Brexit: the next stage. Deal or No Deal? (and the General Election)

NEoldiron

I just came across this review; the first two paragraphs are worth noting.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/apr/01/decline-fall-review-jack-whitehall-evelyn-waugh-pennyweather

claretandbluesky

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39737216

I think someone needs tell her that she has no hand to play, she is completely at the mercy of the other player.

The picture is great as I think it sums up how most countries in the world are looking at us. Even May's face seems to say 'I know, but what can I do now'

NEoldiron

Anybody seen this, a little worrying.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/30/the-uk-government-is-completely-deluded-about-brexit/#69e2cbba4f04

Expat_Hammer

Merely the opinion of another remoaner, IMO of course ;wink

OutcastLondoner

She's having a disastrous campaign. There was a video of her door-stepping and not a single person opened their doors (on a bank holiday), while one person already standing outside their home just flat-out said no.

claretandbluesky

The impossible position she finds herself in is becoming clearer and she knows it. The arrogance of the brexiteers in her party and their imagination of the all powerful UK, will likely get what it deserves when they eventually have to go to a negotiating table with nothing dressed up as something, and then of course blame someone else when they come back with nothing.

NEoldiron

Expat, did you actually read the article? Nothing to do with Remainers at all.

ASLEFshrugged

I'm starting to get the feeling that Theresa May has decided that that Brexit is going to be a disaster, she doesn't want to go down in history as the Prime Minister that ruined the country and is trying her best to lose the election.

MrsGrey

;wahoo

AdMeus_CaputFilius

OK, if you want to be pedantic, the majority of registered voters who could be bothered to vote, voted to leave, those that didn't have only themselves to blame.

A lesser minority of registered voters voted to remain - FACT

AdMeus_CaputFilius

MrsGrey said:

AdMeus_CaputFilius said:

I was not bothered about an increase in NI by 1% as it was all for the NHS - a service we all use so should all pay for through NI - and it is not exactly a big rise for most people. To get it scrapped because it broke a manifesto pledge when IMO it is justified as circumstances have change was more despicable than braking the pledge - how often does that happen. Think how many more tens or hundreds of millions would now be available to the NHS budget

Erm, is that ring-fenced, and guaranteed. For ever?

Have you got proof of that?

I don't think so.

The govt hardly ever ring-fence revenue ...





;hmm Maybe it was written on the side of a bus, in which case of course it's a promise. ;wink

Well all I can tell you was what I saw/heard on the ITV news, that the 1% rise in NI was all for the NHS - perhaps if it had been agreed then the ring fencing and guarantee would have been given - lots of things are written on the sides of busses, most if not all of is advertising so why would it be a promise if it was?

MrsGrey

You say pedantic. I say accurate.




You say those who didn't vote 'couldn't be bothered'. Have you got any actual information on why they didn't vote?

If not, you should probably (but obviously its your choice) stop ascribing to the non-voters motives which you have made up.

MrsGrey

That 1% increase, btw, wasn't for everybody - only for the self-employed.

And it was justified by the Chacellor as being in the interests of fairness and equality between the self-employed and employees. It would have raised money for the public purse, but (despite what ITV said) the govt didn't (as far as I can tell) claim that it would all go to the NHS.

The inequality issue was related also to pensions. Not just the NHS.

MrsGrey

AdMeus_CaputFilius said:

ts of things are written on the sides of busses, most if not all of is advertising so why would it be a promise if it was?

Notice my ;wink

It was a joke.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Well from all the info available at the moment it would seen it is the EU pushing the hard brexit line (as was always the case) not the UK Gov't, so if it does end up hard it is them to blame. TBH I think a deal will be done and hopefully it will be a compromise.

TM wants a speedy resolution to the EU in UK and UK in EU migrants rights issue but Junker has indicated it could take longer than we want - it was always the case the EU was dragging their feet on this, not the UK so you can blame them for your worries and uncertainties in that area. Even if the UK had guaranteed the EU migrants rights the EU would still not have done the same as yet as you are one of their bargaining chips.

MrsGrey

I am baffled by the line that I have seen in the press and various opinion pieces: 'Brexit would all be sunshine and roses if it wasn't for those nasty EU types. If it ends up not being so good for the UK (ie 'hard') it's all their fault'.


Because, well .... many of those argued for Remain SAID it wasn't gonna be easy, and the other side at the negotiating table would have more power, would hold all the cards, and would most likely be able to negotiate something that would be in their interests more than the UKs. But we were dismissed as doom-mongers. We were told they needed us as much as we needed them.

But so far it isn't quite turning out like that. They are driving a hard bargain (or are likely to.)

Well, Anyone who voted Leave has, imo, no grounds for complaining about how the EU is approaching these negotiations - they have got exactly what they wanted. Exit. Deal with it. ;cool

I have absolutely no truck with the line that 'Brexit was the right thing and would have been OK if it had all turned out like we in our imaginary world had thought it might. So it's not our fault for ignoring and dismissing the warnings. Oh no. That would be the nasty Germans, Poles, French etc.'

I mean. Really?

;smoking

claretandbluesky

ASLEFshrugged said:

I'm starting to get the feeling that Theresa May has decided that that Brexit is going to be a disaster, she doesn't want to go down in history as the Prime Minister that ruined the country and is trying her best to lose the election.

I have the same feeling Aslef - the UK position is completely impossible to negotiate without the benevolence of the other party, and with each passing EU member election it just gets more so. Many knew as soon as the referendum result was in that it was a position which couldn't be negotiated as you simply had nothing to bargain with (even my most convinced brexit friends have stopped with the wine, cheese and cars argument), whilst the other party knew our economy was at stake, we were sold a pup as the phrase goes.

Vorselaarhammer

May is throwing hand grenades....

SuzanneClaret

Death Star spokesman looks awkward despite call for strong and stable leadership. #StarWarsDay.

OutcastLondoner

IronHerb

Now thats what I call a real Brexiteer. ;whistle

AdMeus_CaputFilius

MrsGrey said:

You say pedantic. I say accurate.




You say those who didn't vote 'couldn't be bothered'. Have you got any actual information on why they didn't vote?

If not, you should probably (but obviously its your choice) stop ascribing to the non-voters motives which you have made up.

The only actual info from a local source (local paper posted through the door) I can refer to is a poll they did of people who admitted they did not vote, the main reason given (for both sides, but not the only reason) was they believed remain was going to win (which everybody and his dog was predicting). So those who would have voted remain did not as they thought remain would win without their vote (so could not be bothered) but in the same vein those who would have voted to leave did not as they believe remain would win so there was no point (so equally could not be bothered). Other reasons were that people had not registered to vote, some intended to but circumstances on the day prevented it (illness, vehicle problems, traffic problems etc.) Interestingly, for those who responded to the poll, more than half (58 - 42%) would have voted leave. As this is a local free paper, I cannot provide you with a link as they don't have web pages, so if you choose not to believe me that is your choice.

On another note, we had some local elections today. The only party to provide any information in the run up about their candidates was the Tories, on going to vote I was sorely disappointed at the choice. I normally pick an independent as I find they do actually try to represent the people who vote for them and provide more feedback and don't vote along party lines. We had three choices; Lid Dems, Greens or Conservative - no Labour, no independents or any other party, so far from voter apathy this is evidence of party apathy, it seems like some parties have willingly given up trying to win votes because they do not do so well in some areas and are leaving it up to others.

So anyone who did not want to vote for any of the three parties in our area has been denied a vote by these sections of the political establishment, I think it is outrageous they are allowed to get away with this and effectively force people to vote for someone they don't want to vote for (forcing a protest vote). As it happened I did not vote as I don't want either the Greens or Lib Dem's anywhere near running my local council, but at the same time could not endorse the Conservatives running it with the plans they have, hence a preference for an independent.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

BBB,

The MOD is a Gov't department run by Civil Servants, not the Gov't. They have to be seen as apolitical as they have to work with all parties whoever is in power. They agree their equipment needs then go to the Gov't to get the funding. The fact the MOD has 'committed' itself does not at this time necessarily mean the Gov't has also, it may be a way of trying to force the Gov'ts hand to prevent further spending cuts.

ASLEFshrugged

Ad - government departments do not act independently, any commitment of that scale would have to have been approved by the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon who would have certainly had a word with the PM and the Chancellor

NEoldiron

I wonder how much damage Diane Abbott's performance the other day has cost Labour. ;hmm

IronHerb

So anyone who did not want to vote for any of the three parties in our area has been denied a vote by these sections of the political establishment, I think it is outrageous they are allowed to get away with this and effectively force people to vote for someone they don't want to vote for (forcing a protest vote).

But Adme this is no different from your earlier statement regarding Remainers who didn't vote because they thought Remain would win. Here you didn't vote because no one put themselves forward as an Independent, surely something you could have done yourself if you felt so strongly? Why would you vote for someone who has been forced onto the ballot?

MrsGrey

There are lots of parties who don't field a candidate in every constituency. Now and in the past. I think your arguing voters in those constituencies are being denied a vote as a result( because the party they want to vote for isn't standing) unconvincing. imo.


When did I last have a Socialist candidate to vote for? ;weep

Yeoldhammer

Conservatives winning local elections

IronHerb

Surprise surprise!

MrsGrey

AdMeus_CaputFilius said:

BBB,

The MOD is a Gov't department run by Civil Servants, not the Gov't. They have to be seen as apolitical as they have to work with all parties whoever is in power.

This is true, as far as it goes. Which isn't far enough.

Yes they are required to be apolitical. As in, not play party politics.

They are, however, a government department.They are not autonomous, but work to the policy priorities of the government of the day.