2017 UK General Election - 8th June

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

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

Good morning,

Last post for today. I never said no to an FTA in any previous post.

Nobody is proposing no trade deal. Freedom of movement needs to end, as does political lawmaking from Brussels, and Britain needs to regain the ability to forge new trade deals elsewhere.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Last post for today. I never said no to an FTA in any previous post.

Nobody is proposing no trade deal. Freedom of movement needs to end, as does political lawmaking from Brussels, and Britain needs to regain the ability to forge new trade deals elsewhere.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Again, you keep trotting these lines out like they are a given.

But why? People go on about the lack of accountability in Europe, but its not like the HoC is delivering from Britain.

THe NHS, Non EU immigration, education, these are all a mess and totally under the control of the government. It not that you would choose to give away control, but it seems that people seem to have this notion that getting rid of the EU will solve the problems.

Yet, I have never heard what the issues with the EU are that are causing said problems. What has the EU done that has caused the ness in the NHS? Why are non EU immigration continued given that EU has nothing to do with it?
Why has the inequality increased during the recession?
Why are not enough houses being built?
Why are the standards to the universities continuing to fall down the international rankings?
What laws do people want revoked with EU is no longer in control and what to replace them with?
What happens the to UK citizens living/working/retired in the EU?

It just seems to me that apart from some nice slogans there is nothing that anybody really agrees on. The last election was, according to the Tory, supposed to be all about Brexit. But we learned practically nothing during the election as to what it actually means.

Brexit means Brexit is the best we have.

I'm not against the idea of Brexit, and I certainly understand why it was successful, but I don't understand how, a year after the vote people are not demanding these answers (they should have before the ref but thats done now).

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Last post for today. I never said no to an FTA in any previous post.

Nobody is proposing no trade deal. Freedom of movement needs to end, as does political lawmaking from Brussels, and Britain needs to regain the ability to forge new trade deals elsewhere.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Your mask is well and truly slipping, "freedom of movement needs to end", a remain voter my hole.

I guess the last few days have been stressful on you :-)

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Last post for today. I never said no to an FTA in any previous post.

Nobody is proposing no trade deal. Freedom of movement needs to end, as does political lawmaking from Brussels, and Britain needs to regain the ability to forge new trade deals elsewhere.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU is explicitly linking the four freedoms. There will be no FTA in a Hard Brexit scenario. Don't take my word for it:

Here's the Economist's take on how the Four Freedoms are so interdependent. In that context, this FT article explains why regulation, not tariffs, will be so damaging to Britain's trade with Europe. You are in Britain so Here are some opinions on Brexit from outside the UK (and it's press). From those perspectives, Here is an article explaining the EU's negotiating positions.

devnull

Nurse applications from the EU down 96%

The number of new applicants from the EU fell from 1,304 in July last year to just 46 in April this year.

Expect the brexiteers to blame "too many foreign patients" for delays rather than the real issue of "lack of staff" soon

FrancieBrady

Anyone else 'wondering' how this guy found his way into TM'S government?

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/new-justice-secretary-david-lidington-opposes-gay-rights-wants-scrap-human-rights-act/

lawred2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anyone else 'wondering' how this guy found his way into TM'S government?

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/new-justice-secretary-david-lidington-opposes-gay-rights-wants-scrap-human-rights-act/

Justice and all

Slow hand clap for Theresa

ancapailldorcha

lawred2 wrote: »

Justice and all

Slow hand clap for Theresa

Don't post low quality comments like this please.

devnull

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anyone else 'wondering' how this guy found his way into TM'S government?

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/new-justice-secretary-david-lidington-opposes-gay-rights-wants-scrap-human-rights-act/

Perhaps the idea is to get people in the cabinet with beliefs similar to the DUP in order to try and make the deal negotiations smoother?

Jamiekelly

devnull wrote: »

Nurse applications from the EU down 96%

The number of new applicants from the EU fell from 1,304 in July last year to just 46 in April this year.

Expect the brexiteers to blame "too many foreign patients" for delays rather than the real issue of "lack of staff" soon

Boris Johnson and Farage were championing the Australian points system as a solid way to get qualified medical workers into the UK with the typical "if it worked for them it will work for us" nonsense.

What surprised me most about that argument was the lack of bite back from any of the media. They never brought up how doctors and nurses in the UK are working longer hours for less pay and in horrible conditions with second rate medical equipment and outdated computer software, especially when compared with Australia. Yet they all seemed to think that people would still flock to work in the NHS simply because it was "such a great and unique institution".

Some of them appear to still be stuck in the 60s believing that the NHS is just inherently better than every other countries healthcare system just because it was the first single payer system to exist.

devnull

May has been forced to cancel her first new cabinet meeting this morning due to pressure from within her party.

Also lots of debate about Queen's Speech as well and a few of her hardliners won't agree for it to go ahead without an extended discussion on it.

Leroy42

She would be better off to simply accept her fate now and walk. All she will achieve by staying on is having to do the heavy lifting for someone else to come in later.

I'm sure see still believes that she has the ability, but there is simply no way that the Tory party will ever let her lead them into another election..

She will get plenty of MP's, like Davies and Boris and Gove, telling everyone that the country needs May now more than ever, lessons will be learned, she is a great PM but lousy campaigner. All it is is a way to keep her in situ to deal with the chaos and then they will come in at a better time.

Call me Al

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Last post for today. I never said no to an FTA in any previous post.

Nobody is proposing no trade deal. Freedom of movement needs to end, as does political lawmaking from Brussels, and Britain needs to regain the ability to forge new trade deals elsewhere.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So can you explain then why you voted remain? How do these needs correlate to a remain vote?

For someone who has claimed to have voted remain, you have done a complete about turn despite the environment/circumstances of the UK being unaltered since last Summer.

josip

Looks like the Queen's Speech will be delayed by a few days according to the BBC

Professor Moriarty

The 1922 committee meeting today will tell a lot about May's future.

ancapailldorcha

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Boris Johnson and Farage were championing the Australian points system as a solid way to get qualified medical workers into the UK with the typical "if it worked for them it will work for us" nonsense.

What surprised me most about that argument was the lack of bite back from any of the media. They never brought up how doctors and nurses in the UK are working longer hours for less pay and in horrible conditions with second rate medical equipment and outdated computer software, especially when compared with Australia. Yet they all seemed to think that people would still flock to work in the NHS simply because it was "such a great and unique institution".

Some of them appear to still be stuck in the 60s believing that the NHS is just inherently better than every other countries healthcare system just because it was the first single payer system to exist.

Apparently, Boris supported the idea of two referenda in the beginning as a way of extracting more concessions from the EU:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-petition-second-eu-referendum-how-to-get-new-vote-on-uk-membership-a7102646.html

The media over here has two issues. The first is that much of it is concentrated in very few hands like those of Rupert Murdoch. The second is that outlets which break off from the mainstream opinions of the oligarch-owned outlets are derided to the point of being dismissed outright simply because of who made the argument, not the contents of the argument itself.

The Guardian did make positive arguments for immigration but it's not read by that many people compared with, say The Sun. Additionally, readers of the latter will just dismiss the former as being an elitist, left-liberal London rag or something similar. Outlets like The Economist which aren't left-wing or socialist at all made similar arguments but they've such low circulation numbers that they're almost irrelevant to most people.

ArmaniJeanss

josip wrote: »

Looks like the Queen's Speech will be delayed by a few days according to the BBC

So effectively TM lied to the Queen last Friday when she told her that she had the numbers to form a government next Monday. Maybe this is just a technicality but I have an inkling it may turn out to be a resigning matter.

josip

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apparently, Boris supported the idea of two referenda in the beginning as a way of extracting more concessions from the EU:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-petition-second-eu-referendum-how-to-get-new-vote-on-uk-membership-a7102646.html

The media over here has two issues. The first is that much of it is concentrated in very few hands like those of Rupert Murdoch. The second is that outlets which break off from the mainstream opinions of the oligarch-owned outlets are derided to the point of being dismissed outright simply because of who made the argument, not the contents of the argument itself.

The Guardian did make positive arguments for immigration but it's not read by that many people compared with, say The Sun. Additionally, readers of the latter will just dismiss the former as being an elitist, left-liberal London rag or something similar. Outlets like The Economist which aren't left-wing or socialist at all made similar arguments but they've such low circulation numbers that they're almost irrelevant to most people.

But if the majority of the people in a country read and are influenced by the likes of the Sun, then don't they get the government they want/deserve?

Similarly for the likes of Fox news and RT.

Patser

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?

The UK voted for Brexit, and Teresa and Co spent 9 months thinking and talking about Brexit before triggering article 50. That was plenty of time to get a strategy sorted, but instead nothing is in any way clear.

Triggering Article 50, then calling for an election was a way of saying We're committed now, it's time to do a deal, you need us back in here for stability and all.

But instead, with the clock now ticking, they've wasted 6 weeks on campaigning for an election that has spectacularly back fired, with the serious threat of a Govt that won't last til the end of the negotiations - and therefore the risk of another distraction and waste of time.

In the meantime the EU - who in no way wanted this, or have any control over what's going on - are sitting there as patient as possible, wondering WTF is going on.

Time is something the UK no longer has, they've squandered it.

devnull

josip wrote: »

But if the majority of the people in a country read and are influenced by the likes of the Sun, then don't they get the government they want/deserve?

Similarly for the likes of Fox news and RT.

I see a worringly high number of people believing that RT is a "proper news" outlet, and they will trust it.

Pelvis

What happens if Theresa May resigns? Another election?

Sam Russell

Pelvis wrote: »

What happens if Theresa May resigns? Another election?

A leadership race like Cameron caused, only nastier.

Pelvis

Sam Russell wrote: »

A leadership race like Cameron caused, only nastier.

But won't a new leader just face the same issues considering they still won't hold enough of a majority?

Professor Moriarty

Pelvis wrote: »

What happens if Theresa May resigns? Another election?

Good question. Two things for certain is that it would further weaken Britain's ability to negotiate whike simultaneously wasting more negotiating time. Neither is in Britain's interest but the country's interests has always taken a back seat to the Tory party's interests.

Leroy42

Pelvis wrote: »

But won't a new leader just face the same issues considering they still won't hold enough of a majority?

Yes, which is the reason why no-one has actually called her to resign. In normal circumstances, ie without Brexit hanging over their heads, the 'performance' of May in the election would have been more than enough for her to be gone the next morning. In fact, many political commentators expected that.

It didn't happen, not because the Tory have faith in her and are sticking by her, but rather than there is no-one else to take the position, certainly no-one that could unite the party.

So they will attempt to ride it out. Get the Brexit negotiations underway and look at giving themselves some time. add in the signs that the UK economy is starting to feel the effects of both inflation and depression (it has gone from the fastest G7 to the slowest G7) and one would be made to want the gig.

That is why the only real solution is to press restart. Tell EU that the Art 50 has been withdrawn and have another Ref, this time with actual debate. No so much on whether to leave as such, but more on what that should entail.

Of course that won't happen as it would need Tories to admit the clusterf23k they made of the whole thing. And country may be important but not more than having to admit to a mistake.

Fratton Fred

Pelvis wrote: »

But won't a new leader just face the same issues considering they still won't hold enough of a majority?

Exactly. TM resigning now won't solve anything, it will just make things worse. Whilst she isn't obviously the ideal choice, she seems to currently be the lesser of several evils.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good question. Two things for certain is that it would further weaken Britain's ability to negotiate whike simultaneously wasting more negotiating time. Neither is in Britain's interest but the country's interests has always taken a back seat to the Tory party's interests.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Exactly. TM resigning now won't solve anything, it will just make things worse. Whilst she isn't obviously the ideal choice, she seems to currently be the lesser of several evils.

I'm not so sure. It is difficult to underestimate just how damaged May is by all of this. Both domestically and internationally she is beyond repair.

Why would the EU be bothered about negotiating with May when they know she is not going to last. Why would Tory members be worried about keeping in line when they know she is not going to last.

It is true that it is a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. IMO, it is slightly worse keeping her on, but hard to say how much

Ludo

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is why the only real solution is to press restart. Tell EU that the Art 50 has been withdrawn and have another Ref, this time with actual debate. No so much on whether to leave as such, but more on what that should entail.

Of course that won't happen as it would need Tories to admit the clusterf23k they made of the whole thing. And country may be important but not more than having to admit to a mistake.

So so true. It is an absolute mess and they have no idea how to get out of the corner they've boxed themselves into.

Chips Lovell

The first step of getting out of a corner you've painted yourself into is realising what you've done. I don't think there is any great realisation yet.

Harika

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good question. Two things for certain is that it would further weaken Britain's ability to negotiate whike simultaneously wasting more negotiating time. Neither is in Britain's interest but the country's interests has always taken a back seat to the Tory party's interests.

The UK has now only bad choices ahead of them, they can let Theresa go on and hope that the EU doesn't realise how weak she is and that her party is just waiting to get rid of her, as I think the Torries realise that another election will mean a Labour majority
Or Boris can take control and sit out until after the Brexit and then call another election
Or surrender the keys to Jeremy Corbyn

Most likely scenario is, that the Torries will rally behind May and after Brexit has taken place, call for elections with a new leadership. And based on their track record the Brexit deal will be bad for everyone, not like a compromise where no one is happy, what is an indication of a good compromise, but a bad deal UK and Europe will choke on for years.

Fratton Fred

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Boris Johnson and Farage were championing the Australian points system as a solid way to get qualified medical workers into the UK with the typical "if it worked for them it will work for us" nonsense.

What surprised me most about that argument was the lack of bite back from any of the media. They never brought up how doctors and nurses in the UK are working longer hours for less pay and in horrible conditions with second rate medical equipment and outdated computer software, especially when compared with Australia. Yet they all seemed to think that people would still flock to work in the NHS simply because it was "such a great and unique institution".

Some of them appear to still be stuck in the 60s believing that the NHS is just inherently better than every other countries healthcare system just because it was the first single payer system to exist.

have you ever been in an NHS hospital?

Fratton Fred

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not so sure. It is difficult to underestimate just how damaged May is by all of this. Both domestically and internationally she is beyond repair.

Why would the EU be bothered about negotiating with May when they know she is not going to last. Why would Tory members be worried about keeping in line when they know she is not going to last.

It is true that it is a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. IMO, it is slightly worse keeping her on, but hard to say how much

the eu will negotiate with May, because they are obliged to negotiate with May. She is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Unless of course, you are advocating that they start some sort of diplomatic incident?

cml387

I would guess this "Delaying the queen's speech" thing is to put pressure on the DUP for a deal.

Leroy42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the eu will negotiate with May, because they are obliged to negotiate with May. She is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Unless of course, you are advocating that they start some sort of diplomatic incident?

Of course they will negotiate, but how is the question. Edit - Apologies, I reread my original post and I misworded it. I didn't mean they wouldn't talk to her, I meant negotiate in terms of back and forth bargaining

UK are looking to get special treatment in terms of a soft border, free of movement, Financial Passport etc.

Do you really think the EU are more inclined to accept these positions when they know that no matter what May will probably not get any deal through the HoC. So why bother. Hold firm, they already know the worst outcome is WTO rules which will place significant problems for the UK.

And at the very core EU is a idealogy, and one that France and Germany are very keen to protect at all costs. They basically threw Ireland and Greece to the wolves to protect their idea, why does the UK, now in an even weaker position than this time last year, think that the EU will be prepared to give in on anything.

laugh

cml387 wrote: »

I would guess this "Delaying the queen's speech" thing is to put pressure on the DUP for a deal.

Apparently it needs to be perfect because it's written in ink on goats skin and takes 3 day to dry.

cml387

laugh wrote: »

Apparently it needs to be perfect because it's written in ink on goats skin and takes 3 day to dry.

No longer goatskin. But posh paper.

Fratton Fred

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course they will negotiate, but how is the question. Edit - Apologies, I reread my original post and I misworded it. I didn't mean they wouldn't talk to her, I meant negotiate in terms of back and forth bargaining

UK are looking to get special treatment in terms of a soft border, free of movement, Financial Passport etc.

Do you really think the EU are more inclined to accept these positions when they know that no matter what May will probably not get any deal through the HoC. So why bother. Hold firm, they already know the worst outcome is WTO rules which will place significant problems for the UK.

And at the very core EU is a idealogy, and one that France and Germany are very keen to protect at all costs. They basically threw Ireland and Greece to the wolves to protect their idea, why does the UK, now in an even weaker position than this time last year, think that the EU will be prepared to give in on anything.

WTO terms will hurt both parties, no one wants that.

Any deal is as likely to get through the HoC with Theresa May as PM as it is with any other person put in front of them.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not so sure. It is difficult to underestimate just how damaged May is by all of this. Both domestically and internationally she is beyond repair.

Why would the EU be bothered about negotiating with May when they know she is not going to last. Why would Tory members be worried about keeping in line when they know she is not going to last.

It is true that it is a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. IMO, it is slightly worse keeping her on, but hard to say how much

The problem is that the remainers within the Tory party have been reinvigorated and emboldened by her poor showing. Appointing Gove (a Brexiteer) and Green (Pro-Europe) shows how she is desperately trying to shore up the fault line.

A leadership contest now will only deepen and widen the split. They'll have to limp on with a wounded May at the helm. However, an opportunistic Boris (who stabbed Cameron in the back) could make a play again. Either way, their mask has slipped and they have been exposed as incompetent and deluded Little Englanders who placed party before country.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

WTO terms will hurt both parties, no one wants that.

Any deal is as likely to get through the HoC with Theresa May as PM as it is with any other person put in front of them.

The deal has to get through 27 EU national parliaments and possibly some regional parliaments as well though.

laugh

cml387 wrote: »

No longer goatskin. But posh paper.

The Gracious Speech was historically written on vellum with ink that takes three days to dry, although is is now written on thick goatskin parchment paper which also needs several days to dry, meaning a speech cannot be amended last minute.

From the Guardian.

Professor Moriarty

laugh wrote: »

From the Guardian.

So they adhere to anachronistic beliefs and procedures that have no relevance to modern times and current circumstances. Kind of sums up their negotiating strategy.

josip

laugh wrote: »

The Gracious Speech was historically written on vellum with ink that takes three days to dry, although is is now written on thick goatskin parchment paper which also needs several days to dry, meaning a speech cannot be amended last minute.

From the Guardian.

Farcical for a country whose core business sector deals in milliseconds.

Sam Russell

josip wrote: »

Farcical for a country whose core business sector deals in milliseconds.

Still takes three days for a cheque to clear.

cml387

laugh wrote: »

From the Guardian.

Last word on the goat?

ArmaniJeanss

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So they adhere to anachronistic beliefs and procedures that have no relevance to modern times and current circumstances. Kind of sums up their negotiating strategy.

It appears anachronistic alright - though it could be argued for recording purposes that goatskin&velium is known to last 100s of years whereas an alternative of say scanning a typed document onto modern CD/DVD may only be expected to last 40/50 years before degrading.
So maybe in this case the old way is better?

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

WTO terms will hurt both parties, no one wants that.

Theresa May wants it apparently as she said no deal was better than a bad deal.
She is still saying she expects the EU to negotiate trade at the same time as the Brexit divorce. Is she this clueless or has she not caught on that no-one is buying her lies anymore.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Theresa May wants it apparently as she said no deal was better than a bad deal.
She is still saying she expects the EU to negotiate trade at the same time as the Brexit divorce. Is she this clueless or has she not caught on that no-one is buying her lies anymore.

saying that getting punched in the face is better than kicked in the bollocks doesn't mean someone wants to be punched in the face, does it :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It appears anachronistic alright - though it could be argued for recording purposes that goatskin&velium is known to last 100s of years whereas an alternative of say scanning a typed document onto modern CD/DVD may only be expected to last 40/50 years before degrading.
So maybe in this case the old way is better?

I can't see how to be honest. I'm not an expert but I would have thought that electronic storage and/or microfilm would last equally long if not longer.

josip

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I can't see how to be honest. I'm not an expert but I would have thought that electronic storage and/or microfilm would last equally long if not longer.

Some possible answers here.
Digital storage is useless if the means to read it no longer exists.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I can't see how to be honest. I'm not an expert but I would have thought that electronic storage and/or microfilm would last equally long if not longer.

I would hazard a guess and say there is also an electronic version available:D

I'm pretty sure Westminster has an internal phone system, but Black Rod will still get sent to summons the House of Commons, only for the door to be slammed in his face. You'd think he would get the hint by now