44:

Sincerely I have no idea what you mean Mr Kirkoman, if that's you with the dislike can you just explain?

In reply to cragtaff:

I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer to why I should be cheerful at losing my EU citizenship, something I valued above my British citizenship. Economic and democratic gains and losses will always be subject to debate, but I've lost a lot in terms of citizenship rights. How does that make me "spineless"?

In reply to MG:
Rumor is she's now saying there won't be any TV debates?

Edit: Confirmed, She's saying she won't take part in any TV debates.

In reply to David Martin:


If you value more your European citizenship than your British, the soloution is to seek citizenship in an EU country.
( If you feel that strongly, nothing will stop you and I'm sure one of the EU countries will be happy to have you, but I would get in there early to beat the rush in the next two years)

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


That means nothing. She said several times she would not have a snap election.
A political promise, worthless.

In reply to MG:

Permanent Tory electoral dictatorship.
At least it confirms is that she cannot be trusted on anything, but we kind of knew that.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that the UK already made the offer to resolve the EU/UK citizenship issue ( pre A50) and it was rejected by the EU. The EU can have that reciprocal guarantee any day they want, it appears the don't want it, and want their ( and our) citizens to suffer the uncertainty for longer that need be.

It's the EU that has the hard approach, but you appear to be blinded to the facts.

In reply to Jim C:


Can we see that offer please ? Because from the sound of it it was utter bullshit, nobody has seen any offer, in fact, it appears totally impractical that they would have come up with an offer in that timeframe given the mind boggling complexity of the issue.

In reply to Jim C:

I'm afraid you too seem more than a little blind to the facts. Nothing was rejected because nothing was ever considered. The EU policy was always - and was always known to be - not to discuss hypothetical leaving scenarios, so it rightfully insisted on waiting until A50 before wasting its time discussing what-ifs and effectively entering into a bargaining situation with a country that could easily have triggered A50 right away if such bargaining was really highest on its priority list. May, however, still insisted on trying to make political capital out of portraying a simple factual state of affairs as EU intransigence, and clearly managed to hoodwink at least a few of her more loyal followers.

In reply to Timmd:


The NHS/ Government have ensured that the UK needs to rely on foreign health workers by restricting/ cutting the training of UK nurses.
It is a totally self fulfilling policy. So print the figures by all means, but you have to understand the cause and effect behind them.

In reply to john arran:


You seem to be determined to favour everything viewed from an EU perspective, have you considered why that is ?

In reply to john arran:

>
Oh, bollox. Quite sensibly the government delayed A50 until they'd got their ducks in some sort of row. The offer was made to reach at least some sort of informal understanding on residency and it was rejected.
It was elements of the remain camp that made it a propaganda issue, in the full knowledge that no binding announcement or deal was possible before A50.

In reply to Jim C:


I wonder what gives you that idea. I was simple stating a factual state of affairs. Could it be that you're viewing everything from an anti-EU perspective, which is clouding your vision?

In reply to Postmanpat:


You're welcome

Still true though, even if it's hard for you to accept.

In reply to Jim C:

What about hospitality, construction and agriculture?

https://infacts.org/migration-stats-bust-myths-skills-welfare/

Here's the link. I have fluttering eye lids due to insomnia - hopefully you can look and digest the info yourself.

In reply to Wainers44:


It wasn't (the dislike bit) but I'll try.


I'm presuming the second sentence that JC has had nothing to do with the U-turns TM has clocked up.

No, she did it all herself because she's such a great leader!! ( sarcasm, sorry, If it wasn't JC then how is she such a great leader if she's racked up so many U-turns) Surely a great leader doesn't need to make so many.

Blame everyone else besides Labour, ( for the Uturns she made because it couldn't possibly be them could it?) that sounds like you're really taking notice ( of who and why she's u-turning so much).

Why do you think she's had to back track so often?

In reply to Jim C:

I agree. You can't trust any of them.

I'd be very disappointed if she declined such an opportunity to have her views challenged and engage in public debate. Surely that is a keystone of democracy?

In reply to john arran:


It's not. You left wing remainers just see everything through a warped lens of Tory hating.

Personally I think she should have gone ahead and made a unilateral announcement but it was not unreasonable not to and nor was it impossible for Merkel to have given her some comfort that it would be reciprocated

In reply to krikoman:

>
Generally because of her internal opposition, obviously.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Would have been better to hold out on that one. JC wouldn't do it anyway, UKIP will probably change leader twice by june, sturgeon isn't a UK mp.. that just leaves quiet Tim and an Aussie from greens... she had nothing to fear.

In reply to cragtaff:


Yay! An adventure! Can't wait! Will there be lashings of ginger beer, and will we vote our sleeping bags warm as toast?

In reply to summo:


Lets hope so. They have, together with other brainless f*cktards, helped make a decent country look like an Arizona trailer park. F*cking disgraceful and Ill add Gove, Johnson et al to that list.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Honesty and integrity aren't important in politics now. How that came about I'm not quite sure.

In reply to Postmanpat:


This is silly. For one I and most people I know didn't think it would definitely mean hard brexit, and as far as I'm aware all the gov stuff said a risk or significant risk of hard breixt - but for the sake of argument I'll grant you that it people were aware that it would likely be a hard brexit. Even if I grant you that your point still silly because we didn't get a choice over what type of brexit. People that voted leave expecting that it would mean hard brexit were just saying they preferred hard brexit to no brexit at all. Sure most leavers prefer it hard like you, but some would prefer a soft brexit. Now that we have brexit but haven't voted on the kind, it's perfectly reasonable to consider what everyone would like regardless of what kind of brexit they expected.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
>
If you knew it would mean the UK taking control of immigration then the rest ie. withdrawing from from the single market, follows as night follows day. Did you think that brexit meant continued free movement?

And, your presumption is misplaced, I would prefer a very soft brexit were it possible, but the EU regards that as "cherry picking" so apparently it's not.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You seem to be ignoring the minor detail that it was not in Merkel's power to unilaterally speak on behalf of the whole EU, but don't let such trivial details get in the way of your point. Brexiters are often very quick to jump on any hint of EU behaviour they see as undemocratic , but then some seem just as quick to accuse the EU of failing to act undemocratically! That's what happens when you see through a perspective of dogma rather than reason.

In reply to MG:

https://mobile.twitter.com/david_cameron/status/595112367358406656?lang=en

“The choice at this election is already clear: strong and stable leadership in the national interest with Theresa May and the Conservatives, or weak and unstable coalition government led by Jeremy Corbyn,” the spokesman said.

Deja Vu. Haven't we had enough strength and stability yet?

In reply to john arran:
>
Not at all, hence my use of the term "some comfort". Faced with shits like Juncker May would have been putting her head in the jaws of a crocodile if she made a unilateral announcement without the slightest indication that it would be reciprocated.

Deep down inside you know that you would like to have seen her head inside a crocodile.....

In reply to Postmanpat:


Bastards.... That's my $Au down by 2p overnight....

Don't worry though guys and gals, I'm still coming back

Let's just hope for a Corbyn victory.

In reply to 1234None:


Are you new to politics?

Oh In reply to krikoman:


Oh Ok I think oddly we agree then...I think.

That is exactly the point, she should have been u turning or mind changing as a result of the thoughtful challenge of HM Opposition... but as we have agreed it was more in reaction to everyone else.

Deliver a good majority in this election and even that populist control falls away. I am not a labour supporter and even less so now than ever, but somehow I feel that they have even let me down!

In reply to Postmanpat:


What sane person wouldn't?

But you're sidestepping the fact that you consider it reasonable for one EU leader to give assurances on behalf of all, when nothing of the kind is possible. Despite widespread media slurs to that effect, the EU has never been an autocracy.

In reply to pasbury:


They also have a problematic leader.

"Tim Farron; In 2007 he voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which for the first time imposed a general restriction on businesses discriminating against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. He voted not to timetable the debate on the Bill, which would have made it much more difficult to pass had the House of Commons agreed with his position; and he was absent for the vote for gay marriage on the third reading of the Bill. During an interview with Cathy Newman for Channel 4 News in 2015, Farron avoided a question from Newman on his personal beliefs regarding same-sex relations, saying that his "views on personal morality [didn't] matter", adding that to "understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners"

In reply to MG:

Christ, my irony-ometer is on overdrive. Ive just seen a clip from Jimmy Krankie accusing TM of putting herself and her narrow poltical agenda above that of her country........

In reply to Postmanpat:


It's just endless bullshit and lies. It's perfectly possible to control immigration in the EEA, as Norway does for example by limiting a stay to six months if you have no job. Brexit-lite would have been quite possible if May and Tories wanted it but they don't. They have regressed to an inward looking xenophobic, little England party of 25 years ago pandering to the loony right. - I am lucky and can get Irish nationality - I may need it.

In reply to john arran:


Merkel could have indicated that she was in favour of granting residency and would use her influence to try and make it happen. Nothing stops her from doing that. She chose not to.

In any case, if the EU or any of it's leaders can't, for whatever reason, indicate a willingness to agree, May is in the crocodile's mouth.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You're getting confused with your Disney villains. She's the one that has coats made from dalmatian puppies, not the one that gets chased by a crocodile with a ticking clock in its stomach.

So we want to see her dunked in shit, bashed around the head in a comical manner with various farmyard objects and jailed, not eaten by a crocodile.

In reply to krikoman:


Will you continue whining when we don't?

In reply to MG:


And then you lose any influence you have over the EU but have to embrace most of it's laws. Norway is also part of schengen.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Wrong again. Norway has input into all sorts of standards etc directly and further influence via indirect mechanisms. And regardless, by leaving fully, there will only be less influence still. There were plenty arguing for a Norway type arrangement before the vote. Pretending the only possible route is the hardest most destructive brexit possible and that this was what was voted for is plain lying.

In reply to MG:

Source: The Grauniad:

What say does Norway have over EU rules?

None. Norway has representatives in EU institutions, but they have no decision-making power in how EU rules are drafted.

The country has been granted participation rights, but no voting rights, in several of the union’s programmes, bodies and initiatives, including the European Defence Agency, Frontex, Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

The idea that May wants "hardest most destructive brexit possible" is inside your head. She has said pretty much the opposite but you choose to disbelieve her. If she cannot achieve a soft brexit within the limits of leaving the single market then it will be down to Junker and co.

In reply to Postmanpat:

And my guess is that Merkel certainly will, if she is reelected, but this will not depend on her.
Theresa May indicated this is going to be a reciprocal issue (without consulting British immigrants in the EU, and against the advice of their representatives) and as a such this is going to have to be negotiated, with the EU.

It will be extremely complex to work out how we create an exception in 28 completely different national immigration and welfare systems to preserve the rights of EU citizens in a way that is fair across the board and sustainable in the long term.
The fact that May also indicated strongly she would not accept jurisdiction of the ECJ means another supranational court or forum of some sort will need to be set up to litigate and enforce any futures cases or disputes regarding the rights of those people.

Long story short, it will take ages, will leave people in legal limbo for a long time, will cause them to leave, which will work wonders for May's little obsession with reducing net migration, and could easily be set up for failure by May.

I'm looking forward to my 10 quids.

In reply to Postmanpat:
You are just wrong. One example I happen to know about. The Eurocodes are used for structural design accross Europe and increasingly globally. They were written by committee including Norwegians (and Swiss) who influenced their form by providing expertise, knowledge, evidence etc. Yes they didn't have a member of the Commission voting on the final form but that is just a rubber stamp - the influence was there in all the preceding work. Repeat across many, many sectors.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm sorry I must have missed something. Could you please point me to where it was she was actually asked to do this?

In reply to Postmanpat:

>The idea that May wants "hardest most destructive brexit possible" is inside your head. She has said pretty much the opposite but you choose to disbelieve her

Pretty much every time she opens her mouth she repeats it. Today, for exmaple, she was objecting to any resistance in Westminster, be it from other parties or the Lords, or anywhere else, hence the election to give her free reign to appease Gove and Farage et al.

In reply to MG:

>
Also from the Guadain:

EEA-EFTA countries are bound by whatever legislation the EU adopts in these areas, but do not get to vote on the rules or take part in the decision-making process, beyond trying to influence its early stages. A report for the Norwegian government has said Norway “is, in practice, bound to adopt EU policies and rules on a broad range of issues without being a member and without voting rights”.

EEA-EFTA countries such as Norway are not members of the Council of the EU, and are not represented in the European parliament. One of the prices of preferential access to the single market is becoming a law-taker, not law-maker.

Take it up with them, not me. It would appear that the Norwegians can give a view but can be totally ignored.

In reply to winhill:


7 year olds already get free school meals, courtesy of the LibDems (one of the several things they managed to wring out of the coalition, but still are the Unforgiven)

In reply to Postmanpat:

FFS. Here - it includes Norway.

https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=CENWEB:5

In reply to MG:
>
You are confusing two issues!!! 1) She wants to be able to have a strong hand without being undermined by other parties 2) What she will be trying to achive.

Read the white paper!

"There may be a phased process of implementation to prepare for the new [immigration] arrangements," it states.

"This would give businesses and individuals enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements."

we will no longer make "vast contributions" to the EU budget, we may still make "appropriate" contributions for "European programmes in which we might want to participate."

From "Business Insider"
"In fact the most striking theme of the white paper is how much of our current EU arrangements the government seems determined to hang onto. On everything from trade, to security, to customs arrangements, the government essentially want to keep things basically as they are.

Even on the single market, where May has explicitly stated that we want to leave, we could end up essentially mirroring many of our existing arrangements. According to the white paper our new trade deal with the EU "may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when the UK and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years."

"We have an open mind on how we implement new customs arrangements with the EU and we will work with businesses and infrastructure providers to ensure those processes are as frictionless as possible, including through the use of digital technologies."

etc etc

In reply to MG:

As the Graniad acknowledges. If you don't get a vote you can be ignored and in most cases Norway has no vote.

Funny thing brexit. I'm the one that supposed to badmouth the Grauniad!

In reply to Postmanpat:


You think the Commission goes through each standard and removes any input from those horrid Norwegians and Swiss before approving it? Grow up!! Norway has plenty of influence via this route and others. Singapore (for example) isn't on these committees and doesn't.

In reply to MG:

It's the Norwegians who complain about it: see above! I don't doubt that they can give some input but they can also be ignored if it doesn't suit. You grow up! They have no real power unless everyone agrees anyway.

"Audun Lysbakken, the leader of Norway’s Socialist Left party, has argued that the EEA agreement should be renegotiated with the UK’s help, saying countries “outside need a better model for cooperation with the EU than the current EEA agreement”.

He said he was amazed that his government did not want to have an open debate about a new relationship with the EU. “Throughout the spring, the government has been adamant that the EEA is not a good model and it is not something they would recommend to the British. Now they suddenly want to leave it as it is,” Lysbakken said.

“The EEA has created a significant democratic deficit through importing laws over which Norway has little influence.” "

In reply to MG:

Sums it all up!https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18010051_653867718136638_80...

In reply to Postmanpat:

What's the point? I read the Tory manifesto and it said a Leave vote would not mean leaving the single market. I watched May on TV saying she wouldn't call a general election. The white paper is about as credible as a Tory MPs electoral expenses return.

In reply to MG:

So why would labour go along with this? Surely self-preservation would dictate otherwise.

In reply to Postmanpat:

For every far left socialist Norwegian politician wanting more eu interaction, there are 10 members of the public wanting to get no closer to the EU and several who want to cut their current agreement altogether. Eu love is minimal and primarily among politicians and the far left. They have voted on it and with a very high turn out it was unanimously in favour of not joining. So they seem pretty happy with their position. With 27 / 28 nations one country's influence on shaping future rules can't really be that much anyway.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Or the more recent SNP expense claims http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14912904.Labour_call_for_probe_over_SNP_...

In reply to summo:

Alex Salmond , the SNP MP for Gordon, had the biggest travel and subsistence spending of all MPs for 2015-16 – £48,470.66. Gordon’s former MP, Malcolm Bruce, claimed three times less than Salmond – £13,201 for his final year at Westminster.

Oh my!!!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What about these quotes from a speech by a Tory MP (guess who) a year ago:

“The economic case for remaining inside the European Union isn’t therefore just about risk, but about opportunity. And it isn’t just about fear, but about optimism – optimism that Britain can take a lead and deliver more trade and economic growth inside Europe and beyond.”
“If we were not in the European Union, however, no such deal could have been agreed. There would be little we could do to stop discriminatory policies being introduced, and London’s position as the world’s leading financial centre would be in danger. The banks may be unpopular, but this is no small risk: financial services account for more than seven per cent of our economic output, thirteen per cent of our exports, a trade surplus of almost £60 billion – and more than one million British jobs.”
“But this is all about trade with Europe. What about trade with the rest of the world? It is tempting to look at developing countries’ economies, with their high growth rates, and see them as an alternative to trade with Europe. But just look at the reality of our trading relationship with China – with its dumping policies, protective tariffs and industrial-scale industrial espionage. And look at the figures. We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”
“Inside the EU, without Britain, the balance of power in the Council of Ministers and European Parliament would change for the worse. The liberal, free-trading countries would find themselves far below the 35 per cent blocking threshold needed in the Council, while the countries that tend towards protectionism would have an even greater percentage of votes. There would be a very real danger that the EU heads in a protectionist direction, which would damage wider international trade and affect for the worse Britain’s future trade with the EU.”
“So, if we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade. But the big question is whether, in the event of Brexit, we would be able to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU and on what terms.”
“Some say we would strike deals that are the same as the EU’s agreements with Norway, Switzerland or even Canada. But with all due respect to those countries, we are a bigger and more powerful nation than all three. Perhaps that means we could strike a better deal than they have. After all, Germany will still want to sell us their cars and the French will still want to sell us their wine. But in a stand-off between Britain and the EU, 44 per cent of our exports is more important to us than eight per cent of the EU’s exports is to them.”
“With no agreement, we know that WTO rules would oblige the EU to charge ten per cent tariffs on UK car exports, in line with the tariffs they impose on Japan and the United States. They would be required to do the same for all other goods upon which they impose tariffs. Not all of these tariffs are as high as ten per cent, but some are considerably higher.”
“The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would win access to the single market. We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all three combined. It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”
“But if Brexit isn’t fatal to the European Union, we might find that it is fatal to the Union with Scotland. The SNP have already said that in the event that Britain votes to leave but Scotland votes to remain in the EU, they will press for another Scottish independence referendum. And the opinion polls show consistently that the Scottish people are more likely to be in favour of EU membership than the people of England and Wales.”
“If the people of Scotland are forced to choose between the United Kingdom and the European Union we do not know what the result would be. But only a little more than eighteen months after the referendum that kept the United Kingdom together, I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more. I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland.”
“Brexit also risks changing our friendships and alliances from further afield. In particular, as President Obama has said, it risks changing our alliance with the United States. Now I know as well as anybody the strength and importance of that partnership – our security and intelligence agencies have the closest working relationship of any two countries in the world – and I know that it would certainly survive Britain leaving the EU. But the Americans would respond to Brexit by finding a new strategic partner inside the European Union, a partner on matters of trade, diplomacy, security and defence, and our relationship with the United States would inevitably change as a result. That would not, I believe, be in our national interest.”
“We should remain in the EU
“So I want to return to the principles I set out to help us judge whether Britain should join or remain a member of international institutions. Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores. “
“I do not want to stand here and insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything about the EU is perfect, that membership of the EU is wholly good, nor do I believe those that say the sky will fall in if we vote to leave. The reality is that there are costs and benefits of our membership and, looking to the years and decades ahead, there are risks and opportunities too. The issues the country has to weigh up before this referendum are complex. But on balance, and given the tests I set earlier in my speech, I believe the case to remain a member of the European Union is strong.”

In reply to Big Ger:


Not at all, but I don't pretend to know everything like some do...

In reply to dunc56:


Polls were correct on Trump..

In reply to John Stainforth:

I wonder what has changed since she said all that?

She appears to have not one iota about radically changing her position for narrow party and self interest, all while lecturing us all about how politics is not a game. It's breathtaking. I've wondered how she gets away with it - I think it's for her simply a case of saying what she knows will fly on the front pages of the Sun and the Mail. The skewed right wing press in this country, perpetually feeding an agenda to the bulk of the voters that suits the interests of its proprietors is a real problem.

Emotion seems to trump reason in politics now.

In reply to MG:


This is politics and you can't have it both ways. If you mistrust her statements in general why do you suddenly attach so much weight to the reasons outlined in her statement yesterday. Of course she's going to blame the other parties. But May needs a larger majority not to satisfy Gove or Cash or the swivel-eyed loons to the right. She needs it to silence them.

At the moment her paper-thin majority leaves her hostage to the hard Brexit demands of the right who threaten to withdraw their support at every turn. A sizeable majority, apart from legitimising her policies, frees her from those shackles to pursue a soft Brexit. That's why the pound bounced yesterday. Smart people trained in predicting the future saw between the lines.

In an upside down political world, the left and Remain stand to gain from a Tory landslide, and should most fear a weakened administration.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I wasn't sure - it was very clear we didn't know what kind of brexit it would be. It's not important what I thought though.

True to form your engaging on a point Ive conceded for sake of argument, blithely ignoring arguments you can't respond to, and just repeating your original point.

1. It was not certain that brexit meant hard brexit. Likely perhaps but not certain. 2. It was certain that the type of brext was for the government to negotiate 3. Given the binary choice presented, voting leave just meant you preferred hard brext to staying in the EU. 4. The vote suggests a majority would prefer soft brext. 5. Regardless whether leave voters that prefer a soft brexit expected a hard brexit, it's reasonable to now for the government to go for the type of brext most of the UK would prefer.

You don't want a soft brexit because that obviously and reasonably implies freedom of movement.

In reply to BnB:

I think you just might be right. If you look at most of what she's pushed it seems May has been mainly focused on burying UKIP. That job done she can now bury her own right wing by wiping out Labour. I'll be supporting the LibDems as they are the only significant anti Brexit voice. It is a an age of nasty surprises perhaps it's time for a nice one.?

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

What is your "argument I can't respond to"?

How do you reconcile these points:

3. Given the binary choice presented, voting leave just meant you preferred hard brexit to staying in the EU. 4. The vote suggests a majority would prefer soft brexit.

If voting leave "meant you preferred hard brexit" how does the vote "suggest a majority would prefer a soft brexit"?

Incidentally, are you able to engage without personal insults? It's very tedious.

In reply to cragtaff:
you turd - take your poisonous filthy words elsewhere

In reply to BnB:

I don't particularly. Mainly I think she says what she means and acts accordingly. Which is the problem.


Well if she suddenly becomes all reasonable I will be delighted. Im not holding my breath however. She's objecting not the the right but to any murmur of dissent about anything the government proposes, no matter how extreme. I see now those objecting are "saboteurs".


Who has threatened this?


Trained to predict the future!!

In reply to Postmanpat:


So you are just going to carry on contradicting me despite my personal experience and the link I gave to the formal list of committee members on the standardisation body. Black is white too, I hear.

In reply to David Martin:

it was just a turd talking

In reply to MG:


I think the key factor is the majority of Norwegians are happy. Some of their politicians want to ride the EU gravy train, but given the population doesn't, you can infer that it's for their own benefit. Nice salary, expenses, pension after one term in office etc...

In reply to MG:


Where did I suggest that Norway wasn't on the committee? Does Norway have a vote? Does Norway have a vote on most law and regulatory making bodies?

In reply to Postmanpat:

There's no personal insult. You're just clearly being deliberately obtuse and I'm saying so.

For example, I said the vote and expectation of hard brexit shows leave voters preferred a hard brexit *to staying in the eu*. But you've chopped off the to staying in the EU bitin your second last paragraph.

So, if more than 4% of leave voters prefer soft brexit that's more than 2% of all voters. If you add them to the 48% remain voters then you have majority for soft brexit over hard brexit.

In reply to summo:


Nonsense you can infer it. Politicians can and do hold unpopular views for good reasons.

In reply to Big Ger:

You worry about Malcolm, and we'll sort our own shit out, thanks. Poking your nose in where it's not wanted.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


NO, they should represent the views of their electorate who voted them into that position, not what 'they personally' think is best.

In reply to krikoman:




Typical left wing fascist response from you there, always the first to try and censor speech you lot.

Seeing as I'm due back in permanently in Blighty within the year, and will be voting in this, and the local elections, I think I'm entitled to my say Herr Fuhrer.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Of course there's an insult. You have form.

You say"leave voters preferred a hard brexit *to staying in the eu*" 52% voted leave. Therefore the majority effectively voted for a "hard brexit". I am not being obtuse. You are making your point very badly and thus contradicting yourself .

I addressed this point to somebody else (MG?) above so don't pretend it hasn't been addressed.

Given you seem to accept the logic that voting for brexit was in effect an acceptance that it will have to be "hard", May has just followed that logic. Not that she has much choice, given the EU's position.

In reply to Big Ger:

Anyone who has left the UK for upto 15yrs has a vote and even if they didn't, they can still have an opinion. Lots of people here have views on Syria, USA, North Korea.. .. but I don't think many of us hold voting rights there.

In reply to krikoman:


I wonder if someone looked back on here they'd see you posting views on other countries where you don't hold the right to vote?

In reply to summo:

Indeed, but if you have views contrary to those of Krikoman, he is, by virtue of his belief, entitled to tell you not to express them.

That's how it works you know.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Have you ever sat on any EU committees, working groups etc ? Much of the detail emerges as consensus with votes usually on the final overall package. Some countries are very good at getting involved at an early stage and directing discussion towards their preferred outcome (based on personnel experience in environmental issues, may be different in finance, medicine or other areas although I doubt it).

In reply to Big Ger:


That's because they know best. We will see come June just how many really think the same.

In reply to john arran:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-angela-mer...

In reply to summo:


He's obviously an multi-nation citizen, with Israeli/US/Syrian/Irish/Pommy nationalities under his belt, he must spend all his time in voting booths.

In reply to Doug:
>
No. But have you sat on any without a vote?

Anything you read on the Norwegian model says that Norway has very little influence over the laws and regulations that it accepts. It's possible that all the commentators and experts are wrong I guess.

In reply to summo:

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

Blimey, you have a very strange understanding of ratios if you think 52:48 approximates to 10:1. Or perhaps you're deliberately trying to distort the figures...

It's a good job we Brits are so united as a country voting aproximately 10:1 for leave eh!
jk

In reply to summo:


That's not how representative democracy works, thankfully. If it were we'd still have gallows in town squares. Who knows, in our brave new world maybe we will again soon.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


Norway is tiny, why would you expect it to have great influence even inside the EU?
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I wouldn't, but the commentators are relating this to the nature of it's deal with the EU: ie. not on key bodies and no votes when they are. The UK would potentially get more frustrated in such a situation because it has expectations that go with being a big country (in European terms).

In reply to Postmanpat:

Fair enough, although given the uncertainty of whether A50 would ever be triggered at all at that point you can hardly blame Merkel for sticking to the rules and maximise any chance that something would change within the UK to make the threat of Brexit less likely, given that nobody had been in a hurry to trigger it.

Still, now that A50 has been triggered and talks can be held officially, May will no doubt see it as her highest priority to secure the reciprocal residence deal she apparently was so keen on ...

... oh, hang on a minute. She seems to have chosen to pursue the feathering of her own nest instead.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well we probably shouldn't have voted to leave the bodies that make the laws we will have to abide by then should we if we're going to find having diminished control of them frustrating. Or are we still pretending the 'great repeal' is anything of the sort, that printing EU law on vellum will make a jot of difference to how much of it we still have to stay harmonised with for practical reasons? It will however now be as junior partner with little input and no control.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


As the white paper says, we will maintain most regulations because it makes sense to, but we will reserve the right not to if it makes sense to.

In reply to john arran:
>
The negotiations were not due to start until after the date of the election so she has not delayed anything. It's clear what the UK wants, so the ball is in the EU's court. Do you think 8 weeks will be long enough for them to come to the decent conclusion?

In reply to Big Ger:

Corbyn is I think a viable option in some Scottish seats. I'm interested in the Green Party's call for a green,labour, lib dem pact, to run up against SNP and Tory. Inverness, in it's vote splitting { with Green successes} is a perfect candidate.

In reply to jkarran:


Maybe in the Labour party. Where the public voted for their MPs, then the party voted for a leader with opinions different to the people who voted in all the Labour MPs.

In reply to summo:


You do not seem to be aware of the main principles of Parliamentary democracy. This is how one of our most famous Prime Ministers put it:

'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate…. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmodern/337/337...

In reply to MargieB:
There just seems something morally wrong for a party to deliberately not run a candidate, depriving the voters of choice, just to try and squeeze out a Tory.

Is the green party a credible political party, with policies that might work; or just a bunch of anti Tory, ban the bomb brigade folk?

I'd rather see someone take the fight to the SNP, as they need challenging over they management of Scotland etc..

In reply to jkarran:

Anti eu membership polls currently show an estimate over 70% against. So if anything they are even happier with the current arrangement.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well Labour is following the 3rd now, putting party politics before all?

In reply to summo:

Apparently so.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


This is one of the real dangers of Corbyn and Momentum: that they regard MPs as "delegates" of the party ie.Momentum and Unite.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I was referring to Norwegian mps early, following electorate will etc.. Not sure if they have a constitution stating those things you quoted. They do have some other quirks, like a form of pr with levelling seats for parties with lots of votes, but few seats. And a ban on the sale of alcohol on election days, not sure if that's to prevent fights, drowning of sorrows or misguided voting!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Len must be spitting feathers now. He re-elected himself in the job and was giving Corbyn a little longer in post before changing him, aiming towards 2020. Then bam, TM has a vision over Easter!

This election may prove to be a miscalculation on her part, as she only needs to look back at her predecessors gamble.
In addition it may turn out to be an election on Scottish independence more than anything.
If that's not enough of a gamble, then the French election results can also affect people's vote on the day.

In reply to MargieB:

Not convinced that would make sense - remember that there are separate Green parties for Scotland and England & Wales, and that the Scottish Greens are pro-independence and are in a coalition with the SNP in Edinburgh. And don't forget that the SNP is the largest party at Westminster that is clearly anti-Brexit

In reply to MG:

Sinking ship spotted...


Iain Wright, the respected chair of the House of Commons business committee, said he was not standing again

Pat Glass, the former shadow Europe minister, said she wanted to spend time with her grandchildren.

Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, refused to say if she would stand again

Fiona Mactaggart, MP for Slough, was also thought to be considering whether to step down.

Alan Johnson, the former Labour home secretary, and Tom Blenkinsop, MP were first out of the blocks to say they would not be standing again.

In reply to MG:

"So what's it going to be? Election, Resignation, Second thoughts on Brexit"

I chose Stanage and chips and a pint afterwards in The Millstone.. a perfect way to celebrate life.

In reply to Big Ger:

That is a real pity on Iain Wright.....

In reply to Big Ger:


.That's how it works you know.

Stop whining , and get a sense of humour FFS!