General Election 2017

[blandy]

1 minute ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

There are cases supporting either side, so to 'ahem' with such confidence misses the point made in the long quote!
ECJ decisions are unpredictable as we saw with the greendeal. 

I'll also include the section of the article which you missed out. He starts with 'will not' and ends with 'should fervently hope'.

Btw this isn't an attack but you're a smart cookie so I was surprised you posted in the manner you did.

I missed off (only) the bit about Farage right at the start because he's an irrelevant bell end and I was responding to MMV's general point about the difficulty and arguments relating to nationalisation. I'd seen the article I quoted some time back and without going over the whole thing, there's a lot of people said "you can't (re) nationalise..because EU law"  and that is factually incorrect.

The article I quoted mentioned arguments that might be made bya utility provider or whoever in a court arguing against nationalisation - I kind of thought it was clear from the quote that there is the possibility of legal challenges (as there are to anything). Anyway I think the point I wanted to make is made.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

Um, The question was should we leave or remain part of the EU, wasn't it?. The EU is a co-operative and trading union. The EU existed before the single market. The EU is more than the single market, much more. The EU gives citizens rights and protection, it makes law about the environment, and health and standards and funds science and infrastucture and education and has policies on movement of people and on policing and on policy to the likes of Israel and Russia..and I could go on.

So fundamentally I belive you are wrong to claim the EU is the single market and just a trading block.

Now, this ignorance thing...

You're talking about something created post war that has changed beyond recognition. It's much more, than many expected and wanted it to be. Plus, no EU, no single market....chicken, egg.

And it leads nicely onto that ignorance; are you saying we can leave the EU and remain part of the single market without negotiation? Or do you believe subsequent treaties block that option? If I'm wrong then fair enough but nothing about the language, actions or campaigns make me see it any different.

Of course I am not seriously suggesting that's it's just a trading block, it's so much more; but it concentrated on being a trading block which is why a message about English being less important was delivered in English, Africa is treated as a cashcow by EU policy, our desire to talk people protection was kicked into the long grass and historic borders such as the Irish one will remain under the microscope instead of under the radar. 
All these decisions are about trade, because the EU is more concerned with trade that co-operation. Even it's terms of co-operation and entry are based on trade.  
That's why the question to leave was about the single market and why everyone, leave or remain, used that fact to either promote or condemn arguments.

I get your original point but we're here now and we are having exactly the same debates. Being pedantic about the question is not helpful when everyone who did any research knew the potential reality of their vote.

Edited May 11, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

44 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Multiple prominent 'Leave' campaigners stated that we wouldn't be leaving the single market, with one saying it would be madness.

We hear a lot about 'Remain' scare stories; yet none, if any, have been debunked as we haven't left yet.

I agree with that in essence and leaving will tell us if terrorist attacks increase, budget airlines stop flying here and we're all £4,700 worse off every year....

However, it does happen and in prominent places. From a Guardian article.

Quote

The construction sector suffered its worst quarter for four years following the vote to leave the EU and, in a blow to government hopes for better housing supply, homebuilding stalled.

They should have spoken to industry instead of using stats that suited their agenda; but then that's not how scare works. 
Our members and other trade associations noted an immediate pick up in sales and inquiries as some certainty was finally delivered with the ref....I did tell the Guardian; strangely they weren't interested.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

And it leads nicely onto that ignorance; are you saying we can leave the EU and remain part of the single market without negotiation? Or do you believe subsequent treaties block that option? If I'm wrong then fair enough but nothing about the language, actions or campaigns make me see it any different.

Of course I am not seriously suggesting that's it's just a trading block, it's so much more; but it concentrated on being a trading block which is why a message about English being less important was delivered in English, Africa is treated as a cashcow by EU policy, our desire to talk people protection was kicked into the long grass and historic borders such as the Irish one will remain under the microscope instead of under the radar. 
All these decisions are about trade, because the EU is more concerned with trade that co-operation. Even it's terms of co-operation and entry are based on trade.  
That's why the question to leave was about the single market and why everyone, leave or remain, used that fact to either promote or condemn arguments.

I get your original point but we're here now and we are having exactly the same debates. Being pedantic about the question is not helpful when everyone who did any research knew the potential reality of their vote.

There are multiple questions in there.

What is possible and what we're doing are obviously not exactly the same things - there are a number of possibilities re the single market. And there's "access to" it and "being part of" it which are also different.

T.May decided, before even triggering A50, that we weren't going to bother trying to remain part of the single market, because she decided she couldn't accept the accomanying freedom of movement conditions. But that was a conscious choice she made. She didn't have to do that. But she felt to get the UKIPs votes for the tories she needed to do it for party purposes. It worked in that regard.

Currently the situation looks like having tarriff free access to the market is also on the way to being ruled out by T. May. But again, that's a choice she's making and part of negotiations.

I think being pedantic about the question is really important. I like the precision and clarity. Anything else (IMO) leads to misunderstandings, fudges and excuses. The politicians try and decieve voters by using weasel words and so on - for example you mention that you believe "the question to leave was about the single market and why everyone, leave or remain, used that fact to either promote or condemn arguments" 

I am absolutely certain that "everyone" did not see it that way. Many saw immigration as the main "thing" and everything else as secondary, many more were unhappy with "being told what to do" and more still with "it costs us 350 million a week". It was the (IMO) absence of reasoned arguments, clear detail on what "out" would look like and almost brain dead adherence to sloganeering that left everyone to vote on not much more than a general sense of whatever - fear, grievance, hope...

It's happening again in this election, too.

 

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

that's a choice she's making

This really is extremely important. 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

This really is extremely important. 

That alone should be enough for the 48% to vote anything but Tory

[dAVe80]

Been out canvassing this evening. It still amazes me how many people aren't bothered about voting. When you think of the past and continuing struggles, for the right to vote, it's criminal!

[Awol]

1 minute ago, dAVe80 said:

 it's criminal!

Not really, the choice on offer is criminal. 

[Awol]

4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Multiple prominent 'Leave' campaigners stated that we wouldn't be leaving the single market, with one saying it would be madness.

There were also more honest Leave campaigners who said we would have to leave the single market, from memory both Boris & Gove said so on TV as did the Farage centric Leave group. 

The whole mantra of "taking back control of our laws, borders and money" self evidently meant leaving the single market, it wasn't code and people knew it. 

Meanwhile a centerpiece of the Remain argument pushed at length by Cameron and Osborne was that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. 

On the morning of the results Faisal Islam and others were openly saying the public had voted to leave the single market, its all on YouTube, the evidence is there. 

It wasn't until later Remainers invented the idea of a hard vs soft Brexit as a means to stymie the vote. Before that Remain were clear that voting to leave then staying in the single market was the worst of all worlds, being a rule taker bound to and constrained by the single market but unable to influence it - and the reality of that hasn't changed either. 

As for scare stories not being junked we were told just the vote  itself would cause an immediate loss of economic confidence, jobs and the country being plunged into recession. Not only has that not happened in the last 12 months, in many ways (jobs, inward investment, GDP growth) things have improved and at a faster rate than our peer developed economies.

I understand why people who voted to Remain haven't changed their minds, if we'd voted to stay I'd still have wanted us to leave.

What I wouldn't have tried to do is reinvent history as the Remain side has consistently done since shaking off the shock of their defeat - while still complaining about 'leave lies'. 

[PompeyVillan]

Sorry Awol, the fundamental issue is that the referendum ballot paper didn't ask us anything about single market membership. 

We didn't vote to leave or remain in the single market so how dare May that she is drafting us out because we wanted it. 

At least be honest and say I'm taking us out of the single market because I think it's a good thing to do. 

[Awol]

1 minute ago, PompeyVillan said:

Sorry Awol, the fundamental issue is that the referendum ballot paper didn't ask us anything about single market membership. 

We didn't vote to leave or remain in the single market so how dare May that she is drafting us out because we wanted it. 

At least be honest and say I'm taking us out of the single market because I think it's a good thing to do. 

Take back control. That was the leave message. Borders, laws, money. That's what was the message of the entire campaign, wasn't it?

Single market membership blocks all of those things which is why the Remain campaign spelled it out over and over again.

A vote to leave the EU is a vote to leave the single market. We all heard it, saw it and read it in black and white in the Government leaflet under the heading "What happens it we leave?" 

I really don't understand how people can still deny it.

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

Take back control. That was the leave message. Borders, laws, money. That's what was the message of the entire campaign, wasn't it?

No. There were many leave messages.

It wasn't the 'leave message', it was a leave slogan (perhaps even the leave slogan but a slogan nonetheless much like Make America Great or Yes We Can).

Edited May 11, 2017 by snowychap

[villaglint]

46 minutes ago, Awol said:

Not really, the choice on offer is criminal. 

Interesting because I was thinking earlier that there is a clearer choice in this election than I can remember for a long long time. In the era of centrist politics and triangulation it was all shades of grey which I think led to a lot of people thinking there is no point voting, they're all the same etc. It's a sentiment I definitely understand if not agree with. 

You can't say that this time. Couldn't be more different in a lot of ways. 

The choices may all be horse excrement but it's a choice nonetheless. Baby steps I guess. 

[StefanAVFC]

For the first time in a long time, only the Lib Dems offer a centrist choice.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

For the first time in a long time, only the Lib Dems offer a centrist choice.

Labour want to give primary school kids free school meals.

Tories want to kill foxes using packs of dogs.

I guess the Liberals would feed the foxes to the kids?

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, villaglint said:

Interesting because I was thinking earlier that there is a clearer choice in this election than I can remember for a long long time. In the era of centrist politics and triangulation it was all shades of grey which I think led to a lot of people thinking there is no point voting, they're all the same etc. It's a sentiment I definitely understand if not agree with. 

You can't say that this time. Couldn't be more different in a lot of ways. 

The choices may all be horse excrement but it's a choice nonetheless. Baby steps I guess. 

Yes you are right, for criminal read criminally poor.

I couldn't name a single politically impressive senior Tory, and the now senior Labourites we're the perennial juniors until recently, precisely because they were barking mad or horrendously incompetent. 

There is a clear choice, but it's between crap and crapper.

 

[chrisp65]

Yesterday, listening to the BBC they asked Jeremy Corbyn if his Labour government would definitely categorically take the UK out of the EU. Not being very media savvy, he tried 27 different ways of saying 'we are leaving' without using the yes word. So they asked and asked and asked again. He always said we'd leave but he never once said yes. So they asked over and over and then played the tape all day.

Today, listening to the BBC they asked Sir Michael Cathel Fallon, Most Honourable Member of the Bath, Knight Commander, if he believed (like Jeremy Corbyn) that military action should be a last resort. He said 'Jeremy Corbyn is a pacifist'. He was asked a second time and said something bland about chaos versus strong and stable or some such waffckle. That was it, no pursuit of a yes or a no. No repeat, repeat, repeat of the question, no repeat of an awkward answer through the day's bulletins. Sec of State for Defence wouldn't commit to an answer on whether he would treat bombing as a last resort. Just next question, waffle answer, next question, waffle answer.

Utterly different level of hounding and interruption.

What I took from that, that the current Sec of State for Defence doesn't think a military strike is simply a last resort, just another tool in the box. 

Oh, and he strongly disputed we had an odd situation with aircraft carriers and aircraft for aircraft carriers. All is good on that front apparently.

 

 

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

fresh from stealing ed's policy ideas, the Tory party have only gone and decided to copy his pledge stone too.

 

[andym]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

There were also more honest Leave campaigners who said we would have to leave the single market, from memory both Boris & Gove said so on TV as did the Farage centric Leave group. 

From what i remember it was all cleverly worded by the Vote Leave campaign, they kept saying stuff like 'we will retain access to the single market'. I can see how different people may interpret that in different ways.

Anyway, back to the general election, watched a few clips of May on LBC radio taking questions/comments from listeners. There was one guy talking about how she failed to sort out a contract with the police federation, and failed to deport terrorists as Home Sec, so how could she be trusted with Brexit negotiations. There was a brief flash of anger, a curling of the lip and a rolling of the eyes as she listened - you can see why they are not going to risk her in a live TV debate with other leaders. She also dodged a question on whether she would increase taxes for high earners at least 3 times.

[darrenm]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yesterday, listening to the BBC they asked Jeremy Corbyn if his Labour government would definitely categorically take the UK out of the EU. Not being very media savvy, he tried 27 different ways of saying 'we are leaving' without using the yes word. So they asked and asked and asked again. He always said we'd leave but he never once said yes. So they asked over and over and then played the tape all day.

Today, listening to the BBC they asked Sir Michael Cathel Fallon, Most Honourable Member of the Bath, Knight Commander, if he believed (like Jeremy Corbyn) that military action should be a last resort. He said 'Jeremy Corbyn is a pacifist'. He was asked a second time and said something bland about chaos versus strong and stable or some such waffckle. That was it, no pursuit of a yes or a no. No repeat, repeat, repeat of the question, no repeat of an awkward answer through the day's bulletins. Sec of State for Defence wouldn't commit to an answer on whether he would treat bombing as a last resort. Just next question, waffle answer, next question, waffle answer.

Utterly different level of hounding and interruption.

What I took from that, that the current Sec of State for Defence doesn't think a military strike is simply a last resort, just another tool in the box. 

Oh, and he strongly disputed we had an odd situation with aircraft carriers and aircraft for aircraft carriers. All is good on that front apparently.

 

 

 

Mental isn't it? If they gave the same level of scrutiny to both sides the Tories would fall apart. They get away with murder and nobody gives them a hard time.