Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
A manifesto policy consists of a huge number of changes which are comparably much much smaller than Brexit, have less impact and are easily reversible by the next government.
It sure would be a lot more "interesting" than Theresa May. I mean the comic factor. Didn't he once wear a turban to a Gurdwara and talked about selling alcohol to India and how he used to smuggle whisky bottles into India?
I agree that most manifesto policies are not of the same magnitude.
But I think my point remains - there was no referendum to join the EU ( Common Market yes, nothing since ) despite Bliar promising that there would be, so at least the 2016 Referendum was one step better. And let's not forget, Cameron PROMISED he would respect the result.
Typical Politician - of course he didn't and started the past three years of madness which has now culminated in Johnson, of all people, as PM.
As I said - don't blame the people.
Anyway....Off to the beach now.....
On the contrary , always blame the people. If a person's prejudices have been used by a politician to further their career then more fool them. Brexit for example will be entirely the fault of the people if it all goes to pot, they didn't have to listen to Farage and Johnson.
Not respect the result? The govt triggered article 50 and negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Eu. The brexiters didn’t like the WA and so it didn’t get thru parliament. Blame your mate Rees Mogg.
You're conflating the common sense of the electorate with political common sense. Politically speaking nothing thus far has gone against the principles of common sense. It was politically common sense for David Cameron to have a referendum in his manifesto, as it's arguable that he would not have won the election without it.
Citizens rights were never going to be an issue as it would be political suicide for any UK government to deny these rights. Likewise compromising the Irish border was never going to be an issue as any UK government trying to breach the BA would be committing political suicide. There would have been no great difficulties on these points as the resolution was common sense (if politicians know one thing it's self-interest and they certainly are not going to be turkey's voting for Xmas).
The financial settlement was the only real point for negotiation. It wasn't merely common sense as there were a variety of formulae that could be used to calculate the net of what was owed. The UK would have wanted the figure to be less than zero, whilst the EU reportedly wanted around €120m at first instance.
The problem has always been with sequencing. It's impossible to have a negotiation whereby you negotiate the price before you negotiate the product. Likewise it wouldn't have been possible to negotiate everything in 2 years. What should have occurred after the 2017 General Election* is that a cross party consensus should have been reached whereby the exit date should be agreed for the end of the Parliamentary term (2022). This would allow a 5 year period for all discussions to occur without the deadline looming imminently. The Irish backstop would not be an issue in these circumstance as the FTA would be negotiated prior to leaving the EU. Likewise the common sense parts of the "the financial settlement to commence trade negotiations", such as citizen's rights would be ironed out straight away.
In this scenario an actual negotiation can take place. The UK may choose to part with £150b, which would have the EU salivating; however they'd expect something far wider reaching than any other FTA they have with another country. This is where money would talk of course. My view is even the sacred 4 freedoms would be up for negotiation if the price were high enough.
*Either that or prior to Article 50 being triggered. From my understanding there's no legal reason why negotiations couldn't be undertaken prior to the triggering of Article 50.
Another referendum on *how* we leave? Yeah sure. But remain as we are should not be on the ballot. The majority voted to leave in whatever guise. The question was clear enough. We voted out.
Was the European Economic Community of 1975 the same as the European Union of 2016?
Because that’s the last time we had a referendum on it. 41 years inbetween the two. Many EU constitutional changes since then that were not put directly to the people: Maastricht, Lisbon treaties etc, not necessarily approved by 50.1% of British voters?
Other members held referendums. So why didn’t we?
So no, Eurosceptics haven’t had that kind of direct say on the EEC/EU for four decades. On that basis, as I say, there should be no ‘remain as we are’ option. You can have another go to rejoin 41 years after we decide how we are leaving. Fairs fair & all that.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say except, the monetary settlement is peanuts in the grand scheme of things and the government know it. The EU knew what they were doing when they set the order of the timetable and they'd guessed correctly the attitude of the UK government's negotiating stance.
A FTA is not going to solve the GFA. What is incompatible is leaving the CU and SM and maintaining the GFA. Common sense means they you can't have both but both major parties are trying to say you can which is where the unicorns come in.
And I doubt if the 4 freedoms would ever be negotiable, there is no price for that.
If the WA is ever accepted, then the real problems of Brexit will kick in.
Not really. They are pitching themselves at Remain voters who might also be Labour voters - taking a strong stand against Brexit is the priority. Their record in government is going to be a secondary consideration while the country is on fire.
Fact is, Labour could nullify half the Lib Dem threat tomorrow if they got rid of Corbyn. But they'd rather navel gaze, indulge the old man, and build castles in the sky than actually do what it takes to win power.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report
Or even on the lower end, what about the UN report ?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...sal-credit-report-philip-alston-a8924576.html
And your reason for believe there will be more funding, considering the last decade ?
Look I get why people like yourself vote Tory, I'm asking you what you think of the outcomes of tory policy.
I see the point although I'm not sure it'd be practical given where we are now (rather than where we were 3 years ago). But even if it is was, there needs to be a soft brexit option around which a possible consensus could be formed and to which 'the 48% loser's consent' might be given. If it's not too late for that.
Without Brexit, the austerity measures would not have lasted as long. So much time and money has been wasted on Brexit, that everything else, the things that actually matter, have all taken a back seat.
Where are getting this from ?
Austerity was here before Brexit(Good argument to be made that austerity actually got the win for leave) and it will be here after Brexit. Unless there's a change in government.
I am not disputing that, but if there was no Brexit, then it would not have to continue for so long and other more pressing matters would have been concentrated on than this bollocks waste of time shit.
http://www.joswinson.org.uk/_scottishness_reflections_of_identity
Apparently Jo Swinson is Scottish. Who knew?
Apparently Jo Swinson is Scottish. Who knew?
If there was a change of government maybe but Brexit or not, if it's a conservative government then we are getting austerity(In fact austerity really is a more european thing, what the UK has been through is plain and simple class war).
Last edited:
She genuinely manages to use some variation of 'Scotland' five times in the first two sentences. With Burns Day and St Andrew's Day thrown in during the first paragraph for good measure.
Austerity was a response to the financial crisis though. The wrong response, arguably, but that was the context.
Without the Brexit obsession of the last few years there’s a good chance you could have seen an increase in public spending, under any government.
Ireland’s got a government that is at least as right wing as the Tories and a far more expensive bank bail-out than you guys went through and we’ve still seen some easing of the worst of our austerity measures in response to recent prosperity. Which hasn’t happened for you guys, thanks mainly to all the uncertainty about the eventual cost of Brexit.
And a good argument that by leaving the EU austerity will be considerably worse because no matter if it's the Tories or Labour the UK are going to be seriously short of money.
Even if there were such an option on the ballot paper would it be any less of a pork pie than those spouted by the Brexiteers. Unless of course remainers really do believe that the EU will neither enlarge, develop or evolve further in the foreseeable future. And if the answer to that is a resounding no then have not the electorate the right to know exactly how the EU intends to change or are the leaders of the EU exempt from being held to the same level of scrutiny as we are expecting from our own politicians? Just a thought as it is a conundrum that puzzles me.
You didn't read my first post properly, so I tried to clarify it for you, but you didn't read my clarification properly either.
The only reason we ended up with austerity in the first place is because of your lot, so don't start crying about it now. All those years of fat and your lot didn't save a single penny. Oh, sorry, Blair/Brown were Tory light, weren't they?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/
The Tories being fiscally prudent is bullshit. They do tax less in general. Of course, in the favour of the rich and business.
We can argue about the impact on the less privileged. They get fecked over by the Tories. Every single time.
Countries literally have vetoes on new member states joining, if Britain doesn't want it to enlarge then it doesn't have to; indeed our exit makes that more likely.
Really? Is that why we ended up with austerity? Even if your premise of "it was all Labour's fault" is accepted, and that's an oversimplification to put it mildly, austerity was only one of several options. Which resulted in sharp increases in the national deficit since implementation and just happened to conveniently align to the ideological desire to shrink the state of the Tories.
Johnson just lied himself to the top of the UK. If EU officials receive the same level of scrutiny as the British political class then the EU project is doomed. Because it seems anyone can become PM these days, even failed journalists. And the journalists of the day ironically see nothing wrong with a PM who invented stories as a journalist... wonder why.
Luckily not every country is run by Murdoch and friends.
My issue with politics and politicians in general is that there is no accountability... they can come in and say and do what they like and there is no consequence or repercussions to their actions.
Manifestos, words, speeches and all the other bollocks should be held against them in a legal sense.
Manifestos, words, speeches and all the other bollocks should be held against them in a legal sense.
I'm not convinced by the direct link to austerity. I like this site, it calls out a lot of claims on both sides!
https://fullfact.org/health/130000-preventable-deaths-austerity/
Tory Policy has directly put more money in my back pocket through lower taxes. And it is has (shock horror) also been the raising of the personal tax allowance threshold that has directly helped the less privileged.
Lower taxes, record numbers of people employed has been two advantages for me.
It is not just in favour of the rich. The less well off have been directly helped by Tory tax cuts.
He's as incapable of standing/walking upright as he is of keeping his word?
*No one except George Soros
*No one except George Soros
Dominic Raab as Foreign Secretary would be a laugh.
Arriving at Dover ferryport he asks: "What time is the train to Shanghai?"
Arriving at Dover ferryport he asks: "What time is the train to Shanghai?"
Now wouldn't that be interesting!
Our esteemed press hold them to account day in, day out.
The press that these wankers write for? Doesn't Mr PM have his own column?
Press is as bent as them.
The monetary settlement isn't hugely significant (but certainly isn't peanuts), but the difference between the EU starting positions of €120b vs the UK starting position (nothing owed and the EU having to pay us our share of assets) is obviously of huge significance. Hence the protracted negotiations and the agreement somewhere in the middle after years.
The FTA will have to solve the GFA issue. The entire purpose of the backstop being temporary as stated by both sides is that once an agreement is finalised the backstop will cease to exist. Every comment by both sides is working towards this. The method of achieving this is obviously complicated, hence the fact that the EU can't agree a time limit and the UK can't agree to it being indefinite as it splits the union. The truth is that all parties have essentially agreed that even a no deal scenario could not compromise the GFA, such is its importance. This isn't to say that everything has to be identical to how it is now of course, things could change but still be in line with the principles of the GFA.
That would be a question of cost. I agree that it wouldn't be practical in the sense that the cost wouldn't ever be worth the benefit. It would have to be a figure that would be large enough to ensure no other country would ever want to seek the same deal. E.G. £150b per year rising with GDP - we'd be able to cherry pick whatever freedoms we desired at that cost (not that we'd want to). Somewhat pointless of course as it's completely theoretical
This is absolutely true, simply because it's not an agreement in the first place. It's an agreement on the cost of a product, before we have negotiated the product we're purchasing.
From someone that not only has had a home repossessed but is very very close to the poverty line despite working full time.
Allow me to say, absolute bollocks.
This kind of crap just shows how truly out of touch and unaware Tories and their voters are about social economic problems.
Universal credit proved that, fecking disgusting policy.
There have been various figures bandied about, none of which we really know and if the UK left in November without a deal the figure would be less than the supposed 39bn because the UK wouldn't need to pay for the transition period.
A FTA still involves hard border until such time as everything could be monitored in an alternative way. A system that doesn't exist.
If an agreement (post WA) is come to then the only way I see that is if Northern Ireland at least remains in the SM and CU even if the rest of the UK doesn't.
That sucks! I don’t know your personal circumstances so impossible to really reply with anything useful. I guess the question is what would your ideal government do for you that stopped the shit you had to deal with?