2017 UK General Election - 8th June

LeinsterDub

Irishweather wrote: »

+1. Many would view the UK as England or Britain only.

Sure who cares what the savages in the colonies and provinces get up to?

A Little Pony

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Irishweather wrote: »

+1. Many would view the UK as England or Britain only.

Sure who cares what the savages in the colonies and provinces get up to?

Absolutely. If truth be told they don't care about the socially conservative views of which many within the Conservative party have, it's because a bunch of 'paddies' are holding the balance of power and they don't like it.

mikeybrennan

devnull wrote: »

Indeed, but the Tory party putting a statement out that a deal was agreed in principle only then for the DUP to come out and say no deal has been agreed suggests that the Tory Party are trying to put pressure on the DUP to agree a deal quickly because the MayBot knows the longer the deal takes the more pressure she will come under.

George Osborne is already putting the boot in this morning, on the BBC he was saying that she is a dead woman walking and is on death row with Boris Johnson in permanent leadership challenge mode and the Evening Standard will be attacking her from all angles.

He's very smug - considering the history between those two I guess he is loving every minute of this.

I thought Osborne's death comments very tasteless when i heard them

mikeybrennan

It wouldn't be unfair to characterise the DUP as anti-gay.

I don't think any respectable party should be doing deals with them.

mikeybrennan

mikeybrennan wrote: »

It wouldn't be unfair to characterise the DUP as anti-gay.

I don't think any respectable party should be doing deals with them.

They are against same sex marriage. Some of their reps have expressed personal views that are undoubtedly ugly, but they are not a party position. Foster herself has said she doesn't care about a person's sexuality, she welcomed Varadkar's appointment etc.

If they are good enough to share power in NI, along with another party with serious concerns (of a different sort, granted) I think there is something contradictory in saying they are not good enough to support the Government in Britain.

First Up

Its hard to blame the DUP for grasping a once in a lifetime opportunity to wield whatever bit of influence they can, while they can. The need for such an "arrangement" reflects much more badly on May and Tories but they are already a laughing stock.

The only serious implication of May doing business with the DUP is how it sits with the delicate balance of power in the NI Assembly.

But it won't last long; May is a lame duck and the Tories will disintegrate at the first contentious issue to emerge in the Brexit talks.

solodeogloria

mikeybrennan wrote: »

It wouldn't be unfair to characterise the DUP as anti-gay.

I don't think any respectable party should be doing deals with them.

Good afternoon,

I presume you've got an alternative for Theresa May and her colleagues in the Conservative Party?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

devnull

Boris has called for the party to be united...

A Little Pony

Well I have come across the fact that Gordon Brown was seeking to do a deal with the DUP in 2010 to keep hold of power. Ed Miliband was trying to do similar in pre plans before the election in 2015 as he expected to be the largest party in a hung Parliament.

Do not be naive thinking Labour have any moral standards on this. This is politics, ruthless bastards trying to hold onto power. They would do a deal with Stalin if they thought it would keep them in power at 10 downing street.

devnull

A Little Pony wrote: »

Well I have come across the fact that Gordon Brown was seeking to do a deal with the DUP in 2010 to keep hold of power. Ed Miliband was trying to do similar in pre plans before the election in 2015 as he expected to be the largest party in a hung Parliament.

Can you provide us with the source for that?

Because honestly I find it hard to believe.

A Little Pony

devnull wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Well I have come across the fact that Gordon Brown was seeking to do a deal with the DUP in 2010 to keep hold of power. Ed Miliband was trying to do similar in pre plans before the election in 2015 as he expected to be the largest party in a hung Parliament.

Can you provide us with the source for that?

Because honestly I find it hard to believe.

http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/09/02/news/hillary-clinton-emails-labour-sought-dup-election-pact-248668/?param=ds12rif76F

Ian Paisley Jr has said on Twitter that Ed Miliband planned to do so in 2015. Most likely in pre plans in the result of a hung Parliament.

devnull

Cheers

New Cabinet announced, 10 members staying in place, some changes but not much, clearly she doesn't have the authority.

Enzokk

A Little Pony wrote: »

http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/09/02/news/hillary-clinton-emails-labour-sought-dup-election-pact-248668/?param=ds12rif76F

Ian Paisley Jr has said on Twitter that Ed Miliband planned to do so in 2015. Most likely in pre plans in the result of a hung Parliament.

The story you linked states Labour was trying to win support in Northern Ireland, with all the parties and not just the DUP alone. The story spin it as they were looking for support from the DUP alone, but it seems they were looking at the other seats as well, other than SF.

It is similar, but the difference now would be that the DUP alone would be with the Conservatives and they would hold sway on the Conservatives alone. We don't know who and what deals will have been made, but uf Labour got all the support of the other parties in 2010 they could have formed a government without the need for the DUP votes.

Enzokk

devnull wrote: »

Boris has called for the party to be united...

I don't know why they keep talking about how they increased their vote total and this being some positive from the election. More people voted than in 2010 so unless they increase their totals they will be going back...they have to be increasing their vote totals to keep standing still.

The fact that people still don't want to acknowledge what Labour did in this election makes me believe that people are either ignoring the truth or running scared. All the polls bar one predicted that the Tories would win a majority and increase their seats in the commons. Only the Yougov poll had it as a hung parliament and everyone decided to ignore it because "the young people do not vote". That is why this is a victory for Labour, everyone knows they didn't win the election but the experts were predicting they would be annihilated as a party under Jeremy Corbyn. I think the fact that they now seem to be in place to win the next election is a win.

blanch152

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's a few facts about the DUP:

They want the death penalty brought back.
They are against all abortion.
They are against gay marriage.
Many of their members believe that homosexuality is wrong. A current DUP MP has called gay people 'disgusting'. Their Health minister believes that gay people are more likely to abuse children.
Many of their members and some MPS believe in creationism.
Many of their members and some MPs do not believe in climate change.

You are making them sound like good traditional FF stock - people like the Healy-Raes

Leroy42

Dont see tge problem. The DUP are democratically elected members of the HoC. Are people really suggesting that peoples votes shouldn't count as that is the ultimate conclusion of saying that they shouldn't be allowed form a coalition (or whatever they are calling it).

Its called democracy

FrancieBrady

YIf

Leroy42 wrote: »

Dont see tge problem. The DUP are democratically elected members of the HoC. Are people really suggesting that peoples votes shouldn't count as that is the ultimate conclusion of saying that they shouldn't be allowed form a coalition (or whatever they are calling it).

Its called democracy

They can form anything they want but what they can't do is climb up onto the high moral ground about anything.

There are also other reasons (Ireland) why they should not do it and may be in breach of an internationally binding agreement. If not technically certainly in spirit. But then it's the Tories we are talking about.

Professor Moriarty

Interestingly, if the election were held today Labour would be the biggest party. They have taken a five point lead over the Tories.

devnull

devnull wrote: »

Cheers

New Cabinet announced, 10 members staying in place, some changes but not much, clearly she doesn't have the authority.

Yes, especially when you see the 'expert hating' Michael Gove back in. Its the weakest government since the 1970's tbh. How it will negotiate Brexit (if at all) is a mystery.

devnull

Senior Tory sources now believed to have told Theresa May only continue if she pursues softer Brexit or they will make life difficult for her.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

The fact that people still don't want to acknowledge what Labour did in this election makes me believe that people are either ignoring the truth or running scared. All the polls bar one predicted that the Tories would win a majority and increase their seats in the commons. Only the Yougov poll had it as a hung parliament and everyone decided to ignore it because "the young people do not vote". That is why this is a victory for Labour, everyone knows they didn't win the election but the experts were predicting they would be annihilated as a party under Jeremy Corbyn. I think the fact that they now seem to be in place to win the next election is a win.

It's not unlike our own last election, when pundits believed that the traditionally second placed party could be destroyed after a disastrous previous outing. And both FF and UK Labour came back from the dead. And from being written off as finished, both are now looking to the next election with relish.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

It's not unlike our own last election, when pundits believed that the traditionally second placed party could be destroyed after a disastrous previous outing. And both FF and UK Labour came back from the dead. And from being written off as finished, both are now looking to the next election with relish.

I think the UK situation is more complex and less predictable than ours.

Both the Tories and Labour have major internal rifts that will play out over the next while. Neither party has a unified or coherent approach to Brexit.

We have plenty of "floating" voters and the PR system reflects that by creating a very fragmented parliament. The UK has at least as wide a range of views but the FPTP system means their divisions tend to be within parties rather than between them.

It all adds to the entertainment.

Leroy42

IMO, both the situation in the States and the UK shows that the days of adversarial is no longer fit for purpose.

It simply enhances the lingering differences within the population. One side wins and gets everything, the other side loses and gets nothing.

Particularly in light of the upcoming Brexit negotiations, it would really make more sense for a cross party, HoC committee to have been instigated to try to get the key factors that would deliver Brexit for everyone, not just those that voted for Tory.

I think the UK voters made a great choice. They didn't want to give May a bigger majority, in fact took it away from her, but neither did they want to give Labour the keys.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know why they keep talking about how they increased their vote total and this being some positive from the election. More people voted than in 2010 so unless they increase their totals they will be going back...they have to be increasing their vote totals to keep standing still.

The fact that people still don't want to acknowledge what Labour did in this election makes me believe that people are either ignoring the truth or running scared. All the polls bar one predicted that the Tories would win a majority and increase their seats in the commons. Only the Yougov poll had it as a hung parliament and everyone decided to ignore it because "the young people do not vote". That is why this is a victory for Labour, everyone knows they didn't win the election but the experts were predicting they would be annihilated as a party under Jeremy Corbyn. I think the fact that they now seem to be in place to win the next election is a win.

Good evening!

To be fair to Boris - he's not referring to absolute totals, or voter numbers. He's referring to the percentage share of the vote.

It is true that the Tories haven't received anything like 43% of the poll for a very long time. It's also true that Labour haven't received anything like 40% of the poll for a long time.

The electoral system of course doesn't take that into account. What it takes into account is the percentage difference between parties. That needs to be as wide as possible for a big share of seats. The reality is that it was a rather small margin.

In any case, it's not a good result, but I think Boris is actually right on that point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

devnull wrote: »

Senior Tory sources now believed to have told Theresa May only continue if she pursues softer Brexit or they will make life difficult for her.

And of course other senior tory sources have said they'll make her life difficult if she doesn't continue to pursue the hardest brexit

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

To be fair to Boris - he's not referring to absolute totals, or voter numbers. He's referring to the percentage share of the vote.

It is true that the Tories haven't received anything like 43% of the poll for a very long time. It's also true that Labour haven't received anything like 40% of the poll for a long time.

The electoral system of course doesn't take that into account. What it takes into account is the percentage difference between parties. That needs to be as wide as possible for a big share of seats. The reality is that it was a rather small margin.

In any case, it's not a good result, but I think Boris is actually right on that point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That is taking a rather simplistic view of the results. Yes the total votes went up, but in large part that is because UKIP were decimated. The recent trend of moving away form two party core has been reversed and people really picked one or the other.

And second, it is not taking the context of the election into account. This wasn't that the Tories went from opposition to getting near a majority, or even that coming from a coalition to a majority, this was the reverse.

This was a government party, with an opposition in crisis, a strong nationalistic fervour running though the country, an economy can was doing relatively well and certainly much better than all the experts had foretold.

This was an open goal. People were expecting a landslide. They should have been getting 50%+. What Boris is saying is true for purely mathematical position, but it is nothing more than putting the best shine on the turd that the Tories created.

For Boris to even come out with such obviously disingenuous nonsense shows how hard they are having to spin to take anything out of this.

Tory party had swung massively to the right, in terms of Brexit, in order to take over the clothes of UKIP. They didn't even manage to accomplish that

realdanbreen

FTA69 wrote: »

100% I would. Look what happened to Irish Labour when they did that very thing. Part of the reason SF have been so successful is because they've refused to prop up rightwing austerity parties.

Another reason is that they don't ever take on responsibility and make tough decisions but even they are beginning to realise that the negative opposition tactic will only fool people for a short time.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Tory party had swung massively to the right, in terms of Brexit, in order to take over the clothes of UKIP. They didn't even manage to accomplish that

UKIP is gone.
Mission accomplished.

They lost bigtime in the local and national elections.
Yes they have MEP's but not for long, for obvious reasons.

TBH UKIP is just astroturf. IMHO it would be interesting to reveal it's true financing.

Sand

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And of course other senior tory sources have said they'll make her life difficult if she doesn't continue to pursue the hardest brexit

The problem is she cant pursue a hard brexit anymore. She simply does not have the votes for it, and she very clearly does not have the authority for it. She has to go for a very soft brexit now to keep the Irish border open and to secure cross-party support.

Its all round good news for everyone involved. Up until 1 week ago, the UK was being held hostage by the lunatic wing of the Tory party and the Daily Mail. They refused to acknowledge that 48% of the UK had voted for no Brexit whatsoever, and the 52% certainly did not all vote for the hardest Brexit possible which May was on course to deliver through sheer stupidity. They'll still be there, but their 15 minutes is up.

BlitzKrieg

Sand wrote: »

and the 52% certainly did not all vote for the hardest Brexit possible which May was on course to deliver through sheer stupidity. They'll still be there, but their 15 minutes is up.

I'm happy to hear someone say this, even if it is only on this forum. One of the most frustrating parts of the whole brexit referendum was how fundementally flawed as a referendum it was and how that flaw was abused in some circles.

Capt'n Midnight

The current status of the Special Relationship in a nutshell.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-state-visit-to-britain-put-on-hold?CMP=fb_gu

Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.

FrancieBrady

Sand wrote: »

The problem is she cant pursue a hard brexit anymore. She simply does not have the votes for it, and she very clearly does not have the authority for it. She has to go for a very soft brexit now to keep the Irish border open and to secure cross-party support.

Its all round good news for everyone involved. Up until 1 week ago, the UK was being held hostage by the lunatic wing of the Tory party and the Daily Mail. They refused to acknowledge that 48% of the UK had voted for no Brexit whatsoever, and the 52% certainly did not all vote for the hardest Brexit possible which May was on course to deliver through sheer stupidity. They'll still be there, but their 15 minutes is up.

The problem is not this doomed coalition, it is that May's pathetic leadership and desperate 'who cares what damage I do' clutching at the remnants of a dubious career is going to leave the way open for the hard brexit loons.

joeysoap

I don't think the 13 Scottish conservative MP's will accept a hard Brexit. Brexit maybe (fishing), hard Brexit no

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UKIP is gone.
Mission accomplished.

They lost bigtime in the local and national elections.
Yes they have MEP's but not for long, for obvious reasons.

TBH UKIP is just astroturf. IMHO it would be interesting to reveal it's true financing.

Good morning!

It is worth pointing out that this is only because the country voted for Brexit and got behind Brexit.

It wouldn't have happened in any other circumstance.

The tricky thing for May is convincing the former UKIP voters that the Brexit is going to get is the Brexit they asked for. Then the Brexiteers. Indeed this will exist with increased hard remainer opposition.

As someone who believes that fully leaving is better for the UK in the long term I think the only way of doing is this is by accepting a Norwegian model for a few years and slowly withdrawing from the customs union then from and EEA as new trade deals are formed.

The problem with this is of course that joining the EEA isn't leaving in the truest sense.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Chester Copperpot

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It is worth pointing out that this is only because the country voted for Brexit and got behind Brexit.

It wouldn't have happened in any other circumstance.

The tricky thing for May is convincing the former UKIP voters that the Brexit is going to get is the Brexit they asked for. Then the Brexiteers. Indeed this will exist with increased hard remainer opposition.

As someone who believes that fully leaving is better for the UK in the long term I think the only way of doing is this is by accepting a Norwegian model for a few years and slowly withdrawing from the customs union then from and EEA as new trade deals are formed.

The problem with this is of course that joining the EEA isn't leaving in the truest sense.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I would doubt that the UK could remain in the customs union and then be working away on trade deals with other third countries or blocs. At this point the Tories have painted a Norway type deal as nothing more than capitulation. The initial approach to negotiations has been horrendous and left little room for manoeuvre. The funny thing is that it has been completely unnecessary and self inflicted. What was wrong with a more diplomatic approach and keeping all options open

solodeogloria

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

I would doubt that the UK could remain in the customs union and then be working away on trade deals with other third countries or blocs. At this point the Tories have painted a Norway type deal as nothing more than capitulation. The initial approach to negotiations has been horrendous and left little room for manoeuvre. The funny thing is that it has been completely unnecessary and self inflicted. What was wrong with a more diplomatic approach and keeping all options open

Good morning,

You're missing my point. I agree you can't do trade deals while in the customs union.

My point is that Brexit is going to take longer.

Leaving the political structures of the EU is stage one.
Leaving the customs union is stage two.
Leaving the EEA and forming a trade deal is stage three.

The uncomfortable notion for UKIPpers and Brexiteers will be the lack of control of migration for a very long time. I personally would like to see proper migration controls but it isn't the first priority.

I want to be surprised but I think this is the course of action. I'll be supporting whichever political party is committed to a complete Brexit for the next decade or more I suspect.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Sand wrote:

The problem is she cant pursue a hard brexit anymore. She simply does not have the votes for it, and she very clearly does not have the authority for it. She has to go for a very soft brexit now to keep the Irish border open and to secure cross-party support.

Her problem is that her own party is split on the hard/soft issue - she doesn't have the votes for either. 12 DUP voices/votes won't make enough noise to cancel the little Englanders.

Peregrinus

I can't see the EU being keen, solo. They're very much of the view that if the UK is bent upon going, then it should go speedily. They've made it very clear that they don't want to spend the next several years preoccupied with the prolonged agony of the UK's departure. As it is, given the gap between the referendum and the service of the Art. 50 notice, it will be nearly three years.

And, on this point, they hold the whip hand. Art. 50 notice has been served; the UK leaves in April 2019 unless all 28 member states agree that it should stay for longer. And while they might be open to an additional 3 or 6 months to enable one or two loose ends to be tied down (if it was clear that that would enable them to be tied down) I can't see any reason why they would go any further than that.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can't see the EU being keen, solo. They're very much of the view that if the UK is bent upon going, then it should go speedily. They've made it very clear that they don't want to spend the next several years preoccupied with the prolonged agony of the UK's departure. As it is, given the gap between the referendum and the service of the Art. 50 notice, it will be nearly three years.

And, on this point, they hold the whip hand. Art. 50 notice has been served; the UK leaves in April 2019 unless all 28 member states agree that it should stay for longer. And while they might be open to an additional 3 or 6 months to enable one or two loose ends to be tied down (if it was clear that that would enable them to be tied down) I can't see any reason why they would go any further than that.

Good morning,

It's possible that the UK could state continued membership of the EEA only to leave the customs union separately later. In the next decade it could choose to leave the EEA.

I'm not suggesting that all of this needs to be done as part of the Article 50 negotiations.

For the record - I want to be out quickly also and out from everything.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

I would doubt that the UK could remain in the customs union and then be working away on trade deals with other third countries or blocs.

Since those wonderful trade deals were a total fantasy anyhow,this is not a problem.

Leroy42

The UK really need to take a bit of time to actually consider what it is they want from Brexit.

We have people talking about soft borders, hard borders, staying part of the customs union, free movement, etc etc.

It seems to me that the UK don't even know what they want. The fact that the UKIP vote, which was assumed to favour a hard brexit, split between Tory and Labour would indicate that even in that group Brexit means different things.

I really don't understand why May triggered Art 50 and then called an election. Surely it should have been the other way around?

It seems anathema to suggest another vote but at this stage, with everything so messed up, surely the only proper way forward is to put a few options to the people and let them decide.

The people then need to consider what they actually want. What is it that would be deemed as successful. End of all immigration? Even UKIP wasn't promising that? Removal from EU laws, which ones and what to replace them with? Free movement. Are UK people happy to have the possibility that they lose free movement themselves?

How is May, or Boris, or Labour or anyone else supposed to negotiate a deal when nobody knows what it is they actually want

NIMAN

Yeah, its turned into a bit of a mess, hasn't it.

It was so badly planned. In fact, there was no planning for it at all. They just got everyone whipped up into a vote,and to hell with the consequences.

I have no doubt if there was another vote, REMAIN would win easily.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

It's possible that the UK could state continued membership of the EEA only to leave the customs union separately later. In the next decade it could choose to leave the EEA.

I'm not suggesting that all of this needs to be done as part of the Article 50 negotiations.

For the record - I want to be out quickly also and out from everything.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Yeah, because the EU will never see this coming.

The UK seem to think that they are the only ones able to think of a plan (although if anything so far it only seems the EU have anything close to a plan). The UK have clearly said they don't want anything to do with the EU anymore, and thanks to May's rathoric, she has clearly painted it as the UK considering leaving above all else.

Why would the EU allow the UK to drag this whole thing out. They have already been more than accommodating to the UK by allowing them to opt out of Euro, Schegen etc. The Euro would have been much stronger from the start had the UK joined, but the UK, correctly, opted to stay out.

So the UK have always shown that they are less than enthusiastic about the EU so why would the EU now be willing to let the UK continue to live in the house, eat the food but see other people?

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK really need to take a bit of time to actually consider what it is they want from Brexit.

We have people talking about soft borders, hard borders, staying part of the customs union, free movement, etc etc.

It seems to me that the UK don't even know what they want. The fact that the UKIP vote, which was assumed to favour a hard brexit, split between Tory and Labour would indicate that even in that group Brexit means different things.

I really don't understand why May triggered Art 50 and then called an election. Surely it should have been the other way around?

It seems anathema to suggest another vote but at this stage, with everything so messed up, surely the only proper way forward is to put a few options to the people and let them decide.

The people then need to consider what they actually want. What is it that would be deemed as successful. End of all immigration? Even UKIP wasn't promising that? Removal from EU laws, which ones and what to replace them with? Free movement. Are UK people happy to have the possibility that they lose free movement themselves?

How is May, or Boris, or Labour or anyone else supposed to negotiate a deal when nobody knows what it is they actually want

I believe that Brexit was largely a protest vote... Sure there was a sizeable chunk that wanted Brexit for some sort of considered reason but I truly believe that a large portion of the vote was an unthinking establishment kick.. By definition these people can never know what they want from Brexit as I'm not sure the thought process extended to the consequences of Brexit.

As for putting options to the people? How do you do that? A string of vox pops? Referenda?

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would the EU allow the UK to drag this whole thing out.

Especially when May & co. have repeatedly said no deal is better than a bad deal, and no deal exit is guaranteed in less than 2 years, no negotiations necessary.

Simpler for the EU to just start planning for the cost of a no-deal hard brexit right now.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

It's possible that the UK could state continued membership of the EEA only to leave the customs union separately later. In the next decade it could choose to leave the EEA.

I'm not suggesting that all of this needs to be done as part of the Article 50 negotiations.

For the record - I want to be out quickly also and out from everything.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Out from everything? So you want a hard Brexit? Ok.

FrancieBrady

lawred2 wrote: »

I believe that Brexit was largely a protest vote... Sure there was a sizeable chunk that wanted Brexit for some sort of considered reason but I truly believe that a large portion of the vote was an unthinking establishment kick.. By definition these people can never know what they want from Brexit as I'm not sure the thought process extended to the consequences of Brexit.

+1 here.

The UK is in political turmoil and it's politicians are incapable of stabilising it.

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Out from everything? So you want a hard Brexit? Ok.

Good morning,

I agree with the view that leaving the EU in a comprehensive way that gives Britain control of it's borders, it's laws and it's trade destiny requires Britain to leave the single market and customs union.

Ultimately I think that's better in the long term. There may be steps in between but I'd be keen to see it sooner rather than later so that there is clarity.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I agree with the view that leaving the EU in a comprehensive way that gives Britain control of it's borders, it's laws and it's trade destiny requires Britain to leave the single market and customs union.

Ultimately I think that's better in the long term. There may be steps in between but I'd be keen to see it sooner rather than later so that there is clarity.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why?

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I agree with the view that leaving the EU in a comprehensive way that gives Britain control of it's borders, it's laws and it's trade destiny requires Britain to leave the single market and customs union.

Ultimately I think that's better in the long term. There may be steps in between but I'd be keen to see it sooner rather than later so that there is clarity.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So no freedom of movement, no FTA, WTO rules.

I think Britain would be insane to take that road but each to his own.