Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Gutter Boy]

Yes they wont break the four pillars, on that they wont be flexible and have been consistent in that message.

Except they have with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, who have FoM on goods, but not people

 

[the dza]

I actually have a sneaking suspicion that this might be the thing Labour get a kicking for next time out from some of their brexiteer voters. The pressure they put on May over this was outrageous in my opinion. I know if I were (still) a Labour voter, this is something I wouldn't forgive.

Labour ruled out 'no-deal' in the 2017 manifesto. So the position they have taken since shouldn't surprise anybody who votes Labour.

 

[Parklaner81]

Labour ruled out 'no-deal' in the 2017 manifesto. So the position they have taken since shouldn't surprise anybody who votes Labour.

Technically you're correct, but that implies that every voter votes with an intimate, detailed knowledge of party manifestos and their related issues and potential consequences - something that won't be the case in reality. In the real world, I'd still suggest that there will be a significant minority of Labour voters who will find their behaviour over this matter just as objectionable as I do.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Technically you're correct, but that implies that every voter votes with an intimate, detailed knowledge of party manifestos, and their related issues and potential consequences - something that won't be the case in reality. In the real world, I'd still suggest that there will be a significant minority of Labour voters who will find their behaviour over this matter just as objectionable as I do.

It kind of implies a voter votes in agreement with the entire manifesto too.

Could be a Labour voter was vehemently against ruling out no-deal, but also really supported the ideas on nationalisation etc.

Its a pros vs cons thing, not a "everythings a pro" thing.

Same for any voter of any party.

Then of course there are clearly Labour voters who vote simply "anything but Tory" without any real mind to the details (and yes, vice versa..)

 

[the dza]

Technically you're correct, but that implies that every voter votes with an intimate, detailed knowledge of party manifestos and their related issues and potential consequences - something that won't be the case in reality. In the real world, I'd still suggest that there will be a significant minority of Labour voters who will find their behaviour over this matter just as objectionable as I do.

It kind of implies a voter votes in agreement with the entire manifesto too.

Could be a Labour voter was vehemently against ruling out no-deal, but also really supported the ideas on nationalisation etc.

Its a pros vs cons thing, not a "everythings a pro" thing.

Same for any voter of any party.

Then of course there are clearly Labour voters who vote simply "anything but Tory" without any real mind to the details (and yes, vice versa..)

Taking the posts of both of you together as I think Nayim's post pretty much answers why Labour ruling out no-deal is unlikely to be an issue amongst all but a tiny minority of their voters. They either paid full attention to the manifesto, agreed with it and voted accordingly. They paid attention to the manifesto and agreed with other parts of it strongly enough to not have Labour's 'no-deal' position rule out voting for Labour. Or they would just vote Labour because "anything but Tory."

Labour never said "no deal is better than a bad deal." They ruled out no-deal from the start, and they got the voters that they got in 2017. I don't see why a significant minority of those voters will suddenly put that at the forefront of their thinking when casting their vote and disregard all the other stuff that they agreed with to make them vote Labour in 2017, when Labour's position re. 'no-deal' has been the same the whole time.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Except they have with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, who have FoM on goods, but not people

They don't http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/ukraine/ its a free trade agreement, they also have one with Canada and S Korea. They are open to a FTA agreement with us too.

 

[Grays_1890]

You've fundamentally misunderstood the situation. You narrative: the EU want to harm us. Reality: we don't have a strong barging position, as was outlined pre-vote. The EU represents its members. Why do you think they should represent us, a leaving member. You're trying to justify a deluded premise by blaming the EU. Instead admit that the premis that we were going to enter negotiations on an equal footing with the EU was wrong. And take some responsibility rather than blame others. For example, what is it the EU should have given to the UK?

I get that point, they represent their members but we have put in 120bn more than we have ever made out of the EU since 2000, you can't tell me thats not something we have on our side to bargain with. The EU is there to protect its members and the wicked witch of Tories is there to protect our interests.

 

[Grays_1890]

Who is that annoying whelk who screams through an 1950s megaphone outside Parliament?

 

[Grays_1890]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47893542

"On Wednesday, he posted on Instagram that "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters" should "repent" because "only Jesus saves", and made similar remarks on Twitter"

Can you be sacked because your religious beliefs believe so? I know religion is changing and the stand point on abortion and gay rights are changing slowly.

I am pro gay rights and same sex marriage so just interested in peoples views on this.

 

[Parklaner81]

Who is that annoying whelk who screams through an 1950s megaphone outside Parliament?

I've already questioned @SpurMeUp over this, and he categorically denies involvement...

 

[Parklaner81]

Taking the posts of both of you together as I think Nayim's post pretty much answers why Labour ruling out no-deal is unlikely to be an issue amongst all but a tiny minority of their voters. They either paid full attention to the manifesto, agreed with it and voted accordingly. They paid attention to the manifesto and agreed with other parts of it strongly enough to not have Labour's 'no-deal' position rule out voting for Labour. Or they would just vote Labour because "anything but Tory."

Labour never said "no deal is better than a bad deal." They ruled out no-deal from the start, and they got the voters that they got in 2017. I don't see why a significant minority of those voters will suddenly put that at the forefront of their thinking when casting their vote and disregard all the other stuff that they agreed with to make them vote Labour in 2017, when Labour's position re. 'no-deal' has been the same the whole time.

Ruling out no-deal in their own manifesto - which lost - is one thing. Publicly and openly undermining the government of your own country in international negotiations of this magnitude is quite another.

But maybe you're right. Maybe there won't be a single Labour voter who sees it that way...guess we'll have to agree to differ on that.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Taking the posts of both of you together as I think Nayim's post pretty much answers why Labour ruling out no-deal is unlikely to be an issue amongst all but a tiny minority of their voters. They either paid full attention to the manifesto, agreed with it and voted accordingly. They paid attention to the manifesto and agreed with other parts of it strongly enough to not have Labour's 'no-deal' position rule out voting for Labour. Or they would just vote Labour because "anything but Tory."

Labour never said "no deal is better than a bad deal." They ruled out no-deal from the start, and they got the voters that they got in 2017. I don't see why a significant minority of those voters will suddenly put that at the forefront of their thinking when casting their vote and disregard all the other stuff that they agreed with to make them vote Labour in 2017, when Labour's position re. 'no-deal' has been the same the whole time.

I think GB raises a fair point around this - that election was run more on domestic policy than international.

Add to which, Brexit is NOW - and not in the future, it is very much front and centre at this point where it wasnt before.

Then we didnt know the deal (or lack of), it was intangible, where as the policies on privatisation/austerity etc were very immediate.

Now? Thats all reversed. Were there a GE next week Brexit and each parties stance upon it would basically be the whole point.

I can imagine many voters (on any side) changing from their 2017 position because of this.

 

[Grays_1890]

I've already questioned @SpurMeUp over this, and he categorically denies involvement...

He was my first guess

 

[SpurMeUp]

I thought you lot would like a 1950s megaphone, should remind you of the good old days When you can't win an arguement, turn to cheap digs. I think most people who wish to remain (which are most people in this country now) can't be bothered to march or hang out round parliment protesting. They don't feel great affinity to the EU. But they do like their house prices to stay intact, they don't like higher prices in the shops, they don't want more expensive holidays or for fellow Brits to lose their jobs.

Leavers on the other hand seem prepared to sell the country out on the basis of some false promises made by a few toffs.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Who is that annoying whelk who screams through an 1950s megaphone outside Parliament?

I like the way his voice tails off through the second half of the word Brexit, like he's just strained too much and has followed through

 

[Parklaner81]

I thought you lot would like a 1950s megaphone, should remind you of the good old days When you can't win an arguement, turn to cheap digs. I think most people who wish to remain (which are most people in this country now) can't be bothered to march or hang out round parliment protesting. They don't feel great affinity to the EU. But they do like their house prices to stay intact, they don't like higher prices in the shops, they don't want more expensive holidays or for fellow Brits to lose their jobs.

Remainers on the other hand seem prepared to sell the country out on the basis of some false promises made by a few toffs.

Only messing, old chap!*

*just to keep up the 1950's theme...

 

[Grays_1890]

Remainers on the other hand seem prepared to sell the country out on the basis of some false promises made by a few toffs.

At least you acknowledge that

 

[Grays_1890]

I thought you lot would like a 1950s megaphone, should remind you of the good old days When you can't win an arguement, turn to cheap digs. I think most people who wish to remain (which are most people in this country now) Based on what? can't be bothered to march or hang out round parliment protesting They do. They don't feel great affinity to the EU The same people that run around with EU banners, not sure you are right there. But they do like their house prices to stay intact, they don't like higher prices in the shops, they don't want more expensive holidays or for fellow Brits to lose their jobs.

Remainers on the other hand seem prepared to sell the country out on the basis of some false promises made by a few toffs.

Cor blimey, calm down, it was a joke, surely the divide of Remain and Leave has not affected your sense of humour.

I think your response is also full of half truth

 

[SpurMeUp]

Cor blimey, calm down, it was a joke, surely the divide of Remain and Leave has not affected your sense of humour.

I think your response is also full of half truth

1. Only a third of the nation voted for Brexit. Opinion polls now show Remain is more than Leave. And I think a lot of Leavers who were on the fence, wouldn't vote for it now too, so personally I think the margin would be higher than polls show now.
2. Those who have time to protest are a minority. But credit to them for making their case. Something they feel strongly about. For most people they are happy to be in the EU but don't have a deep love for it. I would put myself in that bracket.
3. Leavers are selling the country out. Look at it: Ireland and Scotland leaving the union, economic hardship, increases in food prices, jeopardising drugs and care in the NHS, £40b spent on brexit planning etc.
4. Leavers can't outline what advantages we will have (becuase quite simply there aren't any clear advantages, there is no mystery jackpot, it just aint there)

What is not true?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

European Union leaders have granted the UK a six-month extension to Brexit, after late-night talks in Brussels.

The new deadline - 31 October - averts the prospect of the UK having to leave the EU without a deal on Friday, as MPs are still deadlocked over a deal.

European Council President Donald Tusk said his "message to British friends" was "please do not waste this time".

Theresa May, who had wanted a shorter delay, said the UK would still aim to leave the EU as soon as possible.

The UK must now hold European elections in May, or leave on 1 June without a deal.

The prime minister will later make a statement on the Brussels summit to the House of Commons, while talks with the Labour Party, aimed at reaching consensus on how to handle Brexit, are set to continue.

Mrs May tweeted: "The choices we now face are stark and the timetable is clear. So we must now press on at pace with our efforts to reach a consensus on a deal that is in the national interest."

So far, MPs have rejected the withdrawal agreement Mrs May reached with other European leaders last year and they have voted against leaving the EU without a deal.

The EU has ruled out any renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.

Before the summit, Mrs May had told leaders she wanted to move the UK's exit date from this Friday to 30 June, with the option of leaving earlier if Parliament ratified her agreement.

What is the reaction in the UK?
For Labour, shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer called the delay to 31 October "a good thing", saying businesses would be "relieved".

He added: "Negotiations are in good faith. We all feel a deep sense of duty to break the impasse.

"But there's also this question of how on Earth do we ensure that anything this prime minister promises is actually delivered in the future because of course she's already said she's going to step down, probably within months."

One government minister told BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg the latest delay to Brexit could mean a Conservative Party leadership contest after Easter, with a new prime minister potentially in place by June.

Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said: "There's been no progress whatsoever, really."

He added that it was still "difficult to see how" Mrs May could get her deal with the EU through Parliament and said: "The pressure on her to go will increase dramatically now, I suspect."

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted her "relief" that the UK wouldn't be "crashing out" on Friday, adding that "allowing people to decide if they still want to leave is now imperative".

What was agreed?

• A Brexit extension "only as long as necessary" and "no longer than 31 October" to allow for the ratification of the withdrawal agreement
• The UK "must hold the elections to the European Parliament" and if it fails to do this, the UK will leave on 1 June
• The European Council reiterates there can be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement negotiations

• Read the EU's conclusions here.
• What is Theresa May's withdrawal agreement?

What was the EU's message?
Donald Tusk emerged from the talks - and a subsequent meeting with Mrs May - to address reporters at a news conference at 02:15 local time (01:15 BST).

"The course of action will be entirely in the UK's hands," he said. "They can still ratify the withdrawal agreement, in which case the extension can be terminated."

Mr Tusk said the UK could also rethink its strategy or choose to "cancel Brexit altogether".

He added: "Let me finish with a message to our British friends: This extension is as flexible as I expected, and a little bit shorter than I expected, but it's still enough to find the best possible solution. Please do not waste this time."

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said: "There will probably be a European election in the UK - that might seem a bit odd, but rules are rules and we must respect European law and then we will see what happens."

What did Theresa May say?
Mrs May spoke at 02:45 local time (01:45 BST). She said that, although the delay extends until 31 October, the UK can leave before then if MPs pass her withdrawal deal.

"I know that there is huge frustration from many people that I had to request this extension," she said. "The UK should have left the EU by now and I sincerely regret the fact that I have not yet been able to persuade Parliament to approve a deal."

She added: "I do not pretend the next few weeks will be easy, or there is a simple way to break the deadlock in Parliament. But we have a duty as politicians to find a way to fulfil the democratic decision of the referendum, deliver Brexit and move our country forward. Nothing is more pressing or more vital."

The PM said the UK would "continue to hold full membership rights and obligations [of the EU]" during the delay.

How did the EU leaders decide?
The EU had been split over the length of delay to offer the UK, and by law its other 27 member states had to reach a unanimous decision.

Although other countries backed a longer delay, French President Emmanuel Macron pushed for a shorter extension. He called the 31 October deadline "a good solution".

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, said the extension gave the UK time "to come to a cross-party agreement".