Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When TMay apologists try to excuse her GE17 humiliation by bra

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When TMay apologists try to excuse her GE17 humiliation by bragging about increased CON vote share show them this chart

In the run up to the CON conference at the start of October you are going to hear a lot about about how the Tory national vote share on June 8th went up to levels higher than Mrs Thatcher achieved with the implication that it wasn’t quite as bad as might appear.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Insomniacs of the world unite!
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Ninety-fourth!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Third....like the SNP.....chortle.....
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I remember seeing Labour canvassers out in a very Tory part of Hastings during the election. I commented on it in here along the lines that they seemed surprisingly optimistic. A local Tory activist on here responded that Hastings was in the bag and their workers were being directed elsewhere to more important targets. Well the Tories did hang on in Hastings but it was pretty close. I wonder if we have all been underestimating the value of Labour's large membership?

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    I remember seeing Labour canvassers out in a very Tory part of Hastings during the election. I commented on it in here along the lines that they seemed surprisingly optimistic. A local Tory activist on here responded that Hastings was in the bag and their workers were being directed elsewhere to more important targets. Well the Tories did hang on in Hastings but it was pretty close. I wonder if we have all been underestimating the value of Labour's large membership?

    The argument against that is that Labour threw the kitchen sink at Ilford North and the swing to Labour there was no larger than the neighbouring seats.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    tlg86 said:

    I remember seeing Labour canvassers out in a very Tory part of Hastings during the election. I commented on it in here along the lines that they seemed surprisingly optimistic. A local Tory activist on here responded that Hastings was in the bag and their workers were being directed elsewhere to more important targets. Well the Tories did hang on in Hastings but it was pretty close. I wonder if we have all been underestimating the value of Labour's large membership?

    The argument against that is that Labour threw the kitchen sink at Ilford North and the swing to Labour there was no larger than the neighbouring seats.
    I don't have any inside information here. Labour in Hastings might have just been lucky. But apart from a few posters the only visible campaign activity I saw during the election was these foot soldiers. I was on the road along the south coast a lot at the time. It is very tempting to think that what I saw was some significant. But of course had I driven by half an hour later I would likely have seen nothing - so not very scientific.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Bit disappointed to read last night's exchange and outcome, the interesting and risque eschewed in favour of the bland. A bit like politics I suppose, looks like this site is getting the people it deserves.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880
    This chart shows a decline for the blues from 2010 to 2015, since Ed M. increased Labour's vote by more than David Cameron did. Nevertheless I think the Conservatives would prefer the majority of 2015 to the coalition of 2010 (although in reality it maybe hasn't worked out so well for him).
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    rkrkrk said:

    This chart shows a decline for the blues from 2010 to 2015, since Ed M. increased Labour's vote by more than David Cameron did. Nevertheless I think the Conservatives would prefer the majority of 2015 to the coalition of 2010 (although in reality it maybe hasn't worked out so well for him).

    The majority of 2015 led to the Referendum and the replacement of Cameron by May. If the Tories don't already regret it, they will soon.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    edited August 2017
    And one for the Corbynistas: Labour's vote share against the Tories was larger under Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than under Corbyn in 2017.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880

    And one for the Corbynistas: Labour's vote share against the Tories was larger under Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than under Corbyn in 2017.

    Seats are what matters really.
    Comparing the vote share of major parties is just a poor proxy for this.
    Corbyn denied May a majority, Blair won 3.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880
    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    And one for the Corbynistas: Labour's vote share against the Tories was larger under Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than under Corbyn in 2017.

    And of course he remains the only Labour leader elected in the last 50 years to win a nationwide share of over 40% of the vote.

    But that takes us to rounding errors again...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    They want all of the benefits of being in th customs union, but not be in the customs union.

    Cake and eating thereof...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    Can the leader of the Tories or Labour really be held responsible for the share of vote obtained by their opposition? Is it May's fault that in a country where 48% voted remain that what's his name for the Lib Dems could not even get a hearing? Or credit for the end of the pier show that was UKIP? I don't really see it.

    The reality is that the way the opposition vote breaks is key to the result for a party but it difficult to see what a leader does about it. What you should surely be judged on is the number you get to vote for you. And on that measure May did alright.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    The simple reality is, and always was, that two years is not long enough to unpick the relationship we have with the EU. So the only way to leave without causing huge damage to both sides, but us especially, is to do it in stages. That's allowable under Article 50 but obviously requires everyone to agree. I would exepect them to do that though as to judge from their actions the EU still hasn't quite got its head round the fact that we are leaving.

    Which begs the more obvious question why was such a short period stated? Well, obviously, because it had been put in after the original constitution (which declared the union indissoluble and irrevocable) was twice voted down, but as it was meant to be essentially the same nobody would ever use it and therefore it didn't matter if it was drawn up hurriedly and was badly thought through.

    Valery Gisceard has a lot to answer for, and I'm not just talking about his more - ahem - interesting business activities.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Scott_P said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    They want all of the benefits of being in th customs union, but not be in the customs union.

    Cake and eating thereof...
    Yes. Like the French.

    And if we had been more like then French for the last 40 years, ignoring the EU when it didn't suit us and roundly exploiting it when it did, there is no way there would have been a Leave vote last year.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    They want all of the benefits of being in th customs union, but not be in the customs union.

    Cake and eating thereof...
    Yes. Like the French.

    And if we had been more like then French for the last 40 years, ignoring the EU when it didn't suit us and roundly exploiting it when it did, there is no way there would have been a Leave vote last year.
    yup
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    Bit disappointed to read last night's exchange and outcome, the interesting and risque eschewed in favour of the bland. A bit like politics I suppose, looks like this site is getting the people it deserves.

    What happened?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited August 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Essexit said:

    Bit disappointed to read last night's exchange and outcome, the interesting and risque eschewed in favour of the bland. A bit like politics I suppose, looks like this site is getting the people it deserves.

    What happened?
    Apparently all suicidal Frenchman should be deported.

    Oh, and SeanT flounced. Again. He has more encores than the Rolling Stones ...
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Mr Smithson

    On a technical point, more than 10 seats were won by other parties in England AND WALES - you have overlooked the 4 PC seats. I suggest that you remove Wales from the thread header. Parts of Wales, in particular Y Fro Gymraeg, and to a lesser extent the South Wales valleys, where the Tories are loathed for the way they destroyed the mining industry, behave differently from England from an electoral perspective.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    Essexit said:

    Bit disappointed to read last night's exchange and outcome, the interesting and risque eschewed in favour of the bland. A bit like politics I suppose, looks like this site is getting the people it deserves.

    What happened?
    Apparently all suicidal Frenchman should be deported.

    Oh, and SeanT flounced. Again. He has more encores than the Rolling Stones ...
    Ah. Thanks.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Are there May apologists?
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited August 2017

    Third....like the SNP.....chortle.....

    Ruth Davidson's successes at GE2017 are a tragedy for Scotland.

    However, the SNP were still first in Scotland.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    rkrkrk said:

    And one for the Corbynistas: Labour's vote share against the Tories was larger under Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than under Corbyn in 2017.

    Seats are what matters really.
    Comparing the vote share of major parties is just a poor proxy for this.
    Corbyn denied May a majority, Blair won 3.
    Well, yes, seats certainly matter in deciding who is going to grab power.

    On the other hand, with our broken electoral system, the precise number of seats that a party wins is just a fluke - hence all parties have said, since the election "If there had been only 900 more votes, in the right places, we would have won 20 more seats" etc etc.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880
    PClipp said:

    rkrkrk said:

    And one for the Corbynistas: Labour's vote share against the Tories was larger under Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than under Corbyn in 2017.

    Seats are what matters really.
    Comparing the vote share of major parties is just a poor proxy for this.
    Corbyn denied May a majority, Blair won 3.
    Well, yes, seats certainly matter in deciding who is going to grab power.

    On the other hand, with our broken electoral system, the precise number of seats that a party wins is just a fluke - hence all parties have said, since the election "If there had been only 900 more votes, in the right places, we would have won 20 more seats" etc etc.
    Yeah that's fair I guess.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are there May apologists?

    There are those who question the indisputable brilliance and sound judgement of Cameron and Osborne...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    We are banking on the EU embracing advanced technology and rendering customs workers redundant ?

    And Littlefinger Hammond thinks the EU are ready to embrace modernity ? lol.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    tlg86 said:

    I remember seeing Labour canvassers out in a very Tory part of Hastings during the election. I commented on it in here along the lines that they seemed surprisingly optimistic. A local Tory activist on here responded that Hastings was in the bag and their workers were being directed elsewhere to more important targets. Well the Tories did hang on in Hastings but it was pretty close. I wonder if we have all been underestimating the value of Labour's large membership?

    The argument against that is that Labour threw the kitchen sink at Ilford North and the swing to Labour there was no larger than the neighbouring seats.
    I don't have any inside information here. Labour in Hastings might have just been lucky. But apart from a few posters the only visible campaign activity I saw during the election was these foot soldiers. I was on the road along the south coast a lot at the time. It is very tempting to think that what I saw was some significant. But of course had I driven by half an hour later I would likely have seen nothing - so not very scientific.
    I think quality matters as well as quantity - an experienced team who really engage is visibly more effective than people who go round like bored opinion pollsters. But in places like the south where a party has been AWOL from parts for some time, I'm quite sure it makes a difference that they turn up, simply to make people who've been voting tactically for others or who've given up feel that it's worth rallying round.

    The large membership (given that it finally mobilised) has another advantage, if used correctly - getting more data on individual interests and leanings. The Tories did that really well by phone in 2015 - if X was worried about Salmond, they'd get material specifically targeted at that. In 2017, short of both people and time, they struggled to repeat that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,560
    DavidL said:

    Can the leader of the Tories or Labour really be held responsible for the share of vote obtained by their opposition? Is it May's fault that in a country where 48% voted remain that what's his name for the Lib Dems could not even get a hearing? Or credit for the end of the pier show that was UKIP? I don't really see it.

    The reality is that the way the opposition vote breaks is key to the result for a party but it difficult to see what a leader does about it. What you should surely be judged on is the number you get to vote for you. And on that measure May did alright.

    It's quite possible to believe both things; Thatcher arguably owed much of her electoral success to a divided opposition vote, for example. Having said that, my own view is that Mike is generally correct. The Labour/Conservative duopoly has held for a very long time, and the third party vote is very much a measure of how effective or otherwise the two largest parties are at holding on to their support as that vote waxes and wanes.

    When the third party votes collapse - as happened this year - it's very hard indeed to absolve a leader of one of the major parties who loses out in the tussle as May did.
    On that note, there's an interesting full page analysis of the Colne Valley result in this morning's FT, where Tory Jason McCartney was overwhelming favourite to retain his seat, and (narrowly) didn't.
    Particularly unhelpful was the May visit where in a public meeting she dismissed concerns about a local hospital closure as 'scaremongering' (the closure is almost certainly happening). "Went down like a lead balloon" according to McCartney...

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited August 2017
    The main reason T May lost her majority was the manifesto and the appalling presentation thereof. The care side of things and the removal of the Winter fuel Allowance sealed her fate. Crass in the extreme. Just claimed my allowance for the first time!.
    Thank Nick Timothy et al!!!.
  • ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    The simple reality is, and always was, that two years is not long enough to unpick the relationship we have with the EU. So the only way to leave without causing huge damage to both sides, but us especially, is to do it in stages. That's allowable under Article 50 but obviously requires everyone to agree. I would exepect them to do that though as to judge from their actions the EU still hasn't quite got its head round the fact that we are leaving.

    Which begs the more obvious question why was such a short period stated? Well, obviously, because it had been put in after the original constitution (which declared the union indissoluble and irrevocable) was twice voted down, but as it was meant to be essentially the same nobody would ever use it and therefore it didn't matter if it was drawn up hurriedly and was badly thought through.

    Valery Gisceard has a lot to answer for, and I'm not just talking about his more - ahem - interesting business activities.

    Might have been worth not triggering A50 until the government had thought through a few of the issues.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Observer, quite.

    Dr. Foxinsox, I don't believe the Venn diagram of competence and being an EU-phile is a circle. Do you really think everyone who disagrees with you about it is incompetent?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    The simple reality is, and always was, that two years is not long enough to unpick the relationship we have with the EU. So the only way to leave without causing huge damage to both sides, but us especially, is to do it in stages. That's allowable under Article 50 but obviously requires everyone to agree. I would exepect them to do that though as to judge from their actions the EU still hasn't quite got its head round the fact that we are leaving.

    Which begs the more obvious question why was such a short period stated? Well, obviously, because it had been put in after the original constitution (which declared the union indissoluble and irrevocable) was twice voted down, but as it was meant to be essentially the same nobody would ever use it and therefore it didn't matter if it was drawn up hurriedly and was badly thought through.

    Valery Gisceard has a lot to answer for, and I'm not just talking about his more - ahem - interesting business activities.

    Might have been worth not triggering A50 until the government had thought through a few of the issues.

    They squandered a year. Squandering another wouldn't have got them closer to resolving the issue.

    All this discussion over transition deals ignores the other half of the table. Any transition deal or extension of A50 is in the gift of the EU27. The default is cliff edge Brexit in 18 months, though allowing for a ratification period, probably barely 12 months.

    Hard Brexit is the default, and any competent government should be prepared for it. I cannot see that we are.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    It seems there are two issues here which I guess are more or less related.

    Are negotiations going badly? Anybody's guess but it wouldn't surprise me, our politicians are very poor but in their defence we are outnumbered 27:1 by equally inept bureaucrats.

    That is open to debate, what the drones on here will have to accept eventually is that we're leaving and there will not be another referendum.

    There is something very unedifying about watching children cry when they've had their toys removed, some on here really need to grow up, its pathetic.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Mr. Observer, quite.

    Dr. Foxinsox, I don't believe the Venn diagram of competence and being an EU-phile is a circle. Do you really think everyone who disagrees with you about it is incompetent?

    No, just everyone in the cabinet who believes in Brexit is incompetent. Unfortunately those are the ones that matter.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880

    Essexit said:

    Bit disappointed to read last night's exchange and outcome, the interesting and risque eschewed in favour of the bland. A bit like politics I suppose, looks like this site is getting the people it deserves.

    What happened?
    Apparently all suicidal Frenchman should be deported.

    Oh, and SeanT flounced. Again. He has more encores than the Rolling Stones ...
    Here's a story that might draw him back...

    Women had better sex under socialism:
    "A comparative sociological study of East and West Germans conducted after reunification in 1990 found that Eastern women had twice as many orgasms as Western women."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0
  • TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.

    The most important FTA we do will be with the EU, which now takes 50% of our exports. That FTA will then affect the FTAs we can do with other countries.

  • It seems there are two issues here which I guess are more or less related.

    Are negotiations going badly? Anybody's guess but it wouldn't surprise me, our politicians are very poor but in their defence we are outnumbered 27:1 by equally inept bureaucrats.

    That is open to debate, what the drones on here will have to accept eventually is that we're leaving and there will not be another referendum.

    There is something very unedifying about watching children cry when they've had their toys removed, some on here really need to grow up, its pathetic.

    Who exactly are these juveniles, Free?

    As far as I can tell most of the Remain posters on here are like me. They accept the result and the outcome, despite being unhappy about it.

    Name names, please, or I will think you are calling me childish, and I won't like it.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Mr. Observer, quite.

    Dr. Foxinsox, I don't believe the Venn diagram of competence and being an EU-phile is a circle. Do you really think everyone who disagrees with you about it is incompetent?

    No, just everyone in the cabinet who believes in Brexit is incompetent. Unfortunately those are the ones that matter.
    Hard to disagree with such rational, unbiased, empirical assertions.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    PClipp said:

    rkrkrk said:

    And one for the Corbynistas: Labour's vote share against the Tories was larger under Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than under Corbyn in 2017.

    Seats are what matters really.
    Comparing the vote share of major parties is just a poor proxy for this.
    Corbyn denied May a majority, Blair won 3.
    Well, yes, seats certainly matter in deciding who is going to grab power.

    On the other hand, with our broken electoral system, the precise number of seats that a party wins is just a fluke - hence all parties have said, since the election "If there had been only 900 more votes, in the right places, we would have won 20 more seats" etc etc.
    Close results mean something is broken?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.
    It all sounds like having cake and eating it, so I expect it to be rejected by EU.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited August 2017

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    The simple reality is, and always was, that two years is not long enough to unpick the relationship we have with the EU. So the only way to leave without causing huge damage to both sides, but us especially, is to do it in stages. That's allowable under Article 50 but obviously requires everyone to agree. I would exepect them to do that though as to judge from their actions the EU still hasn't quite got its head round the fact that we are leaving.

    Which begs the more obvious question why was such a short period stated? Well, obviously, because it had been put in after the original constitution (which declared the union indissoluble and irrevocable) was twice voted down, but as it was meant to be essentially the same nobody would ever use it and therefore it didn't matter if it was drawn up hurriedly and was badly thought through.

    Valery Gisceard has a lot to answer for, and I'm not just talking about his more - ahem - interesting business activities.

    Might have been worth not triggering A50 until the government had thought through a few of the issues.

    It might have been had the EU been willing to be reasonable, but as they refused to start negotiations on any point until it had been triggered, including the rights of expats, I can't see what the point of your approach would have been.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Get ready for 'Nigel Farage - the Movie' Hollywood looking at a £60 million deal
    https://mobile.twitter.com/christopherhope/status/896840658534764544
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    It seems there are two issues here which I guess are more or less related.

    Are negotiations going badly? Anybody's guess but it wouldn't surprise me, our politicians are very poor but in their defence we are outnumbered 27:1 by equally inept bureaucrats.

    That is open to debate, what the drones on here will have to accept eventually is that we're leaving and there will not be another referendum.

    There is something very unedifying about watching children cry when they've had their toys removed, some on here really need to grow up, its pathetic.

    Who exactly are these juveniles, Free?

    As far as I can tell most of the Remain posters on here are like me. They accept the result and the outcome, despite being unhappy about it.

    Name names, please, or I will think you are calling me childish, and I won't like it.
    Yep, most are like you, disappointed but accepting. Have a read of williamglenn, foxinsocks, scottp, (they spring to mind) for infantile, sulking, irrational bilge.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    It seems there are two issues here which I guess are more or less related.

    Are negotiations going badly? Anybody's guess but it wouldn't surprise me, our politicians are very poor but in their defence we are outnumbered 27:1 by equally inept bureaucrats.

    That is open to debate, what the drones on here will have to accept eventually is that we're leaving and there will not be another referendum.

    There is something very unedifying about watching children cry when they've had their toys removed, some on here really need to grow up, its pathetic.

    Who exactly are these juveniles, Free?

    As far as I can tell most of the Remain posters on here are like me. They accept the result and the outcome, despite being unhappy about it.

    Name names, please, or I will think you are calling me childish, and I won't like it.
    I can think of half a dozen examples and you are most definitely not one of them.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    The simple reality is, and always was, that two years is not long enough to unpick the relationship we have with the EU. So the only way to leave without causing huge damage to both sides, but us especially, is to do it in stages. That's allowable under Article 50 but obviously requires everyone to agree. I would exepect them to do that though as to judge from their actions the EU still hasn't quite got its head round the fact that we are leaving.

    Which begs the more obvious question why was such a short period stated? Well, obviously, because it had been put in after the original constitution (which declared the union indissoluble and irrevocable) was twice voted down, but as it was meant to be essentially the same nobody would ever use it and therefore it didn't matter if it was drawn up hurriedly and was badly thought through.

    Valery Gisceard has a lot to answer for, and I'm not just talking about his more - ahem - interesting business activities.

    Might have been worth not triggering A50 until the government had thought through a few of the issues.

    It might have been had the EU been willing to be reasonable, but as they refused to start negotiations on any point until it had been triggered, including the rights of expats, I can't see what the point of your approach would have been.

    For us to understand the issues involved and to work out our negotiating positions. We have done neither.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.
    It all sounds like having cake and eating it, so I expect it to be rejected by EU.
    Indeed as if we get it why would anyone want to be in the EU ?

    Says it all about the EU - its a protectionist cartel.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.

    The most important FTA we do will be with the EU, which now takes 50% of our exports. That FTA will then affect the FTAs we can do with other countries.

    This gets interesting.

    What % of EU countries account for that 50%? How dependent are we on trade with Malta?

    It is utterly ridiculous that Malta has the same voting power ie 1 in 27, as Germany.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.

    I think I see a flaw in this plan...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    As party leader you are prinarily responsible for your own voteshare not the opposition's and May did increase hers even if Labour went up as well. Most of the Labour gains came from the Greens, LDs and UKIP rather than 2015 Tories.

    If diehard Remainers had not been shouting so vociferously that May's Brexit was 'not what referendum voters voted for' there would have been less pressure for a general election. As it was although the result was close May still came out on top and the anti Brexit LDs ended up falling back in voteshare even further even if they gained a few seats
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Scott_P said:

    The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.

    I think I see a flaw in this plan...

    @peterthepunter

    See what I mean?
  • The main reason T May lost her majority was the manifesto and the appalling presentation thereof. The care side of things and the removal of the Winter fuel Allowance sealed her fate. Crass in the extreme. Just claimed my allowance for the first time!.
    Thank Nick Timothy et al!!!.

    It could have been worse, SR.

    If you look at the chart of polls in the weeks leading up to the Election, Labour was advancing fast and showed no sign of stopping. I know loyalists like yourself on here kept telling us that they had peaked, but there was no evidence of it. I reckon another week and Labour would have taken the lead, Corbyn would have been PM.

    Btw, do you know what happened to Black Rook? He posted regularly and at great length before the election but I haven't noticed him since. I hope he's ok, but fear he lost a lot of money and has done a Stuart Truth as a result.

    Any news of him would be appreciated.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.

    I think I see a flaw in this plan...

    Indeed Scott - but as technology will eventually sweep all such protectionist nonsense away just why would anyone want to back the incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards horse ?

    Baffling.
  • TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.

    The most important FTA we do will be with the EU, which now takes 50% of our exports. That FTA will then affect the FTAs we can do with other countries.

    This gets interesting.

    What % of EU countries account for that 50%? How dependent are we on trade with Malta?

    It is utterly ridiculous that Malta has the same voting power ie 1 in 27, as Germany.

    That's as may be, but it doesn't alter the fact that we will need an FTA with the EU before we can hope to conclude any others.

  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.

    The most important FTA we do will be with the EU, which now takes 50% of our exports. That FTA will then affect the FTAs we can do with other countries.

    This gets interesting.

    What % of EU countries account for that 50%? How dependent are we on trade with Malta?

    It is utterly ridiculous that Malta has the same voting power ie 1 in 27, as Germany.

    That's as may be, but it doesn't alter the fact that we will need an FTA with the EU before we can hope to conclude any others.

    But it reinforces the ridiculous nature of the EU, in order to trade with Germany we have to pay to trade with Malta.

    Free trade, everywhere with everybody, is the way forward.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    There is something very unedifying about watching children cry when they've had their toys removed, some on here really need to grow up, its pathetic.

    When some kids realise that their favourite toy (Brexit)

    - doesn't look like the packaging on the box
    - contains toxic materials
    - is irretrievably broken
    - isn't as good as the toys everyone else in the EU has

    the tears before bedtime will be epic
  • Scott_P said:

    The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.

    I think I see a flaw in this plan...

    @peterthepunter

    See what I mean?
    No, I don't.

    Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).

    That would be....er....a bit childish?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    The main reason T May lost her majority was the manifesto and the appalling presentation thereof. The care side of things and the removal of the Winter fuel Allowance sealed her fate. Crass in the extreme. Just claimed my allowance for the first time!.
    Thank Nick Timothy et al!!!.

    It could have been worse, SR.

    If you look at the chart of polls in the weeks leading up to the Election, Labour was advancing fast and showed no sign of stopping. I know loyalists like yourself on here kept telling us that they had peaked, but there was no evidence of it. I reckon another week and Labour would have taken the lead, Corbyn would have been PM.

    Btw, do you know what happened to Black Rook? He posted regularly and at great length before the election but I haven't noticed him since. I hope he's ok, but fear he lost a lot of money and has done a Stuart Truth as a result.

    Any news of him would be appreciated.
    I do not recall saying Labour had peaked. I thought like many that they were going to get stuffed.... but I wasn't doing anything on the ground. If I had perhaps I would have had a better idea,.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Leavers were sold a pup. Many of them are too ashamed to admit it, so they carry on with bluster and bravado about how brilliantly it is going...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited August 2017
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/bbc-admits-cannot-stop-iplayer-users-faking-details-evade-licence/

    iPlayer is also so poorly coded / insecure that people have released apps that just let you connect to it without any log in.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. P, ultimately, the choice is separation or integration. Would you prefer the latter?

    The execution of the referendum result, so far, has varied between mostly lacklustre and incompetent (although the EU do appear to be quite cretinous on citizens' rights and imposing EU law on certain people in the UK). That doesn't mean the policy is wrong, just the execution.

    The alternative is staying in an EU that inexorably moves towards greater integration, whittling away vetoes and gathering powers in Brussels.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    The main reason T May lost her majority was the manifesto and the appalling presentation thereof. The care side of things and the removal of the Winter fuel Allowance sealed her fate. Crass in the extreme. Just claimed my allowance for the first time!.
    Thank Nick Timothy et al!!!.

    It could have been worse, SR.

    If you look at the chart of polls in the weeks leading up to the Election, Labour was advancing fast and showed no sign of stopping. I know loyalists like yourself on here kept telling us that they had peaked, but there was no evidence of it. I reckon another week and Labour would have taken the lead, Corbyn would have been PM.

    Btw, do you know what happened to Black Rook? He posted regularly and at great length before the election but I haven't noticed him since. I hope he's ok, but fear he lost a lot of money and has done a Stuart Truth as a result.

    Any news of him would be appreciated.
    Even this week a BMG poll has the Tories ahead
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    The simple reality is, and always was, that two years is not long enough to unpick the relationship we have with the EU. So the only way to leave without causing huge damage to both sides, but us especially, is to do it in stages. That's allowable under Article 50 but obviously requires everyone to agree. I would exepect them to do that though as to judge from their actions the EU still hasn't quite got its head round the fact that we are leaving.

    Which begs the more obvious question why was such a short period stated? Well, obviously, because it had been put in after the original constitution (which declared the union indissoluble and irrevocable) was twice voted down, but as it was meant to be essentially the same nobody would ever use it and therefore it didn't matter if it was drawn up hurriedly and was badly thought through.

    Valery Gisceard has a lot to answer for, and I'm not just talking about his more - ahem - interesting business activities.

    Might have been worth not triggering A50 until the government had thought through a few of the issues.

    It might have been had the EU been willing to be reasonable, but as they refused to start negotiations on any point until it had been triggered, including the rights of expats, I can't see what the point of your approach would have been.

    For us to understand the issues involved and to work out our negotiating positions. We have done neither.

    You are suggesting the EU have?

    They haven't even come up with a proper deal on expats yet. Moreover, they were the ones who refused to enter into meaningful discussions on broad principles prior to the start of detailed negotiations.

    Until both sides are willing to discuss points, there are limits to how far positions can be prepared. That's the reason why the short time frame is so stupid.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Scott_P said:

    The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.

    I think I see a flaw in this plan...

    @peterthepunter

    See what I mean?
    No, I don't.

    Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).

    That would be....er....a bit childish?
    That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    rkrkrk said:

    Essexit said:

    Bit disappointed to read last night's exchange and outcome, the interesting and risque eschewed in favour of the bland. A bit like politics I suppose, looks like this site is getting the people it deserves.

    What happened?
    Apparently all suicidal Frenchman should be deported.

    Oh, and SeanT flounced. Again. He has more encores than the Rolling Stones ...
    Here's a story that might draw him back...

    Women had better sex under socialism:
    "A comparative sociological study of East and West Germans conducted after reunification in 1990 found that Eastern women had twice as many orgasms as Western women."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0
    LOL. Perhaps because they had (relatively) little money or opportunities to do other things, so stay at home and have lots of fun?

    The same reason birth rates go up nine months after a bad winter.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Scott_P said:
    God forbid HMG shouldn't share their negotiation tactics with an anonymous poster on PB, eh?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Urquhart, I was going to check something on iPlayer but, upon seeing they now want some personal details, just didn't bother.

    It's a brilliant system, putting off people (not many, I suspect, but still) who are law-abiding whilst enabling criminals easy access by incompetent design.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Scott_P said:
    What time is the EU's 'Non' coming? Or will they wait to see all the position papers?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    The EU is likely to block Britain’s plea for a temporary customs union to prevent Brexit border chaos if it also demands the right to seek other trade deals, a former Commissioner has warned.

    Karel De Gucht described the plans being put forward today by the Government as “very problematic” and at odds with Brussels’ ideas for a transitional period.

    The Belgian, who was European Commissioner for Trade between 2010 and 2014, suggested the EU would accept the status quo on customs for several years only its terms.

    They would be Britain abiding by decisions of the European Court of Justice, paying contributions – and not seeking to sign preferential trade deals with third countries.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-brexit-borders-uk-customs-union-temporary-plan-commissioner-karel-de-gucht-european-union-britain-a7893606.html
  • TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    It's gloss. The aim is to keep in with the EU forever because it makes no sense to have a different customs regime. So the UK will move from the free customs that comes with membership of the EU to a formal but supposedly temporary customs union that replicates membership arrangements to an eventual "shared approach". This allows the government to claim they can do independent trade deals with third countries as a supposed benefit of Brexit.

    It's a threadbare attempt to maintain the Brexit delusion for a while longer but it is useless as an ostensible position paper. These are reasons why the negotiations are going so crap for us.
    It is gloss. Brexit is turning into a flounce.

    If an extended customs union is so good, then why not stay in indefinitely?

    The truth is that our cabinet is implementing a bad idea incompetently. Those that are competent do not believe in Brexit, and those that do believe are not competent.

    Because - and "duh" - we can't do trade deals with the rest of the world when we are inside the customs union. This offer is a way to simplify the non customs union arrangements once we do leave.

    Can't see the EU going for it mind you as it's too forward thinking.

    The most important FTA we do will be with the EU, which now takes 50% of our exports. That FTA will then affect the FTAs we can do with other countries.

    This gets interesting.

    What % of EU countries account for that 50%? How dependent are we on trade with Malta?

    It is utterly ridiculous that Malta has the same voting power ie 1 in 27, as Germany.

    That's as may be, but it doesn't alter the fact that we will need an FTA with the EU before we can hope to conclude any others.

    But it reinforces the ridiculous nature of the EU, in order to trade with Germany we have to pay to trade with Malta.

    Free trade, everywhere with everybody, is the way forward.

    Meanwhile, in the real world ...

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    One does wonder about James Chapman and his puppet master. Really can’t see him lasting after the silly season is over.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Scott_P said:
    Sounds like something out of Veep.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/14/donald-trump-kevin-plank-under-armour-quits-advisory-council-charlottesville

    More CEOs quit Trump's business council. I suspect more will by the end of the day
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    I'd thought he'd run out of bridges to burn.......
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    HYUFD said:

    The main reason T May lost her majority was the manifesto and the appalling presentation thereof. The care side of things and the removal of the Winter fuel Allowance sealed her fate. Crass in the extreme. Just claimed my allowance for the first time!.
    Thank Nick Timothy et al!!!.

    It could have been worse, SR.

    If you look at the chart of polls in the weeks leading up to the Election, Labour was advancing fast and showed no sign of stopping. I know loyalists like yourself on here kept telling us that they had peaked, but there was no evidence of it. I reckon another week and Labour would have taken the lead, Corbyn would have been PM.

    Btw, do you know what happened to Black Rook? He posted regularly and at great length before the election but I haven't noticed him since. I hope he's ok, but fear he lost a lot of money and has done a Stuart Truth as a result.

    Any news of him would be appreciated.
    Even this week a BMG poll has the Tories ahead
    BMG gave the Tories a 13 point lead in their final poll before the election...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited August 2017
    @SouthamObserver - This Chapman no Brexit campaign is sounding more and more like the grumpy teenager who is stamping feet and shutting doors loudly because he isn't being listened too anymore....
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    @southam

    This is the problem, you have indoctrinated yourself with the EU and refuse to acknowledge that free trading places around the world are flourishing - I believe you've visited Singapore.

    You are backward looking and regressive.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Mortimer said:

    @SouthamObserver - This Chapman no Brexit campaign is sounding more and more like the grumpy teenager who is stamping feet and shutting doors loudly because he isn't being listened too anymore....

    Sounds like a few on here actually
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited August 2017

    HYUFD said:

    The main reason T May lost her majority was the manifesto and the appalling presentation thereof. The care side of things and the removal of the Winter fuel Allowance sealed her fate. Crass in the extreme. Just claimed my allowance for the first time!.
    Thank Nick Timothy et al!!!.

    It could have been worse, SR.

    If you look at the chart of polls in the weeks leading up to the Election, Labour was advancing fast and showed no sign of stopping. I know loyalists like yourself on here kept telling us that they had peaked, but there was no evidence of it. I reckon another week and Labour would have taken the lead, Corbyn would have been PM.

    Btw, do you know what happened to Black Rook? He posted regularly and at great length before the election but I haven't noticed him since. I hope he's ok, but fear he lost a lot of money and has done a Stuart Truth as a result.

    Any news of him would be appreciated.
    Even this week a BMG poll has the Tories ahead
    BMG gave the Tories a 13 point lead in their final poll before the election...
    On different methodology.

    Since the election the govt have pursued a 'don't scare the horses' policy - trying to negotiate Brexit and talking about consumer protections for various things are all that have really been announced. It is no surprise that Tory share has held and their position improved.

    Good. A period of light touch, little change domestic policy is what we need until Brexit occurs, the Corbasm fades and politics returns to a grown up level of debate.
  • Scott_P said:

    The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.

    I think I see a flaw in this plan...

    @peterthepunter

    See what I mean?
    No, I don't.

    Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).

    That would be....er....a bit childish?
    That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
    No offence taken, Free, but if I'd voted Leave (and I thought about it) and was sure I'd got it right, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Diehards who won't accept the result. I would just sit back and let events unfold. As they see the benefits Brexit brings, they will either change their views, or (more likely) appear increasingly foolish as their denial becomes increasingly untenable.

    If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.

    Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880

    rkrkrk said:

    Essexit said:

    Bit disappointed to read last night's exchange and outcome, the interesting and risque eschewed in favour of the bland. A bit like politics I suppose, looks like this site is getting the people it deserves.

    What happened?
    Apparently all suicidal Frenchman should be deported.

    Oh, and SeanT flounced. Again. He has more encores than the Rolling Stones ...
    Here's a story that might draw him back...

    Women had better sex under socialism:
    "A comparative sociological study of East and West Germans conducted after reunification in 1990 found that Eastern women had twice as many orgasms as Western women."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0
    LOL. Perhaps because they had (relatively) little money or opportunities to do other things, so stay at home and have lots of fun?

    The same reason birth rates go up nine months after a bad winter.
    I think opportunities to do other things is plausible... not much entertainment etc.

    They definitely went to work though (probably at a higher rate than women in the West during that time period?).

    I also imagine there are some pretty significant methodological challenges when conducting research on orgasm recall years ago.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Theresa May apologists sure have a lot to apologise about.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Borough, that divergence might be a reaction to the 'other' side and leaping in the opposite direction.

    In a study from the late 80s/early 90s, homophobes were asked about giving equal rights (next of kin status etc) to gay people. Obviously, they opposed. But, when told gay people didn't want those rights, the homophobes shifted in the direction of approving the additional rights.

    The responses were based on disagreeing with gay people *not* on the actual question being asked. The same thing happens quite often with other polls and surveys, I think.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Humiliation, MSmithson? She won!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Mortimer said:

    @SouthamObserver - This Chapman no Brexit campaign is sounding more and more like the grumpy teenager who is stamping feet and shutting doors loudly because he isn't being listened too anymore....

    He seems very bitter about what he saw of David Davis in DexEU, allegations of drunkenness, working only three days etc etc.

    But, it still might be the chaotic, moaning spark that lights the fire of a new party.

    I am highly sceptical.

    But, honestly who the feck amongst us knows anything these days?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited August 2017

    Scott_P said:

    The Brexiteers who have been telling us for years that the EU is incompetent, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow, backwards, and anti-UK, are now telling us they will implement, just for us, a brand new technologically advanced frictionless border immediately.

    I think I see a flaw in this plan...

    @peterthepunter

    See what I mean?
    No, I don't.

    Just because someone thinks Brexit is a clusterfuck doesn't mean they don't accept the result. That's like saying nobody should speak up in favour of Corbyn because May won the election (sort of).

    That would be....er....a bit childish?
    That's your view, to which you're entitled, if you wish to take offence at anything I've posted go ahead. None was intended but I'm not fussed either way.
    No offence taken, Free, but if I'd voted Leave (and I thought about it) and was sure I'd got it right, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Diehards who won't accept the result. I would just sit back and let events unfold. As they see the benefits Brexit brings, they will either change their views, or (more likely) appear increasingly foolish as their denial becomes increasingly untenable.

    If you will forgive me, your posts tend to suggest a degree of insecurity, as if you were perhaps unsure that Brexit really was a smart idea after all.

    Sorry, but that's the way you come across.
    Forgive me for joining in this conversation, but I can understand both positions.

    Your suggestion was exactly the position I intended to take after June 23rd last year. But I have found many who are used to winning totally unaccepting of the fact that they lost (not including you here, btw) so unbelievably annoying, and unwilling to accept that their views were rejected by the public, that I've been forced to back up my position. Forced to argue not merely from democratic principles, but refight the battles of the referendum on a regular basis.

    There are only so many times you can be called bigoted, moronic and stupid by people who lost a political debate before you rightly begin defending yourself.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    @SouthamObserver - This Chapman no Brexit campaign is sounding more and more like the grumpy teenager who is stamping feet and shutting doors loudly because he isn't being listened too anymore....

    He seems very bitter about what he saw of David Davis in DexEU, allegations of drunkenness, working only three days etc etc.

    But, it still might be the chaotic, moaning spark that lights the fire of a new party.

    I am highly sceptical.

    But, honestly who the feck amongst us knows anything these days?
    It is incredible - I mean, no-one ever gripes about their old boss, right?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Mr. Observer, quite.

    Dr. Foxinsox, I don't believe the Venn diagram of competence and being an EU-phile is a circle. Do you really think everyone who disagrees with you about it is incompetent?

    Yes, he does. So do all the minority of (very loud) continuity Remainers who are still to get their head round the fact that they lost.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This interim EU deal... I don't really understand it - it feels though as if it is just buying more time to deal with tricky customs issues.

    Presumably the Brexiteers in Cabinet have accepted it - so hopefully they can convince those outside of Cabinet. That the UK is moving to a united position of what we want is surely a good sign.

    The simple reality is, and always was, that two years is not long enough to unpick the relationship we have with the EU. So the only way to leave without causing huge damage to both sides, but us especially, is to do it in stages. That's allowable under Article 50 but obviously requires everyone to agree. I would exepect them to do that though as to judge from their actions the EU still hasn't quite got its head round the fact that we are leaving.

    Which begs the more obvious question why was such a short period stated? Well, obviously, because it had been put in after the original constitution (which declared the union indissoluble and irrevocable) was twice voted down, but as it was meant to be essentially the same nobody would ever use it and therefore it didn't matter if it was drawn up hurriedly and was badly thought through.

    Valery Gisceard has a lot to answer for, and I'm not just talking about his more - ahem - interesting business activities.

    Might have been worth not triggering A50 until the government had thought through a few of the issues.

    They squandered a year. Squandering another wouldn't have got them closer to resolving the issue.

    All this discussion over transition deals ignores the other half of the table. Any transition deal or extension of A50 is in the gift of the EU27. The default is cliff edge Brexit in 18 months, though allowing for a ratification period, probably barely 12 months.

    Hard Brexit is the default, and any competent government should be prepared for it. I cannot see that we are.
    Your knowledge of what is going on is limited to what you read in what has been aptly dubbed the Remainstream media.
This discussion has been closed.