Rather more seriously than the ones who got us into this position in the first place.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually campaigned on the positives of EU membership, the result of the referendum may have been different.
The problem was that the positive argument for not leaving in the EU isn't particularly inspiring, being, basically: life will continue in roughly the same vein. It's similar to the positive argument for not jumping off a cliff or not burning your own house down.
Nope. The positive arguments for EU membership, not the arguments for not leaving.
The referendum result was what it was, because those in favour of EU membership couldn’t articulate to the general public why that was so.
If your life is sh!t you’ll vote to roll the dice, such is human nature. And for huge numbers of the general population, life is pretty sh!t right now.
The "contract" that was signed involved benefits from the EU in exchange for money from the UK for the budget. They want to stop the benefits so they can't expect payment in full for something they aren't going to provide . Come on it's not exactly rocket science.
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
Maybe. But we are where we are. The Tories have led the UK into a position in which it has no good options. There is the bad option of paying loads of cash to the EU and the worse option of leaving without a deal. There are no other options.
The Tories? I think you'll find that succesive Governments since the seventies have led the UK into a position where Brexit is far from easy. But partly because of Governments taking that approach - ever closer union by stealth, without a democratic mandate - the people have said "we want out" at the first opportunity they were given.
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying.
Yes of course. If the EU demands more than the likely cost of a no-deal Brexit then it would not be worth paying. But the cost of a no-deal Brexit would be far greater than any of the numbers currently being banded about as possible sums that might have to be paid. And the EU knows this.
It is not a cost that would be borne solely by the UK though. A UK walking away with no cheque handed over immediately throws the EU into a budget crisis. Plus it massivley dimishes the economic credibility of the EU with the rest of the world.
The EU does not hold all the cards.
Yes it is true that if the UK walks away and shoots itself in the head the bullet is also likely to hit the EU in the foot. But the UK will be mortally wounded. The EU will recover.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually campaigned on the positives of EU membership, the result of the referendum may have been different.
Yes -- look at the turnaround in Sindyref when after weeks of "too wee, too poor, too stupid" from the official campaign, Gordon Brown intervened to make a positive case for the union. Too many of our politicians seem to have forgotten that voters need to be inspired. Even Donald Trump, while scapegoating practically everyone, held out the positive vision of more jobs and making America great again.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
.
We've been called out on an emergency and want to take our takeaway with us understandably. They want to keep all the curry for themselves and for us to pay the bill in full.
But we haven't though, have we? We've decided to sod off.
Yes we've decided to leave and take what we've paid for with us or if they won't let us then not pay anything towards the bill. It's not unreasonable in the slightest.
You don't get to walk out of a contract half way through and then say "well I'm not getting the benefits any more, so I'm not paying". You agreed that, you might be able to negotiate some form of exit bill that's lower, but you can't say "Sorry, not paying you a penny" and walk off - especially if you are reliant on negotiating a new deal afterwards, which we are.
The delusions of Brexiteers have betrayed Britain's national interest by putting us in a negotiation where we were always going to be at that disadvantage. It's dafter, in many ways than the xenophobic case for Brexit. Stop immigrants and damn the consequences at least makes sense on its own terms. Welching on a comprehensive free trade agreement in the name of national interest and free trade and then demanding other countries act in your interest and help you out rather than enforcing obligations and interests really doesn't.
This is a contract which you can terminate at any time, by giving two years' notice. Generally speaking, you don't pay after the period of notice has expired.
Now, I can see that there is merit in offering more than we are legally obliged to pay in order to obtain concessions in other areas, but let's not pretend that the UK is breaching any of its treaty obligations.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually campaigned on the positives of EU membership, the result of the referendum may have been different.
Yes -- look at the turnaround in Sindyref when after weeks of "too wee, too poor, too stupid" from the official campaign, Gordon Brown intervened to make a positive case for the union. Too many of our politicians seem to have forgotten that voters need to be inspired. Even Donald Trump, while scapegoating practically everyone, held out the positive vision of more jobs and making America great again.
Do you think you'd be open to change your mind if we had more inspiring pro-European leadership instead of the Cameron EU-lite offering?
Devaluation did not occur until September 1949 and in the same year there was the'bonfire of controls' announced - I think - by Harold Wilson as President of the Board of Trade.The Attlee Government also had a massive domestic programme as reflected in establishing the NHS and expanding the Welfare State.
My point was not that they didn't have an ambitious domestic programme. They clearly did. My point was that it came at a very substantial cost elsewhere which your earlier post had not considered. Bread first rationed and then increased in price by 50% being one example.
I am not making a judgement on whether that was wise or not - merely saying it was a choice, and one that cost them badly.
But almost regardless of domestic priorities, the continuation of Direct Controls and high levels of taxation was essential during that period to prevent pent up demand leading to a repeat of the inflation and subsequent bust experienced in the aftermath of World War1. Reconstruction was a priority and it inevitably took time to restore the economy to a peacetime footing.
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
Maybe. But we are where we are. The Tories have led the UK into a position in which it has no good options. There is the bad option of paying loads of cash to the EU and the worse option of leaving without a deal. There are no other options.
Precisely. Although Coppersulphate appears not to understand how contracts or the EU bill works. If I sign up to a two year phone contract which I decide, of my own volition, to terminate after 6 months I have to pay off the contract. Similar for rent. I might, depending on the situation, be able to buy it out for a reduced fee, but if I've signed up to make financial obligations in return for certain benefits, me voluntarily giving up those benefits doesn't void my obligations. I could of course refuse to pay - but they're unlikely to be keen on dealing with me any time soon, and we could end up in court. On the EU, it's not just one big bill that they say we owe, but a variety of commitments. There are budget commitments including for projects, funds and agencies, which are the major point of contention but also the most easily negotiable - on some the UK may keep the benefits, say by staying under the umbrella of the EU drugs agency - on others our contribution maybe waived as par of a negotiation. Then there's pensions, which we're on the hook for whether we like it or not. You can't agree to fund a pension scheme then pull out. Finally, there's one offs such as the bailout contingencies provided to back Ireland when it looked screwed. We could pull out of these, if we were prepared to poison future relations and have other countries doubting we'd meet any future commitments we made.
From the EU's point of view they'd obviously like us to pay in full, and as a starting point that's what they want and are perfectly entitled to ask for, just as we're entitled to say "no" and see where it gets us. That's how a negotiation works. Each side has its starting position and your relative strength determines where you end up. And therein lies the problem - we need a deal much more than they do given what crashing out would do to the economy, so we're not in a very good position to bargain that bill down. That's what, at some point, is going to have to be explained to Tory MPs still living in fantasy land.
"People wanted to leave" isn't a legitimate answer, it's a child's, or a hardcore Brexiteers' which appears to be the same thing at the moment. People were lied to about the consequences. Throwing a tantrum about those consequences when they are spelled out doesn't make them go away.
Maybe. But we are where we are. The Tories have led the UK into a position in which it has no good options. There is the bad option of paying loads of cash to the EU and the worse option of leaving without a deal. There are no other options.
Precisely. Although Coppersulphate appears not to understand how contracts or the EU bill works. If I sign up to a two year phone contract which I decide, of my own volition, to terminate after 6 months I have to pay off the contract. Similar for rent. I might, depending on the situation, be able to buy it out for a reduced fee, but if I've signed up to make financial obligations in return for certain benefits, me voluntarily giving up those benefits doesn't void my obligations. I could of course refuse to pay - but they're unlikely to be keen on dealing with me any time soon, and we could end up in court. On the EU, it's not just one big bill that they say we owe, but a variety of commitments. There are budget commitments including for projects, funds and agencies, which are the major point of contention but also the most easily negotiable - on some the UK may keep the benefits, say by staying under the umbrella of the EU drugs agency - on others our contribution maybe waived as par of a negotiation. Then there's pensions, which we're on the hook for whether we like it or not. You can't agree to fund a pension scheme then pull out. Finally, there's one offs such as the bailout contingencies provided to back Ireland when it looked screwed. We could pull out of these, if we were prepared to poison future relations and have other countries doubting we'd meet any future commitments we made.
some point, is going to have to be explained to Tory MPs still living in fantasy land.
"People wanted to leave" isn't a legitimate answer, it's a child's, or a hardcore Brexiteers' which appears to be the same thing at the moment. People were lied to about the consequences. Throwing a tantrum about those consequences when they are spelled out doesn't make them go away.
Respectfully, you are misunderstanding how a contact works.
If a contract provides for termination by notice, then one is not in breach of that contract by exercising that notice clause. One is liable to pay up during the period of notice, but not thereafter, The other party may have made all kinds of future commitments in the belief that you would not exercise the notice clause, and that he could rely on the revenue which you provided, but that is not your problem, in law.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually campaigned on the positives of EU membership, the result of the referendum may have been different.
Yes -- look at the turnaround in Sindyref when after weeks of "too wee, too poor, too stupid" from the official campaign, Gordon Brown intervened to make a positive case for the union. Too many of our politicians seem to have forgotten that voters need to be inspired. Even Donald Trump, while scapegoating practically everyone, held out the positive vision of more jobs and making America great again.
Do you think you'd be open to change your mind if we had more inspiring pro-European leadership instead of the Cameron EU-lite offering?
I think that those in favour of EU membership failed to make their case. For me personally the tipping point was ‘Dave’s Deal’ that was a lump of coal he said was a lump of gold. Until that point I’d been a huge Cameron fan, he lost a huge number of supporters that day.
Good article Nick. As you suggest, the key to election wins is to reassure voters of your principal opponent that it’s safe to switch. Witness the hard work in opposition by both Blair and Cameron. I think that Corbyn still has a long way to go when it comes to attracting Tories to vote for him though.
There are a large number of people who have a very different view of Corbyn and McDonnell than I have. Nevertheless I really believe that they are highly comittted socialists infliuenced by Marxism. Their nerve may not hold but I believe that they see forming a government as a once in a life time opportunity to achieve a one-way socialist transformation of society in an economically advanced country. In their view this has never occured before so all the counter exampes like Venezuela or Russia are irrelevant to them. This also explain why, although highly moral in overall purpose, they are amoral insuch matters as supporting anti-Western forces and making misleading commitments about student loans. Whether we would experience a semi-comic farce or a terrible tragedy would epend on the political and parliamentary forces when/if they got power. What on earth are the Labour Social Democrats doing??
"Nicola’s party got smashed on June 8th and isn’t going to put its remaining 35 MPs at risk by doing anything that would facilitate an early election."
I would hate pb'ers to get carried away with the idea that the SNP is a spent force. 35 MP's out of the 56 Scottish seats is better support than Theresa May has, and the three full scale Scottish polls since the GE show increased support. The latest one, from YouGov, on the 9th October, has:
SNP 40% (+3) Labour 30% (+3) Conservatives 23% (-6) Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
The really delusional part of the above quote is to assert that the SNP would support the Tories in any way or abstain in a confidence vote. The only reason why they abstained in the vote for the recent GE was that everyone thought it would lead to an increased Tory majority, and nobody thinks that now. If it comes to a vote, don't expect the SNP to sit on its hands.
At GE15 the SNP won 56 of the 59 Scottsh seats with 50% of the Scottish vote.
On June 18th they lost 21 of those seats and the ones they retain almost all have very small majorities. The biggest SNP vote in ny seat is 46.7% and the overall average vote share was 36.7%
This was a terrible election for the party.
Labour are in the best position to capitalise
A radical Corbyn government relying on Scottish MPs for its majority will lead to revolution in England against Labour and against the Union.
"Nicola’s party got smashed on June 8th and isn’t going to put its remaining 35 MPs at risk by doing anything that would facilitate an early election."
I would hate pb'ers to get carried away with the idea that the SNP is a spent force. 35 MP's out of the 56 Scottish seats is better support than Theresa May has, and the three full scale Scottish polls since the GE show increased support. The latest one, from YouGov, on the 9th October, has:
SNP 40% (+3) Labour 30% (+3) Conservatives 23% (-6) Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
The really delusional part of the above quote is to assert that the SNP would support the Tories in any way or abstain in a confidence vote. The only reason why they abstained in the vote for the recent GE was that everyone thought it would lead to an increased Tory majority, and nobody thinks that now. If it comes to a vote, don't expect the SNP to sit on its hands.
At GE15 the SNP won 56 of the 59 Scottsh seats with 50% of the Scottish vote.
On June 18th they lost 21 of those seats and the ones they retain almost all have very small majorities. The biggest SNP vote in ny seat is 46.7% and the overall average vote share was 36.7%
This was a terrible election for the party.
Labour are in the best position to capitalise
A radical Corbyn government relying on Scottish MPs for its majority will lead to revolution in England against Labour and against the Union.
I don't think you have to worry about Corbyn relying on Scottish Labour MP's, the Tories and what's left of the LibDems in England and Wales have problems of their own.
Comments
The referendum result was what it was, because those in favour of EU membership couldn’t articulate to the general public why that was so.
If your life is sh!t you’ll vote to roll the dice, such is human nature. And for huge numbers of the general population, life is pretty sh!t right now.
Now, I can see that there is merit in offering more than we are legally obliged to pay in order to obtain concessions in other areas, but let's not pretend that the UK is breaching any of its treaty obligations.
From the EU's point of view they'd obviously like us to pay in full, and as a starting point that's what they want and are perfectly entitled to ask for, just as we're entitled to say "no" and see where it gets us. That's how a negotiation works. Each side has its starting position and your relative strength determines where you end up. And therein lies the problem - we need a deal much more than they do given what crashing out would do to the economy, so we're not in a very good position to bargain that bill down. That's what, at some point, is going to have to be explained to Tory MPs still living in fantasy land.
"People wanted to leave" isn't a legitimate answer, it's a child's, or a hardcore Brexiteers' which appears to be the same thing at the moment. People were lied to about the consequences. Throwing a tantrum about those consequences when they are spelled out doesn't make them go away.
If a contract provides for termination by notice, then one is not in breach of that contract by exercising that notice clause. One is liable to pay up during the period of notice, but not thereafter, The other party may have made all kinds of future commitments in the belief that you would not exercise the notice clause, and that he could rely on the revenue which you provided, but that is not your problem, in law.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/10/jeremy-corbyns-2017-performance-was-better-you-think