I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
That’s utter bollocks, and you know it. The Conservatives have always neglected institutional control in achieving change. They are far more naive about the nature of power than the far left.
Under the Tories we have:
1) a state broadcaster that appoints ex-Labour MPs to executive posts
2) an utter failure to stop the carousel of left-leaning quangocrats that infest public institutions (see Sir Bob Kerslake)
3) no voter ID
4) state funding for trade unions.
The Tories are a bunch of lambs on this stuff. If Corbyn gets in, they will be slaughtered.
The Tories have not directly controlled the press, and quangos because they are happy to let their wealthy private friends do so. Ditto their willingness to let unaccountable millionaires of dubious character finance political campaigns.
The United Kingdom. Can we all at least agree that Wales isn't a component nation? England plus Scotland = Great Britain + Ireland = the United Kingdom. There is a reason there isn't a Welsh bit on the flag - Wales is part of England already...
The United Kingdom. Can we all at least agree that Wales isn't a component nation? England plus Scotland = Great Britain + Ireland = the United Kingdom. There is a reason there isn't a Welsh bit on the flag - Wales is part of England already...
As Britain’s government pursues the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable, a succession of Leavers queue up to warn gravely about the alternative. One does not need to be a fan of Jeremy Corbyn to goggle at this sight.
If you want damaging policies and cackhandedness then Jeremy Corbyn will have plenty to offer. One does not need to be a fan of Brexit to realise that.
Unfortunately we are enduring your preferred lunatic policy and implementation first. The theoretical disadvantages of other lunatic policies is not of such immediate concern.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
That’s utter bollocks, and you know it. The Conservatives have always neglected institutional control in achieving change. They are far more naive about the nature of power than the far left.
Under the Tories we have:
1) a state broadcaster that appoints ex-Labour MPs to executive posts
2) an utter failure to stop the carousel of left-leaning quangocrats that infest public institutions (see Sir Bob Kerslake)
3) no voter ID
4) state funding for trade unions.
The Tories are a bunch of lambs on this stuff. If Corbyn gets in, they will be slaughtered.
The Tories have not directly controlled the press, and quangos because they are happy to let their wealthy private friends do so. Ditto their willingness to let unaccountable millionaires of dubious character finance political campaigns.
If you think the ‘wealthy private friends’ of leading Tories run quangos, you clearly have no idea who actually runs them. Your comment about millionaires is a nice reminder that at the route of socialism is the horrible feeling that somebody, somewhere is doing better than you, and that’s not OK. Much better that we have mediocrity (or in Venezuela poverty) for all.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
You would be happy with 'end of the free press'?! I don't think Corbyn could do away with it in a term if he were to try, but it is in the list you just thought was great.
No, I do not want the end of a free press, but banning foreign ownership of newspapers and broadcasting would be fine by me.
I thought you were in favour of free movement of services.
I suspect that in the internet age newspapers and broadcasters are increasingly obsolete, but national regulation is not a left wing idea. Murdoch became American in order to become a US broadcaster for instance.
I don't think that I have ever advocated free movement of services btw. I would be quite averse to foreign ownership of privatised parts of the welfare state for example.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
You would be happy with 'end of the free press'?! I don't think Corbyn could do away with it in a term if he were to try, but it is in the list you just thought was great.
No, I do not want the end of a free press, but banning foreign ownership of newspapers and broadcasting would be fine by me.
That is a naive view of how the modern media world works. The internet mean that the idea of national borders with regards to the flow of news/information/fake news is obsolete.
Unless you want to follow the examples of oppressive regimes that seek to restrict access to the internet.
"One of the most popular shows on Venezuelan TV had to be pulled off the air because its title had become a national embarrassment. Who Wants to be a Millionaire, based on the British programme, had been running for 17 years, but by the time the final episode played out the top prize, which had already been doubled to two million bolivars, was worth less than £1,500. So brutal has this country’s inflation been since then that, last week, the contestants would have been competing for a jackpot of 13 pence."
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Agree with your first line, but I'm intrigued by how Europe is buggered too if Corbyn takes power. It'd be a great opportunity for them, especially if we have left.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
If it is true, it’s the wrong way round. Corbyn’s ideas need to be intellectually and democratically defeated in open political combat.
It isn’t sufficient to shroud protections in treaties, and then say “can’t”. If we did we might risk an even bigger democratic blowback later. Arguably, it was just such a response on immigration that led to the vote to Leave the EU in the first place.
A big reason for me is that politicians - particularly Conservative ones - are out of touch (and I mean serious give-a-shit and want-to-do-something-about-it touch, not the cliche of faux listening and soundbites) with the concerns of everyday people and have both lost the ability to think from first principles, and have the courage to follow through on that thinking.
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
Agreed. But we’re going to get Brexit. And if we end up getting a crash out Brexit followed by Corbyn I really worry about what this will mean. So I would rather have some protections than none.
So you should be happy(ish) with Chequers then?
It will commit the UK to similar standards in a number of areas, whilst giving more freedom in services, more control over immigration and an end to political union.
If we are going to have FoM in all but name and have to follow EU rules for goods we may as well be in. We lose our market for services, which is very important for the economy, we have to have rules without any say in them, which is daft, and those who care about FoM (I personally don’t have an issue with it) don’t get their way. So it seems quite a bit worse than what we had.
It’s better than no-deal or a crash out deal, certainly.
Personally, I would ask for a lengthy pause while we did what we should have done before the referendum and certainly before the Art 50 letter ie work out a proper, practical, well-thought out route to what Brexit should be and do it in the interests of as much of the country as possible.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
Conservatives who care about the national interest should ponder just how uncomfortable a second referendum would make Corbyn.
@RoyalBlue - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
A second referendum between the withdrawal agreement and Remain would be a strategic disaster for Corbyn and his acolytes. He wouldn't be able to use a crisis to try to force a GE. He wouldn't be able to maintain his ambiguous stance without getting it in the neck from his party.
On the Conservative side it would mean you'd either get a specific mandate for the plan, or you'd get a mandate to Remain so it would finally force the party to unite in a way the 2016 result wasn't able to.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
That’s utter bollocks, and you know it. The Conservatives have always neglected institutional control in achieving change. They are far more naive about the nature of power than the far left.
Under the Tories we have:
1) a state broadcaster that appoints ex-Labour MPs to executive posts
2) an utter failure to stop the carousel of left-leaning quangocrats that infest public institutions (see Sir Bob Kerslake)
3) no voter ID
4) state funding for trade unions.
The Tories are a bunch of lambs on this stuff. If Corbyn gets in, they will be slaughtered.
The Tories have not directly controlled the press, and quangos because they are happy to let their wealthy private friends do so. Ditto their willingness to let unaccountable millionaires of dubious character finance political campaigns.
If you think the ‘wealthy private friends’ of leading Tories run quangos, you clearly have no idea who actually runs them. Your comment about millionaires is a nice reminder that at the route of socialism is the horrible feeling that somebody, somewhere is doing better than you, and that’s not OK. Much better that we have mediocrity (or in Venezuela poverty) for all.
I don't think that it is just Corbynites who find Aaron Banks funding of UKIP and Brexit more than a little bit dubious. As a Lib Dem I would like to see individuals capped at much lower donation levels.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
You would be happy with 'end of the free press'?! I don't think Corbyn could do away with it in a term if he were to try, but it is in the list you just thought was great.
No, I do not want the end of a free press, but banning foreign ownership of newspapers and broadcasting would be fine by me.
I thought you were in favour of free movement of services.
I suspect that in the internet age newspapers and broadcasters are increasingly obsolete, but national regulation is not a left wing idea. Murdoch became American in order to become a US broadcaster for instance.
I don't think that I have ever advocated free movement of services btw. I would be quite averse to foreign ownership of privatised parts of the welfare state for example.
Ah apologies. I thought you voted to Remain.
The US believes very strongly in a free press. Not the example one would look to for press censorship, even if they have nationality requirements.
Conservatives who care about the national interest should ponder just how uncomfortable a second referendum would make Corbyn.
@RoyalBlue - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
A second referendum between the withdrawal agreement and Remain would be a strategic disaster for Corbyn and his acolytes. He wouldn't be able to use a crisis to try to force a GE. He wouldn't be able to maintain his ambiguous stance without getting it in the neck from his party.
On the Conservative side it would mean you'd either get a specific mandate for the plan, or you'd get a mandate to Remain so it would finally force the party to unite in a way the 2016 result wasn't able to.
Hi williamglenn,
Good question. I think the point where your theory falls down is that there will be no way to motivate the Tory vote at the next general election if we end up remaining in the EU. Something like 75% of our supporters are Leavers, and lots would defect if the referendum result is not delivered. We will not be thanked by Remainers for delivering a second referendum, so we will definitely suffer a net loss of votes.
Brexit is a bigger issue for Tory than Labour voters. Failure on this issue would depress our vote more than Labour’s, getting them over the line. That’s why a referendum with Remain as an option is a non-starter as long as we have a Tory Government.
The Labour Party in Parliament being angry at Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t matter, as the chicken coup and no confidence votes showed. The party in the country won’t ditch him, and they’re the ones that matter.
A more interesting question would be whether a deal vs no deal referendum would be good for the Conservatives. I see several attractions.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A pointless argument: anti-semitism isn’t the prerogative of the left or right. It comes from both and doubtless some of those sending such tweets are not Corbynites. They are all revolting, whatever party they support.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
We could have given her a mandate, but giving her a modicum of competence was beyond our power
Conservatives who care about the national interest should ponder just how uncomfortable a second referendum would make Corbyn.
@RoyalBlue - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
A second referendum between the withdrawal agreement and Remain would be a strategic disaster for Corbyn and his acolytes. He wouldn't be able to use a crisis to try to force a GE. He wouldn't be able to maintain his ambiguous stance without getting it in the neck from his party.
On the Conservative side it would mean you'd either get a specific mandate for the plan, or you'd get a mandate to Remain so it would finally force the party to unite in a way in hours if the 2016 result wasn't able to.
Corbyn would do the same as he did last time, spend a month tending his allotment and visiting Palestinian ‘friends’.
Oh, and the PM would be gone in hours at the hands of her own MPs, if she even thought about suggesting another Brexit referendum. It’s not going to happen.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
We could have given her a mandate, but giving her a modicum of competence was beyond our power
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
When you get to that level of fuckwittery, left and right become rather meaningless. Which is why certain groups got it in the neck from both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. They want to hate, and will use their currently-favoured ideology to excuse it.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
London property prices are falling, Richard. That alone constitutes a calamity on the scale of the Black Death.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A pointless argument: anti-semitism isn’t the prerogative of the left or right. It comes from both and doubtless some of those sending such tweets are not Corbynites. They are all revolting, whatever party they support.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
London property prices are falling, Richard. That alone constitutes a calamity on the scale of the Black Death.
I remember when I once mentioned that falling house prices wasn’t necessarily a disaster. The vitriolic response I got from a generally progressive poster was quite a shock!
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
I think Alastair considers Brexit a moral disaster.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
If it is true, it’s the wrong way round. Corbyn’s ideas need to be intellectually and democratically defeated in open political combat.
It isn’t sufficient to shroud prot
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
Agreed. But we’re going to get Brexit. And if we end up getting a crash out Brexit followed by Corbyn I really worry about what this will mean. So I would rather have some protections than none.
So you should be happy(ish) with Chequers then?
It will commit the UK to similar standards in a number of areas, whilst giving more freedom in services, more control over immigration and an end to political union.
If we are going to have FoM in all but name and have to follow EU rules for goods we may as well be in. We lose our market for services, which is very important for the economy, we have to have rules without any say in them, which is daft, and those who care about FoM (I personally don’t have an issue with it) don’t get their way. So it seems quite a bit worse than what we had.
It’s better than no-deal or a crash out deal, certainly.
Personally, I would ask for a lengthy pause while we did what we should have done before the referendum and certainly before the Art 50 letter ie work out a proper, practical, well-thought out route to what Brexit should be and do it in the interests of as much of the country as possible.
But pigs will fly ......
I disagree with almost all of that, for reasons I’ve laid out here before.
I think Chequers strikes a good strategic balance for the UK.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Agree with your first line, but I'm intrigued by how Europe is buggered too if Corbyn takes power. It'd be a great opportunity for them, especially if we have left.
European nations can’t collectively exert any sort of meaningful military power without the UK. That matters in a world where the US is pulling back inside its borders. The UK and France make up 50% of all its spending. And the balance in security services is even more lopsided.
The EU also relies heavily on the City of London for financial liquidity.
Conservatives who care about the national interest should ponder just how uncomfortable a second referendum would make Corbyn.
@RoyalBlue - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
A second referendum between the withdrawal agreement and Remain would be a strategic disaster for Corbyn and his acolytes. He wouldn't be able to use a crisis to try to force a GE. He wouldn't be able to maintain his ambiguous stance without getting it in the neck from his party.
On the Conservative side it would mean you'd either get a specific mandate for the plan, or you'd get a mandate to Remain so it would finally force the party to unite in a way the 2016 result wasn't able to.
Hi williamglenn,
Good question. I think the point where your theory falls down is that there will be no way to motivate the Tory vote at the next general election if we end up remaining in the EU. Something like 75% of our supporters are Leavers, and lots would defect if the referendum result is not delivered. We will not be thanked by Remainers for delivering a second referendum, so we will definitely suffer a net loss of votes.
Forgive the snip, but I think this last line is the crux of it. One of three things will happen: we will crash out with no deal, we will "leave" with more fudge than one of Mr Wonka's Whipple-Scrumptious Fudge-Mallow Delights, or we will beg the commission for an extension which becomes permanent.
The only deal on offer has been rejected by May at the pressing of people concerned about a net loss of Conservative Votes yet that ultimately is your fate. We crash out and bring about riots because "adequate food" supplies weren't adequate We fudge it and the Daily Fascist et al screech about betrayal We beg an extension, and whoever replaces May faces the Daily Blaskshirt screeching betrayal
In which scenario does the Conservative Party conserve its votes and its reputation? The cake scenario doesn't exist in the real world. The crash out but don't worry the ration books will be blue scenario will wipe you from the political map. The fudged Betrayal will split you in twain with a revitalised ConKIP wiping you out across your heartlands. The long grass please let us talk you into fudge cake option just buys ConKIP more time to find non batshit candidates.
No wonder so much hot air is expelled about the cake option, the Conservative Party is fucked without it.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
If it is true, it’s the wrong way round. Corbyn’s ideas need to be intellectually and democratically defeated in open political combat.
It isn’t sufficient to shroud prot
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
Agreed. But we’re going to get Brexit. And if we end up getting a crash out Brexit followed by Corbyn I really worry about what this will mean. So I would rather have some protections than none.
So you should be happy(ish) with Chequers then?
It will commit the UK to similar standards in a number of areas, whilst giving more freedom in services, more control over immigration and an end to political union.
If we are going to have FoM in all but name and have to follow EU rules for goods we may as well be in. We lose our market for services, which is very important for the economy, we have to have rules without any say in them, which is daft, and those who care about FoM (I personally don’t have an issue with it) don’t get their way. So it seems quite a bit worse than what we had.
It’s better than no-deal or a crash out deal, certainly.
Personally, I would ask for a lengthy pause while we did what we should have done before the referendum and certainly before the Art 50 letter ie work out a proper, practical, well-thought out route to what Brexit should be and do it in the interests of as much of the country as possible.
But pigs will fly ......
I disagree with almost all of that, for reasons I’ve laid out here before.
I think Chequers strikes a good strategic balance for the UK.
I’d encourage everyone to read it in detail.
I’m waiting for the Withdrawal Agreement. Doesn’t make sense to me to pore over something that isn’t final which I can’t change!
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
When you get to that level of fuckwittery, left and right become rather meaningless. Which is why certain groups got it in the neck from both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. They want to hate, and will use their currently-favoured ideology to excuse it.
Someone once pointed out to me that you shouldn't visualise left and right as a linear scale but rather it is more like a clock dial.
If 6 o'clock is the centre 7 and 5 are very soft left and soft right respectively (Blair and Cameron, maybe). Thatcher might be closer to 4 o'clock with Attlee at 8 o'clock. Keep going in both directions and the differences between authoritarian left and right begin to diminish. Eventually you find Stalin and Hitler, both sitting at 12 o'clock.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A pointless argument: anti-semitism isn’t the prerogative of the left or right. It comes from both and doubtless some of those sending such tweets are not Corbynites. They are all revolting, whatever party they support.
"One of the most popular shows on Venezuelan TV had to be pulled off the air because its title had become a national embarrassment. Who Wants to be a Millionaire, based on the British programme, had been running for 17 years, but by the time the final episode played out the top prize, which had already been doubled to two million bolivars, was worth less than £1,500. So brutal has this country’s inflation been since then that, last week, the contestants would have been competing for a jackpot of 13 pence."
@RochdalePioneers - lots of wishful thinking there. There is no variety of Brexit in which anyone will riot because of hunger.
As for the Daily Mail screaming betrayal, is that so likely with their Remainer Old Etonian new editor? I think not. Besides, I think the Tory Party can get away with right-wingers chuntering into their roast beef as long as we have actually left. They will be angry but loyal.
The anger at failing to deliver Brexit at all would be orders of magnitude greater.
Agree it's worrying. Fortunately, one of those is a paper I have never heard of and which probably has a circulation of diddly-squat. The other one is very dangerous however.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Agree with your first line, but I'm intrigued by how Europe is buggered too if Corbyn takes power. It'd be a great opportunity for them, especially if we have left.
European nations can’t collectively exert any sort of meaningful military power without the UK. That matters in a world where the US is pulling back inside its borders. The UK and France make up 50% of all its spending. And the balance in security services is even more lopsided.
The EU also relies heavily on the City of London for financial liquidity.
Corbyn would threaten it all.
Defence has been hacked to pieces by the Conservatives. Brexit threatens the City, and Brexit is also being done by the Conservatives. Nothing to do with Corbyn.
@RochdalePioneers - lots of wishful thinking there. There is no variety of Brexit in which anyone will riot because of hunger.
There is according to the people who know. The food retailers. Manufacturers. Wholesalers. Hauliers. The Ports. HMRC. The government's mid case scenario had food and medicine shortages in Cornwall / Northern Scotland inside a week. Thats what happens when crash Brexit forces the imposition of a border without the multiple years of prep needed.
But what do all the assembled experts with their detailed knowledge of how things work in the real world know? I'm sure you are right and they are wrong.
"One of the most popular shows on Venezuelan TV had to be pulled off the air because its title had become a national embarrassment. Who Wants to be a Millionaire, based on the British programme, had been running for 17 years, but by the time the final episode played out the top prize, which had already been doubled to two million bolivars, was worth less than £1,500. So brutal has this country’s inflation been since then that, last week, the contestants would have been competing for a jackpot of 13 pence."
Agree it's worrying. Fortunately, one of those is a paper I have never heard of and which probably has a circulation of diddly-squat. The other one is very dangerous however.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Agree with your first line, but I'm intrigued by how Europe is buggered too if Corbyn takes power. It'd be a great opportunity for them, especially if we have left.
European nations can’t collectively exert any sort of meaningful military power without the UK. That matters in a world where the US is pulling back inside its borders. The UK and France make up 50% of all its spending. And the balance in security services is even more lopsided.
The EU also relies heavily on the City of London for financial liquidity.
Corbyn would threaten it all.
Defence has been hacked to pieces by the Conservatives. Brexit threatens the City, and Brexit is also being done by the Conservatives. Nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Cyclefree "He seeks to change, possibly very significantly". Change for change's sake? I can't imagine that the staunchest of Corbyn supporters would have him as strong on economics. His would-be-chancellor is only very slightly better. His would be chief-secretary got her GCSE. Even if Corbyn and co were right they couldn't manage the change.
Socialism - the more left you go the worse it gets. Somehow socialists try to balance their failure with the Germany of the 1930s - the party then in charge were 'National Socialists'. Just a different branch of the left.
I'd not defend for a moment the horrible goings on under a small government - India is clearly the place to look there. Personally though the acts of big Government (at the extremes) seem worse.
@RochdalePioneers - lots of wishful thinking there. There is no variety of Brexit in which anyone will riot because of hunger.
There is according to the people who know. The food retailers. Manufacturers. Wholesalers. Hauliers. The Ports. HMRC. The government's mid case scenario had food and medicine shortages in Cornwall / Northern Scotland inside a week. Thats what happens when crash Brexit forces the imposition of a border without the multiple years of prep needed.
But what do all the assembled experts with their detailed knowledge of how things work in the real world know? I'm sure you are right and they are wrong.
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
I am not denying that the initial tweet was left wing anti-semitism, just pointing out that the follow up was alt. right anti semitism.
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A pointless argument: anti-semitism isn’t the prerogative of the left or right. It comes from both and doubtless some of those sending such tweets are not Corbynites. They are all revolting, whatever party they support.
But does anybody suggest that the Conservatives, the LibDems, the Greens - even UKIP for God's sake! - don't take immediate action if/when anti-semitism rears its head?
There's only one party in the UK that drags its feet investigating anti-semitism by its members. For that the Labour Party deserves universal oppprobrium.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
If it is true, it’s the wrong way round. Corbyn’s ideas need to be intellectually and democratically defeated in open political combat.
It isn’t sufficient to shroud prot
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
Agreed. But we’re going to get Brexit. And if we end up getting a crash out Brexit followed by Corbyn I really worry about what this will mean. So I would rather have some protections than none.
So you should be happy(ish) with Chequers then?
It will commit the UK to similar standards in a number of areas, whilst giving more freedom in services, more control over immigration and an end to political union.
If we are going to have FoM in all but name and have to follow EU rules for goods we may as well be in. We lose our market for services, which is very important for the economy, we have to have rules without any say in them, which is daft, and those who care about FoM (I personally don’t have an issue with it) don’t get their way. So it seems quite a bit worse than what we had.
It’s better than no-deal or a crash out deal, certainly.
Personally, I would ask for a lengthy pause while we did what we should have done before the referendum and certainly before the Art 50 letter ie work out a proper, practical, well-thought out route to what Brexit should be and do it in the interests of as much of the country as possible.
But pigs will fly ......
I disagree with almost all of that, for reasons I’ve laid out here before.
I think Chequers strikes a good strategic balance for the UK.
I’d encourage everyone to read it in detail.
I’m waiting for the Withdrawal Agreement. Doesn’t make sense to me to pore over something that isn’t final which I can’t change!
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
Nope. they are predicated on the assumption that the European Union treats the 3rd country border with the UK the same as it treats any other 3rd country border. As it has consistently told us it will.
You seem to be suggesting that the UK border will be wide open with no checks - truly "taking back control". I can assure you that the French will not provide the same level of deferment.
Any industry that relies on imports is clear. It is our trucks stuck in a queue to cross into the EU that does the damage to us. Regardless of what we do.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Agree with your first line, but I'm intrigued by how Europe is buggered too if Corbyn takes power. It'd be a great opportunity for them, especially if we have left.
European nations can’t collectively exert any sort of meaningful military power without the UK. That matters in a world where the US is pulling back inside its borders. The UK and France make up 50% of all its spending. And the balance in security services is even more lopsided.
The EU also relies heavily on the City of London for financial liquidity.
Corbyn would threaten it all.
Defence has been hacked to pieces by the Conservatives. Brexit threatens the City, and Brexit is also being done by the Conservatives. Nothing to do with Corbyn.
@RochdalePioneers - lots of wishful thinking there. There is no variety of Brexit in which anyone will riot because of hunger.
There is according to the people who know. The food retailers. Manufacturers. Wholesalers. Hauliers. The Ports. HMRC. The government's mid case scenario had food and medicine shortages in Cornwall / Northern Scotland inside a week. Thats what happens when crash Brexit forces the imposition of a border without the multiple years of prep needed.
But what do all the assembled experts with their detailed knowledge of how things work in the real world know? I'm sure you are right and they are wrong.
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
No, because we can't unilaterally ensure the free flow of goods in both directions. You could, I suppose, put a ban on any exports to avoid any hold ups in goods coming into the country, but what would that do to the economy?
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
@RochdalePioneers - lots of wishful thinking there. There is no variety of Brexit in which anyone will riot because of hunger.
There is according to the people who know. The food retailers. Manufacturers. Wholesalers. Hauliers. The Ports. HMRC. The government's mid case scenario had food and medicine shortages in Cornwall / Northern Scotland inside a week. Thats what happens when crash Brexit forces the imposition of a border without the multiple years of prep needed.
But what do all the assembled experts with their detailed knowledge of how things work in the real world know? I'm sure you are right and they are wrong.
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
Prices would go up about 10-15% as retailers priced in the cost of longer supply chains and warehousing.
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
Never ceases to anger me how keen you Socialists are when it comes to spending other people’s money; in the case of borrowing unsustainably, spending the money of the next generation...
Prices would go up about 10-15% as retailers priced in the cost of longer supply chains and warehousing.
That’s about it.
You will earn a fortune in consultants fees telling the collected industrial experts who meticulously plan and cost their supply chains every day where they have got it wrong.
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
Nope. they are predicated on the assumption that the European Union treats the 3rd country border with the UK the same as it treats any other 3rd country border. As it has consistently told us it will.
You seem to be suggesting that the UK border will be wide open with no checks - truly "taking back control". I can assure you that the French will not provide the same level of deferment.
Any industry that relies on imports is clear. It is our trucks stuck in a queue to cross into the EU that does the damage to us. Regardless of what we do.
I am clearly talking about emergency measures to ensure food security, rather than a long-term solution. I would never say that unilateral open borders are acceptable in the long term.
The economic damage from an unprepared to jump to 3rd country status is a different issue. Significant economic disruption and currency devaluation? Yes. Hunger and rioting, as you said? No.
Why did you back Leave anyway? You don’t appear to want anything to change.
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
Never ceases to anger me how keen you Socialists are when it comes to spending other people’s money; in the case of borrowing unsustainably, spending the money of the next generation...
Indeed. Which is how we end up with Tory Defence Secretaries selling and scrapping, only to have to go begging the new owners to give them back so we can defend the Falklands. Get defence wrong and we don't have the next generation.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
I think Alastair considers Brexit a moral disaster.
It's a case of First World Problems. On this forum, we range from comfortably off to very rich.
Some people feel the result of the Referendum was a wound to their pride.
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
Nope. they are predicated on the assumption that the European Union treats the 3rd country border with the UK the same as it treats any other 3rd country border. As it has consistently told us it will.
You seem to be suggesting that the UK border will be wide open with no checks - truly "taking back control". I can assure you that the French will not provide the same level of deferment.
Any industry that relies on imports is clear. It is our trucks stuck in a queue to cross into the EU that does the damage to us. Regardless of what we do.
Of course you know the numbers of EU hauliers in the UK far outweighs the number of UK hauliers operating in the EU, and that we import far more than we export.
And that eg supermarkets have a vested interest in hyperbole on this issue?
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
If your party get into power, Russian planes will be parked at British airbases, and we will probably transfer technology to them through one-sided joint ventures (just like the idiotic Attlee government did with jet engines in the 1940s).
Don’t you dare attack another party on defence while Jeremy Corbyn leads yours.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
I think Alastair considers Brexit a moral disaster.
It's a case of First World Problems. On this forum, we range from comfortably off to very rich.
Some people feel the result of the Referendum was a wound to their pride.
I see the normalisation of racism led by people who thought that pandering to xenophobia was an acceptable way of securing a policy driven by their intense emotional dislike of the EU. It will, incidentally, lead to the long term decline of Britain, but that too is an acceptable price from their perspective for the indulgence of their prejudices.
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
Nope. they are predicated on the assumption that the European Union treats the 3rd country border with the UK the same as it treats any other 3rd country border. As it has consistently told us it will.
You seem to be suggesting that the UK border will be wide open with no checks - truly "taking back control". I can assure you that the French will not provide the same level of deferment.
Any industry that relies on imports is clear. It is our trucks stuck in a queue to cross into the EU that does the damage to us. Regardless of what we do.
I am clearly talking about emergency measures to ensure food security, rather than a long-term solution. I would never say that unilateral open borders are acceptable in the long term.
The economic damage from an unprepared to jump to 3rd country status is a different issue. Significant economic disruption and currency devaluation? Yes. Hunger and rioting, as you said? No.
Why did you back Leave anyway? You don’t appear to want anything to change.
Again, your opinion is based on hyperbole. Mine is based on what all of the various industry experts think and what the government's own reports have concluded.
Why vote leave? Because a non Euro non Schengen country can't stay in the European project in the long term. Better to step back into EFTA on our own terms than be flung off when they implement fiscal union.
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
Never ceases to anger me how keen you Socialists are when it comes to spending other people’s money; in the case of borrowing unsustainably, spending the money of the next generation...
Indeed. Which is how we end up with Tory Defence Secretaries selling and scrapping, only to have to go begging the new owners to give them back so we can defend the Falklands. Get defence wrong and we don't have the next generation.
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
Nope. they are predicated on the assumption that the European Union treats the 3rd country border with the UK the same as it treats any other 3rd country border. As it has consistently told us it will.
You seem to be suggesting that the UK border will be wide open with no checks - truly "taking back control". I can assure you that the French will not provide the same level of deferment.
Any industry that relies on imports is clear. It is our trucks stuck in a queue to cross into the EU that does the damage to us. Regardless of what we do.
Oh to be a fly on the wall when Leo Varakdar and J-C Drunker have their conversation about the border across Ireland.
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
The Conservatives' record on defence since 2010 has indeed been terrible. A Labour leader other than Corbyn could make hay.
Its pretty simple. Politicians talk shit. A lot of political rhetoric can exist free from scrutiny, free from having to be tested in the real world. Every now and then rhetoric goes splat against the wall of reality and slides off.
According to the rhetoric no deal Brexit wouldn't be a problem and damn all the people who know its cobblers. I hope vwry much this particular line of rhetoric goes nowhere near the real world. As the government (whose officials aren't as stupid as to listen to politicians) starts to prep how we manage adequate food and get to argue with an industry who patiently tells them how things works, i expect the headlines generated to defer shite talking politicians from continuing to spread their own rhetoric...
These predictions of disaster are all predicated on the assumption that we would enforce controls that led to our own people going hungry.
That’s a curious assumption.
Nope. they are predicated on the assumption that the European Union treats the 3rd country border with the UK the same as it treats any other 3rd country border. As it has consistently told us it will.
You seem to be suggesting that the UK border will be wide open with no checks - truly "taking back control". I can assure you that the French will not provide the same level of deferment.
Any industry that relies on imports is clear. It is our trucks stuck in a queue to cross into the EU that does the damage to us. Regardless of what we do.
I am clearly talking about emergency measures to ensure food security, rather than a long-term solution. I would never say that unilateral open borders are acceptable in the long term.
The economic damage from an unprepared to jump to 3rd country status is a different issue. Significant economic disruption and currency devaluation? Yes. Hunger and rioting, as you said? No.
Why did you back Leave anyway? You don’t appear to want anything to change.
Again, your opinion is based on hyperbole. Mine is based on what all of the various industry experts think and what the government's own reports have concluded.
Why vote leave? Because a non Euro non Schengen country can't stay in the European project in the long term. Better to step back into EFTA on our own terms than be flung off when they implement fiscal union.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said.
Brexit without full control of immigration. A niche taste, but not a unique one on here. Such a prospectus would never have won the referendum.
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
Never ceases to anger me how keen you Socialists are when it comes to spending other people’s money; in the case of borrowing unsustainably, spending the money of the next generation...
Indeed. Which is how we end up with Tory Defence Secretaries selling and scrapping, only to have to go begging the new owners to give them back so we can defend the Falklands. Get defence wrong and we don't have the next generation.
True.
Would Corbyn get it right or wrong?
Well as you know we have to have talks to avoid the horrors of war. Being bezzies with Putin is American policy, so if Jeremy did the same it'd be hard for pro-america Tories to complain.
Funny thing listening to Tories screeching on about what Corbyn may or may not do. Its not Corbyn slashing defence so that Corbyn inherits armed forces with not enough people and not enough ships and inadequate equipment and morale in the gutter. That's the Tories. All well and good denouncing Labour, but when the Tories screw over the armed forces this badly isn't there the teensiest bit of hypocrisy on show...? Just a smidge?
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
The logical conclusion is that by 2017 voters had changed their minds about Brexit and deliberately sabotaged its implementation.
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
Brexit probably is the most damaging policy since the Second World War because it impacts so many areas, all of them negatively. The economy, the UK's international influence, government effectiveness, the Union settlement will all be impacted in the short, medium and long terms. Suez was a one off with.a relatively limited fallout in terms of policy area and time.
We'll see. For now there's no evidence of that; in fact the only new significant piece of information we have is that the economic damage as a result of the uncertainty has been less than expected.
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
... the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable....
Hyperbole, much? Is the economy crashing, like it did in the seventies? Do we have rubbish rotting in the streets because the unions haven't been regulated? Have we engaged in a major war on the basis of a prime ministerial lie? Have we invaded Suez, disastrously? Has the government crashed financial regulation? Do we have the closed shop preventing people from working?
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
I think Alastair considers Brexit a moral disaster.
It's a case of First World Problems. On this forum, we range from comfortably off to very rich.
Some people feel the result of the Referendum was a wound to their pride.
I see the normalisation of racism led by people who thought that pandering to xenophobia was an acceptable way of securing a policy driven by their intense emotional dislike of the EU. It will, incidentally, lead to the long term decline of Britain, but that too is an acceptable price from their perspective for the indulgence of their prejudices.
I think that poorer nations will grow faster than the UK, over the next 50 years or so, as a consequence of globalisation. They'll grow faster than the rest of the West for the same reason. That is, in one sense, decline, but should not result in Western countries suffering a reduced standard of living.
I don't think that racism is more prevalent now than it was when you or I were growing up. WRT anti semitism, I'd say that the casual anti semitism of my youth is less common now, but among the anti semitic minority, a greater proportion are willing to endorse lunatic conspiracy theories.
If Brexit turns out badly, I think one would be looking at something similar to the Barber Boom and Bust, or the Great Financial Crash - things that are nasty, but quite survivable.
Looks like an outlier. Labour and Conservative both up, and a 7 point lead for "right to leave the EU" in the North of England.
Not really that surprising as YouGov also has 49% of C2DE voters thinking we were right to Leave the EU and only 36% thinking we were wrong to Leave.
On the headline voting intention YouGov has 7% of 2017 Tory voters saying they would now vote UKIP but 4% of 2017 Labour voters and 10% of 2017 LD voters saying they would now vote Conservative. 6% of 2017 Labour voters say they would now vote LD
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
The Tories reconciled procurement and force levels with the defence budget. Labour ordered lots of shiny new equipment without worrying how it would be paid for.
Never ceases to entertain me how terrible you Tories are when it comes to national defence. If we need it we need it. You spend the money and stay secure. Not say " we can't afford it" and let Russia or any other threat do what it wants.
Never ceases to anger me how keen you Socialists are when it comes to spending other people’s money; in the case of borrowing unsustainably, spending the money of the next generation...
Indeed. Which is how we end up with Tory Defence Secretaries selling and scrapping, only to have to go begging the new owners to give them back so we can defend the Falklands. Get defence wrong and we don't have the next generation.
True.
Would Corbyn get it right or wrong?
Well as you know we have to have talks to avoid the horrors of war. Being bezzies with Putin is American policy, so if Jeremy did the same it'd be hard for pro-america Tories to complain.
Funny thing listening to Tories screeching on about what Corbyn may or may not do. Its not Corbyn slashing defence so that Corbyn inherits armed forces with not enough people and not enough ships and inadequate equipment and morale in the gutter. That's the Tories. All well and good denouncing Labour, but when the Tories screw over the armed forces this badly isn't there the teensiest bit of hypocrisy on show...? Just a smidge?
I don't back Trump for being bezzies with Putin do you? Are you pleased to defend Corbyn as being no different to Trump?
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
Here’s a short list:
1) relax trade barriers unilaterally for a short period
2) provide banks with cheap funding to provide to supermarkets to stock up with longer-life food stuffs
3) use the Armed Forces to support distribution (as already mooted)
For a socialist, you have a remarkably negative view on the potential of state action.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
Quite. The idea that the purchasing and logistics departments of major retailers will just shrug their shoulders and blame Brexit for the empty shelves is one of the sillier of this year’s silly season stories.
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
It was utterly cack-handed of Mrs May to send the Article 50 letter before she had secured the mandate she needed. That was not down to the voters. That was down to her. She gave away the only real point of leverage Britain had. And for what?
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
The scenario is that the slightest delay in transiting the border creates massive queues which ties up vehicles. We already import from elsewhere - a significant amount of the chicken we eat is from Brazil and Thailand for example. But can't just switch supply. Growing more of our food is something we are going to have to do anyway and is absolutely an ambition regardless. Cant be done by 30th March 2019 though...
Anyway, this is just the food industry. A lot pf other industries which effectively stop if we have a physical border imposed at Calais
I have to take issue with your last paragraph since it commits a fundamental error by inferring that 'the electorate' makes a choice. It does not - 46 million individual voters make an individual choice. It is wrong to treat the electorate as a single sentient being.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
It's a fair point, but the fact still remains that it was bleedin' obvious that the Brexit negotiations required a government with sufficient numbers in parliament to make the necessary decisions without being harried on all sides by people with incompatible red lines and with the PM's personal authority shot to pieces. I can't see how the implementation could be anything other than cack-handed given the parliamentary arithmetic, a point voters should have considered when Theresa May asked for a mandate.
Yes that's fair. I think the narrative in the run-up to the election, with just about every commentator debating how large the Tories' majority would be, left many thinking they could vote with their conscience, regardless of Brexit.
The woeful Tory campaign didn't help either, of course.
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
The scenario is that the slightest delay in transiting the border creates massive queues which ties up vehicles. We already import from elsewhere - a significant amount of the chicken we eat is from Brazil and Thailand for example. But can't just switch supply. Growing more of our food is something we are going to have to do anyway and is absolutely an ambition regardless. Cant be done by 30th March 2019 though...
Anyway, this is just the food industry. A lot pf other industries which effectively stop if we have a physical border imposed at Calais
Do we really import a lot of chicken from Brazil and Thailand? How crazy is that?
Your opinion is based on the idea that a government will follow rules and fail to take actions that would result in the population going hungry, based on faith in bodies many of which have an interest in exaggerating the risks of Brexit. That is far more hyperbolic than anything I have said..
Fascinating. Which rules will they break and what action will they take? Specifically?
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
If the scenario is that the EU will stop exporting food to the UK after 30th March, then suppliers of food will source more food locally and import more food from non EU countries
Quite. The idea that the purchasing and logistics departments of major retailers will just shrug their shoulders and blame Brexit for the empty shelves is one of the sillier of this year’s silly season stories.
Of course they will adapt, given time. But how long does it take for food shortages (even just scarcity of some foods) to destroy the Government's reputation and have a large majority of the electorate denying they ever wanted Brexit?
I rather expected a small avalanche of opposing views when I posted such a thing a few posts ago. Now I hardly imagine that this site is the wellspring of all political argument in the nation, but I had hoped to provoke a response.
It caused me to think. What actually is the mechanism by which insightful political thoughts (not that this was one of them) gain an airing? Where are the forums of debate?
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Agree with your first line, but I'm intrigued by how Europe is buggered too if Corbyn takes power. It'd be a great opportunity for them, especially if we have left.
European nations can’t collectively exert any sort of meaningful military power without the UK. That matters in a world where the US is pulling back inside its borders. The UK and France make up 50% of all its spending. And the balance in security services is even more lopsided.
The EU also relies heavily on the City of London for financial liquidity.
Corbyn would threaten it all.
Defence has been hacked to pieces by the Conservatives. Brexit threatens the City, and Brexit is also being done by the Conservatives. Nothing to do with Corbyn.
So we should cut off our face to spite our nose?
We should stop blaming fantasy Corbyn governments for the actions of the current and previous Conservative governments.
Comments
I don't think that I have ever advocated free movement of services btw. I would be quite averse to foreign ownership of privatised parts of the welfare state for example.
Unless you want to follow the examples of oppressive regimes that seek to restrict access to the internet.
"One of the most popular shows on Venezuelan TV had to be pulled off the air because its title had become a national embarrassment. Who Wants to be a Millionaire, based on the British programme, had been running for 17 years, but by the time the final episode played out the top prize, which had already been doubled to two million bolivars, was worth less than £1,500. So brutal has this country’s inflation been since then that, last week, the contestants would have been competing for a jackpot of 13 pence."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/18c26552-a3d5-11e8-8e63-d3bc0e6ff9ad
It’s better than no-deal or a crash out deal, certainly.
Personally, I would ask for a lengthy pause while we did what we should have done before the referendum and certainly before the Art 50 letter ie work out a proper, practical, well-thought out route to what Brexit should be and do it in the interests of as much of the country as possible.
But pigs will fly ......
Since when did left wing antisemites claim multiculturism is a jewish scheme to undermine europe?
A second referendum between the withdrawal agreement and Remain would be a strategic disaster for Corbyn and his acolytes. He wouldn't be able to use a crisis to try to force a GE. He wouldn't be able to maintain his ambiguous stance without getting it in the neck from his party.
On the Conservative side it would mean you'd either get a specific mandate for the plan, or you'd get a mandate to Remain so it would finally force the party to unite in a way the 2016 result wasn't able to.
Time for dinner though, TTFN!
Unemployment is at a record low, the economy is steady albeit not growing much, civil liberties are protected, public services are operating well albeit subject to very difficult medium-term demographic issues.
Overall, this government is slightly above average for the postwar period: not great, but not a disaster either.
As for Brexit, it was the electorate's choice. If they wanted it well-implemented, they could have easily arranged that by giving Theresa May the mandate she asked for and needed.
The US believes very strongly in a free press. Not the example one would look to for press censorship, even if they have nationality requirements.
Good question. I think the point where your theory falls down is that there will be no way to motivate the Tory vote at the next general election if we end up remaining in the EU. Something like 75% of our supporters are Leavers, and lots would defect if the referendum result is not delivered. We will not be thanked by Remainers for delivering a second referendum, so we will definitely suffer a net loss of votes.
Brexit is a bigger issue for Tory than Labour voters. Failure on this issue would depress our vote more than Labour’s, getting them over the line. That’s why a referendum with Remain as an option is a non-starter as long as we have a Tory Government.
The Labour Party in Parliament being angry at Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t matter, as the chicken coup and no confidence votes showed. The party in the country won’t ditch him, and they’re the ones that matter.
A more interesting question would be whether a deal vs no deal referendum would be good for the Conservatives. I see several attractions.
Oh, and the PM would be gone in hours at the hands of her own MPs, if she even thought about suggesting another Brexit referendum. It’s not going to happen.
If they do not accept a 'peoples vote' as policy will that be the trigger for a break away
I think Chequers strikes a good strategic balance for the UK.
I’d encourage everyone to read it in detail.
I am sure very few of of us wanted Brexit handled as poorly as it has been but we each voted based on our own view of what was the right thing to do.
The EU also relies heavily on the City of London for financial liquidity.
Corbyn would threaten it all.
The only deal on offer has been rejected by May at the pressing of people concerned about a net loss of Conservative Votes yet that ultimately is your fate.
We crash out and bring about riots because "adequate food" supplies weren't adequate
We fudge it and the Daily Fascist et al screech about betrayal
We beg an extension, and whoever replaces May faces the Daily Blaskshirt screeching betrayal
In which scenario does the Conservative Party conserve its votes and its reputation? The cake scenario doesn't exist in the real world. The crash out but don't worry the ration books will be blue scenario will wipe you from the political map. The fudged Betrayal will split you in twain with a revitalised ConKIP wiping you out across your heartlands. The long grass please let us talk you into fudge cake option just buys ConKIP more time to find non batshit candidates.
No wonder so much hot air is expelled about the cake option, the Conservative Party is fucked without it.
If 6 o'clock is the centre 7 and 5 are very soft left and soft right respectively (Blair and Cameron, maybe). Thatcher might be closer to 4 o'clock with Attlee at 8 o'clock. Keep going in both directions and the differences between authoritarian left and right begin to diminish. Eventually you find Stalin and Hitler, both sitting at 12 o'clock.
Now they argue they weren't socialist enough.........
As for the Daily Mail screaming betrayal, is that so likely with their Remainer Old Etonian new editor? I think not. Besides, I think the Tory Party can get away with right-wingers chuntering into their roast beef as long as we have actually left. They will be angry but loyal.
The anger at failing to deliver Brexit at all would be orders of magnitude greater.
But what do all the assembled experts with their detailed knowledge of how things work in the real world know? I'm sure you are right and they are wrong.
As an example of what might happen, look at America today.
"I was present with the open newsletter, but I don't think I was involved with it"
"He seeks to change, possibly very significantly". Change for change's sake? I can't imagine that the staunchest of Corbyn supporters would have him as strong on economics. His would-be-chancellor is only very slightly better. His would be chief-secretary got her GCSE. Even if Corbyn and co were right they couldn't manage the change.
Socialism - the more left you go the worse it gets. Somehow socialists try to balance their failure with the Germany of the 1930s - the party then in charge were 'National Socialists'. Just a different branch of the left.
I'd not defend for a moment the horrible goings on under a small government - India is clearly the place to look there. Personally though the acts of big Government (at the extremes) seem worse.
That’s a curious assumption.
There's only one party in the UK that drags its feet investigating anti-semitism by its members. For that the Labour Party deserves universal oppprobrium.
You seem to be suggesting that the UK border will be wide open with no checks - truly "taking back control". I can assure you that the French will not provide the same level of deferment.
Any industry that relies on imports is clear. It is our trucks stuck in a queue to cross into the EU that does the damage to us. Regardless of what we do.
That’s about it.
The economic damage from an unprepared to jump to 3rd country status is a different issue. Significant economic disruption and currency devaluation? Yes. Hunger and rioting, as you said? No.
Why did you back Leave anyway? You don’t appear to want anything to change.
Some people feel the result of the Referendum was a wound to their pride.
And that eg supermarkets have a vested interest in hyperbole on this issue?
Don’t you dare attack another party on defence while Jeremy Corbyn leads yours.
Why vote leave? Because a non Euro non Schengen country can't stay in the European project in the long term. Better to step back into EFTA on our own terms than be flung off when they implement fiscal union.
Would Corbyn get it right or wrong?
According to the rhetoric no deal Brexit wouldn't be a problem and damn all the people who know its cobblers. I hope vwry much this particular line of rhetoric goes nowhere near the real world. As the government (whose officials aren't as stupid as to listen to politicians) starts to prep how we manage adequate food and get to argue with an industry who patiently tells them how things works, i expect the headlines generated to defer shite talking politicians from continuing to spread their own rhetoric...
Con 41%, Lab 38%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 6%
Brexit without full control of immigration. A niche taste, but not a unique one on here. Such a prospectus would never have won the referendum.
Funny thing listening to Tories screeching on about what Corbyn may or may not do. Its not Corbyn slashing defence so that Corbyn inherits armed forces with not enough people and not enough ships and inadequate equipment and morale in the gutter. That's the Tories. All well and good denouncing Labour, but when the Tories screw over the armed forces this badly isn't there the teensiest bit of hypocrisy on show...? Just a smidge?
The lecture is quite good on that subject:
https://vimeo.com/247411379
As so often, our greatest PM of the last 50 years (bar Maggie) probably got it right: 'A mistake, but not a disaster'.
Either way, it was the electorate's choice, not the government's nor the Conservative Party's. There's no getting away from that.
Because when some wazzock says "we'll ensure you have adequate food" it turns out they means "we'll tell Sainsburys to stock up". When Sainsburys pointed out they can't it all fell apart.
The food industry is interested in growing producing and sellimg food. It did so before we joined the EEC, it will do so aftwr we leave the EU. Pointing out some basic factual errors in your good self's "thinking" isn't them having an interest in derailing anything
It ain't pretty.
I don't think that racism is more prevalent now than it was when you or I were growing up. WRT anti semitism, I'd say that the casual anti semitism of my youth is less common now, but among the anti semitic minority, a greater proportion are willing to endorse lunatic conspiracy theories.
If Brexit turns out badly, I think one would be looking at something similar to the Barber Boom and Bust, or the Great Financial Crash - things that are nasty, but quite survivable.
On the headline voting intention YouGov has 7% of 2017 Tory voters saying they would now vote UKIP but 4% of 2017 Labour voters and 10% of 2017 LD voters saying they would now vote Conservative. 6% of 2017 Labour voters say they would now vote LD
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/aapy92s0pl/InternalResults_180814_VI_Trackers_Website.pdf
1) relax trade barriers unilaterally for a short period
2) provide banks with cheap funding to provide to supermarkets to stock up with longer-life food stuffs
3) use the Armed Forces to support distribution (as already mooted)
For a socialist, you have a remarkably negative view on the potential of state action.
What was the pressing urgency, again?
Anyway, this is just the food industry. A lot pf other industries which effectively stop if we have a physical border imposed at Calais
The woeful Tory campaign didn't help either, of course.
Of course they will adapt, given time. But how long does it take for food shortages (even just scarcity of some foods) to destroy the Government's reputation and have a large majority of the electorate denying they ever wanted Brexit?
I rather expected a small avalanche of opposing views when I posted such a thing a few posts ago. Now I hardly imagine that this site is the wellspring of all political argument in the nation, but I had hoped to provoke a response.
It caused me to think. What actually is the mechanism by which insightful political thoughts (not that this was one of them) gain an airing? Where are the forums of debate?