advertisement


European Parliament elections

ks.234 said:
Whatever Deal vs Remain.

Or,

Fantasy vs Reality
Click to expand...
No. Whatever Deal vs Leaving without a deal. Remain vs Leave has been done.

tuga said:
Why?

What's in it for you? What's in it for the majority (a real majority, say 67%, not 52)?

It astonishes me that (reasonable) people can still wish to Leave on WTO terms in face of all the evidence...
Click to expand...
Why what?

Nothing is in it for me. Why does there have to be?

Not that I want to leave on WTO terms, but what is this evidence you mention that makes it so astonishing to you some people would be comfortable leaving on WTO terms?
 
SteveS1 said:
I'm not sure of your point PsB. I think it's seen as a single issue vote. Endorsement of, or rejection of the current direction of travel. In which case, I would have thought tactics were pretty important.
Click to expand...
I don’t see his point either.

I don’t think these EU elections mean anything much so I can’t be bothered with tactics or anything.
 
Brian said:
No. Whatever Deal vs Leaving without a deal. Remain vs Leave has been done.
Click to expand...

No. Leave with a deal and Leave without a deal are just different, opposing, Leave options. If the 2016 had been between a specific, clear, defined Leave position and Remain, the result would’ve been very different.

It is precisely because of the fact that Leave has never been defined, that in reality Leave covers many, often mutually exclusive, variants, that the referendum was undemocratic. It is also the reason that we’re in such a mess right now. The fact that this country is in such a mess, that this country is such a laughing stock, is not down to the fault of politicians who’ve had the impossible job of reconciling a fantasy vote with the reality of everyday politics and common sense, it is the fault of the Leave camp for never having a clear, defined position, or any idea of what a post Brexit world would like in the first place.

Leave Means many things to many different people. Leave is not a unified position. Leave does not know what it wants, Leave has no plan for a post Brexit world, Leave does not have a coherent pro Brexit argument. Leave is a mess. Leave is the reason why this country is in turmoil.

Leave feeds off hatred. It is a movement with no positive motivation, principle or purpose.
 
Brian said:
No. Whatever Deal vs Leaving without a deal. Remain vs Leave has been done.


Why what?

Nothing is in it for me. Why does there have to be?

Not that I want to leave on WTO terms, but what is this evidence you mention that makes it so astonishing to you some people would be comfortable leaving on WTO terms?
Click to expand...

How about the effect on the Irish border and just in time manufacture for starts?

If you think WTO is a good idea you don’t care about the above. If we apply zero tariffs-as some WTO supporters want-that solves the border but destroys UK Farming and manufacturing.

I find it astonishing that anyone would want either scenario. Unless they are going to make a killing out of it, that is.

Stephen
 
stephen bennett said:
How about the effect on the Irish border and just in time manufacture for starts?

If you think WTO is a good idea you don’t care about the above. If we apply zero tariffs-as some WTO supporters want-that solves the border but destroys UK Farming and manufacturing.

I find it astonishing that anyone would want either scenario. Unless they are going to make a killing out of it, that is.

Stephen
Click to expand...
I might be wrong, but I understood that WTO rules would mean we would have to impose tariffs at the Irish border.
 
Brian said:
No. Whatever Deal vs Leaving without a deal. Remain vs Leave has been done.
Click to expand...

Very poorly, if I may add.


The UK government has ignored the code on referendums

What most politicians have failed to point out is that since 2006 the UK has been one of 60 signatories to the 'Code of Good Practice on Referendums' (part of the Venice Commission).

This advocates a referendum as a two-part process, starting with an advisory vote and proceeding to a detailed proposal, with a second vote by either parliament or the people. This, you will note, is more or less where we are.

They also advise that a vote below 55% in favour should be ignored.

source


An advisory / non-binding referendum that was practically a tie, with 62% of voters not voting to Leave, where the most voted option was fuelled by lies... Will'o'de'peepol.
 
ks.234 said:
I might be wrong, but I understood that WTO rules would mean we would have to impose tariffs at the Irish border.
Click to expand...

We can have zero tariffs under WTO. Problem is we have to have them on every border.

Hence, the destruction of our agriculture etc.

Leave politicians rarely point this out, but Minford has made it clear.

Stephen
 
PsB said:
I'm surprised that many people here seem to think of these European elections mostly in tactical UK terms, as if this was a FPTP sort of contest. It clearly isn't, for several reasons:
- quasi-proportional representation makes it easier for smaller parties to get seats
- the UK only gets 10% or so of seats, and the mix of those seats will most likely not swing the European Parliament's composition especially as...
- ... UK MEPs will most likely be gone this time next year because of, erm, Brexit, so they will have very little practical influence anyway.
So all the reasoning about voting tactically to prevent Farage or the Tories from doing this or that to the UK economy or the NHS seems completely off to me. This election is as close as it's going to get to being a single issue vote: which sort of Brexit, if any, do you want?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is pretty much my point a few pages back. There was a good Twitter thread on it, which I linked to. It describes electing Remainer MEPs (and beating the Brexit party) as a second order outcome. The primary outcome is to make clear what you think about Brexit. Which means voting for a party which has a clear message for your desired outcome. That does rather preclude voting Labour, which fails at the first hurdle, the 'clear messaging' bit.
 
ks.234 said:
No. Leave with a deal and Leave without a deal are just different, opposing, Leave options. If the 2016 had been between a specific, clear, defined Leave position and Remain, the result would’ve been very different.

It is precisely because of the fact that Leave has never been defined, that in reality Leave covers many, often mutually exclusive, variants, that the referendum was undemocratic. It is also the reason that we’re in such a mess right now. The fact that this country is in such a mess, that this country is such a laughing stock, is not down to the fault of politicians who’ve had the impossible job of reconciling a fantasy vote with the reality of everyday politics and common sense, it is the fault of the Leave camp for never having a clear, defined position, or any idea of what a post Brexit world would like in the first place.

Leave Means many things to many different people. Leave is not a unified position. Leave does not know what it wants, Leave has no plan for a post Brexit world, Leave does not have a coherent pro Brexit argument. Leave is a mess. Leave is the reason why this country is in turmoil.

Leave feeds off hatred. It is a movement with no positive motivation, principle or purpose.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree on just about everything you've written there and leave it at that.
 
Brian said:
We will have to agree to disagree on just about everything you've written there and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
You could challenge my argument and point to a clear definition of Leave, or a Leave plan for a post Brexit world, or a coherent pro Brexit argument?
 
stephen bennett said:
How about the effect on the Irish border and just in time manufacture for starts?

If you think WTO is a good idea you don’t care about the above. If we apply zero tariffs-as some WTO supporters want-that solves the border but destroys UK Farming and manufacturing.

I find it astonishing that anyone would want either scenario. Unless they are going to make a killing out of it, that is.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Good point. However, I've read plenty of comment from Irish people that the border is actually a non-issue being used by remainers to create an issue in their effort to thwart brexit. I've no idea who is telling the truth on this.

People voted leave for many reasons. I doubt they were thinking specifically about the Irish border, or about just in time manufacture and it is unlikely they would change their mind in a second referendum.
 
stephen bennett said:
We can have zero tariffs under WTO. Problem is we have to have them on every border.

Hence, the destruction of our agriculture etc.

Leave politicians rarely point this out, but Minford has made it clear.
Click to expand...

With zero tariffs what incentive would there be for other countries to negotiate a trade deal? A rhetorical question, the answer is none.
 
Brian said:
People voted leave for many reasons. I doubt they were thinking specifically about the Irish border, or about just in time manufacture and it is unlikely they would change their mind in a second referendum.
Click to expand...

That’s not what the polls are indicating. Brexiteers seem implacably opposed to a second referendum, I think there’s a simple explanation for that.
 
Brian said:
Good point. However, I've read plenty of comment from Irish people that the border is actually a non-issue being used by remainers to create an issue in their effort to thwart brexit. I've no idea who is telling the truth on this.
Click to expand...

Think about it for more than ten seconds.

People voted leave for many reasons. I doubt they were thinking specifically about the Irish border, or about just in time manufacture and it is unlikely they would change their mind in a second referendum.
Click to expand...

Possibly true. They might change their minds over the next few years as manufacturing vanishes from the UK, unemployment rises, wages reduce and government spending in essential services reduces even further than during austerity. The latter, plus the removal of many key staff of foreign origin from the NHS will also kill a lot more people. I suppose after they are dead they won't be in a position to change their mind.
 
Stunsworth said:
That’s not what the polls are indicating. Brexiteers seem implacably opposed to a second referendum, I think there’s a simple explanation for that.
Click to expand...

pYMRa9C.gif
 
Tony L said:
Much to my surprise Andrew Marr was actually half-decent today. He managed to skewer Umunna on the austerity conflict between him and other CUKs such as Soubry. It really does look like this lot are dead in the water now. He was also good with Corbyn exposing him as the non-committal fence sitter he is, every question answered with a remarkably Blair-like “No, what I’m actually saying is [insert evasive waffle-flub/doublespeak/deflection]...” along with an absolute refusal to present any real position, opinion or conviction on any question asked. Vince Cable is clearly past his sell-by date too (even attempting to defend his time with the Tory coalition FFS!). Even so he made the best arguments of the three on Brexit and if they manage to get someone young and articulate in place as leader such as Layla Moran or Jo Swinson I suspect the party could continue to recover their position quite well against such weak competition.
Click to expand...

So, Corbyn was a disgrace and an absolute clown. Cable is past his sell by date but was still outstanding. A fantastic analysis. I'm shocked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cav
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top