Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To get the tone right it has to come from the top

2

Comments

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    RobD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD

    I have lived & worked in Norway. They have some very limited controls of freedom of movement, as Richard Tyndall has explained previously. Largely consisting of a work permit system which is a mere formality for immigrants from the EEA.

    If you think that, post-Brexit, EU citizens will no longer be able to come here freely looking for work you are in for a very big disappointment indeed. A work permit system where we meaningfully control the number of permits will not be possible under soft Brexit.

    There's going to be a soft brexit?
    There isn't. A FTA ending free movement may avoid permanent hard Brexit but it will not be for Brexit and single market membership either
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_P said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Brexit can't be delivered
    Why not?
    We are too intertwined with the EU.
    But that's why I voted to leave.

    That's not true though

    The Brexit promised by the Leave campaign can't be delivered
    Why not?
    Because it was bullshit
    Can any form of Brexit be delivered?
    Only if you are prepared to accept massive economic loss
    Why not?
    We are too intertwined with the EU to leave without seriously damaging the economy.
    I didn't see that on the side of a bus.
    The bus was a lie.
    But that's why I voted to leave.

    Unlucky...
    Any form of Brexit would result in "massive economic loss"? Okay.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited December 2017
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/941666307744980992

    A lot of countries have full access to the single market. I think both sides were clear that leaving the EU would involve leaving the Single Market.
  • ......support for populism is not motivated primarily by demands for more redistribution but by more fundamental concerns about social recognition and respect. Since social recognition is closely-linked to having a decent job, addressing those concerns will require efforts to create such jobs and to make existing jobs more decent. But it will also require efforts on the symbolic plane of political discourse to ensure that people in all walks of life are recognised as valued members of society.

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/12/14/brexit-appealed-to-white-working-class-men-who-feel-society-no-longer-values-them/

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited December 2017
    Time for some Kreminology (or perhaps Brusselology) on what the EU27 are saying about the next steps. The EU27 negotiating guidelines published today say:

    The European Council will continue to follow the negotiations closely and will adopt additional guidelines in March 2018, in particular as regards the framework for the future relationship. It calls on the United Kingdom to provide further clarity on its position on the framework for the future relationship.

    This is being interpreted by some people as an unwarranted delay and therefore as a negative. I think it's the exact opposite - it gives space for the UK and Commission to negotiate behind the scenes before Barnier is given public red lines which he can't cross.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Time for some Kreminology (or perhaps Brusselology) on what the EU27 are saying about the next steps. The EU27 negotiating guidelines published today say:

    The European Council will continue to follow the negotiations closely and will adopt additional guidelines in March 2018, in particular as regards the framework for the future relationship. It calls on the United Kingdom to provide further clarity on its position on the framework for the future relationship.

    This is being interpreted by some people as an unwarranted delay and therefore as a negative. I think it's the exact opposite - it gives space for the UK and Commission to negotiate behind the scenes before Barnier is given public red lines which he can't cross.

    Na, it's another unmitigated disaster for HMG and just goes to show how the EU have the upper hand in all things. :smiley:
  • Time for some Kreminology (or perhaps Brusselology) on what the EU27 are saying about the next steps. The EU27 negotiating guidelines published today say:

    The European Council will continue to follow the negotiations closely and will adopt additional guidelines in March 2018, in particular as regards the framework for the future relationship. It calls on the United Kingdom to provide further clarity on its position on the framework for the future relationship.

    This is being interpreted by some people as an unwarranted delay and therefore as a negative. I think it's the exact opposite - it gives space for the UK and Commission to negotiate behind the scenes before Barnier is given public red lines which he can't cross.

    Is it any more complicated than Eurocratic for "would you mind telling us what on earth you actually want?"
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited December 2017
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, you may say that it's best that fewer foreigners come here (largely white ones with a similar and shared belief system as us). But it is a very difficult message to send to the foreigners, assuming you want them, to say come hither and oh by the way we as a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit

    I thought Brexit would make very little difference to the levels of immigration, beyond recessionary effects. I was wrong. You can effectively reduce immigration simply by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere. I wouldn't say it is "control" and the more valuable immigrants with choices will stay away. It isn't a Britain I really want to be a part of. But it does get the numbers down.

    The concessions made to EU citizens here on the relevant date which allowed them to bring in spouses and relatives make any meaningful reduction in immigration unlikely. Despite the government's best efforts non EU immigration has been running at approximately 100k a year. That has arisen because a large community from the sub continent was already settled here and choose to take spouses and bring relatives here to join them when they can afford to do so. If the 4m or so EU citizens have enhanced rights (eg no financial criteria) it is reasonable to expect a pretty similar level of immigration from similar causes.

    I therefore expect post EU immigration to remain at pretty much the 200K a year level unless we have a serious downturn in our economy.
    A very sensible post. I am glad not all Conservatives have their head as high up in the clouds as HYUFD. There are only two ways in which immigration will be meaningfully reduced and neither involve work permit systems or similar meaningless window dressing-

    1. Drastically reduce the right to settle here with a foreign spouse - this has been tightened up enormously since 2010 so further progress must surely be difficult. And as you say, May has promised not to apply financial criteria onto spousal immigration for EU citizens.

    2. Crash the economy.

    I wonder if there may be a growing support amongst certain voters, especially the elderly, for reduced growth and a lower pound to reduce immigration. Certainly I expect a Corbyn GE victory would lower immigration substantially.
  • Is it any more complicated than Eurocratic for "would you mind telling us what on earth you actually want?"

    Yes, because that is an impossible question for the UK to answer, beyond what Theresa May has already said. The difficulty isn't establishing what we want, it's establishing the degree to which we can have it, and the trade-offs involved.

    Admittedly we could and should have started this discussion with the EU27 a year ago, but we are where we are.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    On topic I think that May is seeking to deliver a Brexit that the majority can live with. It will respect the vote but it will also be well short of the New Britannia fantasies of some of the Brexiteers. It will involve free trade but not freedom of movement in principle, whatever the result is in reality. It will not involve indefinite payments to the EU unless we choose and are allowed to remain associated with certain institutions such as the Patent Court. It will involve us paying for the current budget round but it will avoid a cliff edge departure. This may well involve some element of compliance with EU law for an interim period after departure.

    The path is not smooth but the direction of travel is tolerably clear. If she succeeds in delivering a Brexit that satisfies most Leavers and some remainers she will have done a pretty good job and there is a fair chance that all bar a tiny minority will move on to other matters.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    No, ... the transition period will end by the date of the next general election even if FTA talks are ongoing
    In practice, restrictions on free movement are going to be so slight that few will notice the difference. At most, we will be able to get rid of a few Romanian beggars and tweak benefit entitlements a bit...though even this might be difficult under the "regulatory equivalence" that we've agreed to. But the fields will still be full of Latvian strawberry pickers and Pret A Manger will still have its thousands of charming Italian and Spanish baristas. The hard Leave voters who expected a wholesale clearout of foreigners are going to be very disappointed, whether or not free movement can be said to have technically ended.
    Only a minority even of Leavers wanted mass deportations. A work permits system focused on skills we need is what voters want
    Only a minority of Leavers yes - perhaps 20% - but that is still a lot of voters, the majority of whom will have voted Tory or UKIP in 2017. Given what May agreed last week, there is no way that we are going to be able to establish a meaningful work permit system with regard to EU workers - unless it is merely a formality whereby the EU immigrant asks for a permit and is automatically granted one. That is the system in Norway by the way, and I expect the government may set up something similar.
    It is nowhere near the same number as the roughly 80 to 90% of Leave voters who wanted to end free movement, most of whom voted Tory or UKIP in 2017 too.
    Once we leave the single market in 2021 (unlike Norway which is in the single market) a work permits system will be implemented without problems
    A work permit system that will be nothing more than a formality, therefore a meaningless sop for the sake of appearances which will have no impact on the immigration stats.
    Ditto we may be officially out of the single market but we will still be totally aligned with it as per May's deal last week.
    We are headed for Norway brexit in all but name.
    No. Free movement means any EU citizen can come here to work, travel or study, live or even look for work for 3 months. Work permits will only be given to those whose skills the UK needs. Norway has to accept free movement
    Does the 'Liechtenstein loophole' still exist?
    http://futurus-thinktank.com/liechtenstein-has-it-all.html
    [1st. post above edited to shorten it]
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Is it any more complicated than Eurocratic for "would you mind telling us what on earth you actually want?"

    Yes, because that is an impossible question for the UK to answer, beyond what Theresa May has already said. The difficulty isn't establishing what we want, it's establishing the degree to which we can have it, and the trade-offs involved.

    Admittedly we could and should have started this discussion with the EU27 a year ago, but we are where we are.
    They need to give space for the UK to understand what it has agreed to in phase one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    HHemmelig said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, you may say that it's best that fewer foreigners come here (largely white ones with a similar and shared belief system as us). But it is a very difficult message to send to the foreigners, assuming you want them, to say come hither and oh by the way we as a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit

    I thought Brexit would make very little difference to the levels of immigration, beyond recessionary effects. I was wrong. You can effectively reduce immigration simply by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere. I wouldn't say it is "control" and the more valuable immigrants with choices will stay away. It isn't a Britain I really want to be a part of. But it does get the numbers down.

    The concessions made to EU citizens here on the relevant date which allowed them to bring in spouses and relatives make any meaningful reduction in immigration unlikely. Despite the government's best efforts non EU immigration has been running at approximately 100k a year. That has arisen because a large community from the sub continent was already settled here and choose to take spouses and bring relatives here to join them when they can afford to do so. If the 4m or so EU citizens have enhanced rights (eg no financial criteria) it is reasonable to expect a pretty similar level of immigration from similar causes.

    I therefore expect post EU immigration to remain at pretty much the 200K a year level unless we have a serious downturn in our economy.
    A very sensible post. I am glad not all Conservatives have their head as high up in the clouds as HYUFD. There are only two ways in which immigration will be meaningfully reduced and neither involve work permit systems or similar meaningless window dressing-

    1. Drastically reduce the right to settle here with a foreign spouse - this has been tightened up enormously since 2010 so further progress must surely be difficult. And as you say, May has promised not to apply financial criteria onto spousal immigration for EU citizens.

    2. Crash the economy.

    I wonder if there may be a growing support amongst certain voters, especially the elderly, for reduced growth and a lower pound to reduce immigration. Certainly I expect a Corbyn GE victory would lower immigration substantially.
    Not 'head in the clouds' actual fact. The rate of net immigration to the UK has fallen sharply post Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/23/net-migration-to-uk-falls-by-49000-after-brexit-vote
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    DavidL said:

    On topic I think that May is seeking to deliver a Brexit that the majority can live with. It will respect the vote but it will also be well short of the New Britannia fantasies of some of the Brexiteers. It will involve free trade but not freedom of movement in principle, whatever the result is in reality. It will not involve indefinite payments to the EU unless we choose and are allowed to remain associated with certain institutions such as the Patent Court. It will involve us paying for the current budget round but it will avoid a cliff edge departure. This may well involve some element of compliance with EU law for an interim period after departure.

    The path is not smooth but the direction of travel is tolerably clear. If she succeeds in delivering a Brexit that satisfies most Leavers and some remainers she will have done a pretty good job and there is a fair chance that all bar a tiny minority will move on to other matters.

    Plus the question is, suppose we accept CJEU over areas A, B, and C - how much will people be bothered (Nigel aside, perhaps four Cons MPs also) to do much about it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    No, ... the transition period will end by the date of the next general election even if FTA talks are ongoing
    In practice, restrictions on free movement are going to be so slight that few will notice the difference. At most, we will be able to get rid of a few Romanian beggars and tweak benefit entitlements a bit...though even this might be difficult under the "regulatory equivalence" that we've agreed to. But the fields will still be full of Latvian strawberry pickers and Pret A Manger will still have its thousands of charming Italian and Spanish baristas. The hard Leave voters who expected a wholesale clearout of foreigners are going to be very disappointed, whether or not free movement can be said to have technically ended.
    Only a minority even of Leavers wanted mass deportations. A work permits system focused on skills we need is what voters want
    Only a minority of Leavers yes - perhaps 20% - but that is still a lot of voters, the majority of whom will have voted Tory or UKIP in 2017. Given what May agreed last week, there is no way that we are going to be able to establish a meaningful work permit system with regard to EU workers - unless it is merely a formality whereby the EU immigrant asks for a permit and is automatically granted one. That is the system in Norway by the way, and I expect the government may set up something similar.
    It is nowhere near the same number as the roughly 80 to 90% of Leave voters who wanted to end free movement, most of whom voted Tory or UKIP in 2017 too.
    Once we leave the single market in 2021 (unlike Norway which is in the single market) a work permits system will be implemented without problems
    A work permit system that will be nothing more than a formality, therefore a meaningless sop for the sake of appearances which will have no impact on the immigration stats.
    Ditto we may be officially out of the single market but we will still be totally aligned with it as per May's deal last week.
    We are headed for Norway brexit in all but name.
    No. Free movement means any EU citizen can come here to work, travel or study, live or even look for work for 3 months. Work permits will only be given to those whose skills the UK needs. Norway has to accept free movement
    Does the 'Liechtenstein loophole' still exist?
    http://futurus-thinktank.com/liechtenstein-has-it-all.html
    [1st. post above edited to shorten it]
    Only if we are the size of Liechtenstein
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country - a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly Global Britain – the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike......

    We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

    I have told other EU leaders that we could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, you may say that it's best that fewer foreigners come here (largely white ones with a similar and shared belief system as us). But it is a very difficult message to send to the foreigners, assuming you want them, to say come hither and oh by the way we as a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    What are you talking about - you are trying to construct an alternative history whereby we didn't just vote to leave the EU because we don't like foreigners. Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't make me feel exactly wonderful either - but we have to listen to the experts, to the guy on QT last night, to our very own XXXXX. We as a country voted to leave because of the furriners.

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    edited December 2017
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think that May is seeking to deliver a Brexit that the majority can live with. It will respect the vote but it will also be well short of the New Britannia fantasies of some of the Brexiteers. It will involve free trade but not freedom of movement in principle, whatever the result is in reality. It will not involve indefinite payments to the EU unless we choose and are allowed to remain associated with certain institutions such as the Patent Court. It will involve us paying for the current budget round but it will avoid a cliff edge departure. This may well involve some element of compliance with EU law for an interim period after departure.

    The path is not smooth but the direction of travel is tolerably clear. If she succeeds in delivering a Brexit that satisfies most Leavers and some remainers she will have done a pretty good job and there is a fair chance that all bar a tiny minority will move on to other matters.

    Plus the question is, suppose we accept CJEU over areas A, B, and C - how much will people be bothered (Nigel aside, perhaps four Cons MPs also) to do much about it?
    I think that would be politically difficult but that a body that actually looks suspiciously like the CJEU may well be appointed to regulate compliance in certain areas is certainly possible.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    HHemmelig said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, you may say that it's best that fewer foreigners come here (largely white ones with a similar and shared belief system as us). But it is a very difficult message to send to the foreigners, assuming you want them, to say come hither and oh by the way we as a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit

    I thought Brexit would make very little difference to the levels of immigration, beyond recessionary effects. I was wrong. You can effectively reduce immigration simply by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere. I wouldn't say it is "control" and the more valuable immigrants with choices will stay away. It isn't a Britain I really want to be a part of. But it does get the numbers down.

    The concessions made to EU citizens here on the relevant date which allowed them to bring in spouses and relatives make any meaningful reduction in immigration unlikely. Despite the government's best efforts non EU immigration has been running at approximately 100k a year. That has arisen because a large community from the sub continent was already settled here and choose to take spouses and bring relatives here to join them when they can afford to do so. If the 4m or so EU citizens have enhanced rights (eg no financial criteria) it is reasonable to expect a pretty similar level of immigration from similar causes.

    I therefore expect post EU immigration to remain at pretty much the 200K a year level unless we have a serious downturn in our economy.
    A very sensible post. I am glad not all Conservatives have their head as high up in the clouds as HYUFD. There are only two ways in which immigration will be meaningfully reduced and neither involve work permit systems or similar meaningless window dressing-

    1. Drastically reduce the right to settle here with a foreign spouse - this has been tightened up enormously since 2010 so further progress must surely be difficult. And as you say, May has promised not to apply financial criteria onto spousal immigration for EU citizens.

    2. Crash the economy.

    I wonder if there may be a growing support amongst certain voters, especially the elderly, for reduced growth and a lower pound to reduce immigration. Certainly I expect a Corbyn GE victory would lower immigration substantially.
    Further progress is difficult because of a lack of political will, rather than objective reality. We don't need to go as far as the Gulf States to impose much stronger restrictions on spousal migration.

    Raising the income threshold to match the 40% tax threshold would be a start, but that then runs the risk of the courts finding against it on spurious human rights grounds.
  • HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I thought Brexit would make very little difference to the levels of immigration, beyond recessionary effects. I was wrong. You can effectively reduce immigration simply by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere. I wouldn't say it is "control" and the more valuable immigrants with choices will stay away. It isn't a Britain I really want to be a part of. But it does get the numbers down.

    The concessions made to EU citizens here on the relevant date which allowed them to bring in spouses and relatives make any meaningful reduction in immigration unlikely. Despite the government's best efforts non EU immigration has been running at approximately 100k a year. That has arisen because a large community from the sub continent was already settled here and choose to take spouses and bring relatives here to join them when they can afford to do so. If the 4m or so EU citizens have enhanced rights (eg no financial criteria) it is reasonable to expect a pretty similar level of immigration from similar causes.

    I therefore expect post EU immigration to remain at pretty much the 200K a year level unless we have a serious downturn in our economy.
    A very sensible post. I am glad not all Conservatives have their head as high up in the clouds as HYUFD. There are only two ways in which immigration will be meaningfully reduced and neither involve work permit systems or similar meaningless window dressing-

    1. Drastically reduce the right to settle here with a foreign spouse - this has been tightened up enormously since 2010 so further progress must surely be difficult. And as you say, May has promised not to apply financial criteria onto spousal immigration for EU citizens.

    2. Crash the economy.

    I wonder if there may be a growing support amongst certain voters, especially the elderly, for reduced growth and a lower pound to reduce immigration. Certainly I expect a Corbyn GE victory would lower immigration substantially.
    Not 'head in the clouds' actual fact. The rate of net immigration to the UK has fallen sharply post Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/23/net-migration-to-uk-falls-by-49000-after-brexit-vote
    Because the currency has devalued and migrants find the UK a less attractive destination for the time being. Nothing to do with work permits or technically ending free movement. If immigration to the UK continues to fall after Brexit it will be for these reasons, whilst people like you will be desperately trying to argue that it's because of our new work permit system.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, you may say that it's best that fewer foreigners come here (largely white ones with a similar and shared belief system as us). But it is a very difficult message to send to the foreigners, assuming you want them, to say come hither and oh by the way we as a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    What are you talking about - you are trying to construct an alternative history whereby we didn't just vote to leave the EU because we don't like foreigners. Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't make me feel exactly wonderful either - but we have to listen to the experts, to the guy on QT last night, to our very own XXXXX. We as a country voted to leave because of the furriners.

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course it is - I think I mentioned that in one of my posts. But the fact is that, just as that bloke on QT last night who everyone portrayed as a hero of modern Britain, and as also told to us repeatedly by those who know, the referendum was won by those who want fewer foreigners.

    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think that May is seeking to deliver a Brexit that the majority can live with. It will respect the vote but it will also be well short of the New Britannia fantasies of some of the Brexiteers. It will involve free trade but not freedom of movement in principle, whatever the result is in reality. It will not involve indefinite payments to the EU unless we choose and are allowed to remain associated with certain institutions such as the Patent Court. It will involve us paying for the current budget round but it will avoid a cliff edge departure. This may well involve some element of compliance with EU law for an interim period after departure.

    The path is not smooth but the direction of travel is tolerably clear. If she succeeds in delivering a Brexit that satisfies most Leavers and some remainers she will have done a pretty good job and there is a fair chance that all bar a tiny minority will move on to other matters.

    Plus the question is, suppose we accept CJEU over areas A, B, and C - how much will people be bothered (Nigel aside, perhaps four Cons MPs also) to do much about it?
    Yup. Sovereignty over technical matters like airport signs matters little. Sovereignty over our entire judicial system matters rather a lot. Finding the balance is the key.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    What are you talking about - you are trying to construct an alternative history whereby we didn't just vote to leave the EU because we don't like foreigners. Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't make me feel exactly wonderful either - but we have to listen to the experts, to the guy on QT last night, to our very own XXXXX. We as a country voted to leave because of the furriners.

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course it is - I think I mentioned that in one of my posts. But the fact is that, just as that bloke on QT last night who everyone portrayed as a hero of modern Britain, and as also told to us repeatedly by those who know, the referendum was won by those who want fewer foreigners.

    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.


    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    I thought Brexit would make very little difference to the levels of immigration, beyond recessionary effects. I was wrong. You can effectively reduce immigration simply by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere. I wouldn't say it is "control" and the more valuable immigrants with choices will stay away. It isn't a Britain I really want to be a part of. But it does get the numbers down.

    The concessions made to EU citizens here on the relevant date which allowed them to bring in spouses and relatives make any meaningful reduction .

    I therefore expect post EU immigration to remain at pretty much the 200K a year level unless we have a serious downturn in our economy.
    A very sensible post. I am glad not all Conservatives have their head as high up in the clouds as HYUFD. There are only two ways in which immigration will be meaningfully reduced and neither involve work permit systems or similar meaningless window dressing-

    1. Drastically reduce the right to settle here with a foreign spouse - this has been tightened up enormously since 2010 so further progress must surely be difficult. And as you say, May has promised not to apply financial criteria onto spousal immigration for EU citizens.

    2. Crash the economy.

    I wonder if there may be a growing support amongst certain voters, especially the elderly, for reduced growth and a lower pound to reduce immigration. Certainly I expect a Corbyn GE victory would lower immigration substantially.
    Not 'head in the clouds' actual fact. The rate of net immigration to the UK has fallen sharply post Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/23/net-migration-to-uk-falls-by-49000-after-brexit-vote
    Because the currency has devalued and migrants find the UK a less attractive destination for the time being. Nothing to do with work permits or technically ending free movement. If immigration to the UK continues to fall after Brexit it will be for these reasons, whilst people like you will be desperately trying to argue that it's because of our new work permit system.
    No, if May had promised to stay in the single market and leave free movement permanently in place there would probably not have been a fall
  • DavidL said:

    On topic I think that May is seeking to deliver a Brexit that the majority can live with. It will respect the vote but it will also be well short of the New Britannia fantasies of some of the Brexiteers. It will involve free trade but not freedom of movement in principle, whatever the result is in reality. It will not involve indefinite payments to the EU unless we choose and are allowed to remain associated with certain institutions such as the Patent Court. It will involve us paying for the current budget round but it will avoid a cliff edge departure. This may well involve some element of compliance with EU law for an interim period after departure.

    The path is not smooth but the direction of travel is tolerably clear. If she succeeds in delivering a Brexit that satisfies most Leavers and some remainers she will have done a pretty good job and there is a fair chance that all bar a tiny minority will move on to other matters.

    What happened the last time the electorate were asked if they liked the way Mrs May was heading and could she have a larger majority, please?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2017
    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    What are you talking about - you are trying to construct an alternative history whereby we didn't just vote to leave the EU because we don't like foreigners. Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't make me feel exactly wonderful either - but we have to listen to the experts, to the guy on QT last night, to our very own XXXXX. We as a country voted to leave because of the furriners.

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think that May is seeking to deliver a Brexit that the majority can live with. It will respect the vote but it will also be well short of the New Britannia fantasies of some of the Brexiteers. It will involve free trade but not freedom of movement in principle, whatever the result is in iny minority will move on to other matters.

    What happened the last time the electorate were asked if they liked the way Mrs May was heading and could she have a larger majority, please?
    80% voted for the Tories and Labour both of whom have a virtually identical position on Brexit ie a transition period followed by a FTA that ends free movement
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Brexit can't be delivered
    Why not?
    We are too intertwined with the EU.
    But that's why I voted to leave.

    That's not true though

    The Brexit promised by the Leave campaign can't be delivered
    Why not?
    Because it was bullshit
    Can any form of Brexit be delivered?
    Only if you are prepared to accept massive economic loss
    Why not?
    We are too intertwined with the EU to leave without seriously damaging the economy.
    I didn't see that on the side of a bus.
    The bus was a lie.
    But that's why I voted to leave.

    Unlucky...
    Any form of Brexit would result in "massive economic loss"? Okay.
    Well they did warn us of the disaster awaiting the day after we veoted to leave.... oh wait

    No, they changed their argument ot after we triggered article 50.... oh wait

    Oh wait the goal posts moved yet again.

  • TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
    Comprehension skills: C-
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think that May is seeking to deliver a Brexit that the majority can live with. It will respect the vote but it will also be well short of the New Britannia fantasies of some of the Brexiteers. It will involve free trade but not freedom of movement in principle, whatever the result is in reality. It will not involve indefinite payments to the EU unless we choose and are allowed to remain associated with certain institutions such as the Patent Court. It will involve us paying for the current budget round but it will avoid a cliff edge departure. This may well involve some element of compliance with EU law for an interim period after departure.

    The path is not smooth but the direction of travel is tolerably clear. If she succeeds in delivering a Brexit that satisfies most Leavers and some remainers she will have done a pretty good job and there is a fair chance that all bar a tiny minority will move on to other matters.

    What happened the last time the electorate were asked if they liked the way Mrs May was heading and could she have a larger majority, please?
    That wasn't quite what she asked them. She asked them to give her unlimited discretion and power to decide what was best without regard to other viewpoints. They said, err, let us have a think about that.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    We as a country voted to leave because of the furriners.

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course it is - I think I mentioned that in one of my posts. But the fact is that, just as that bloke on QT last night who everyone portrayed as a hero of modern Britain, and as also told to us repeatedly by those who know, the referendum was won by those who want fewer foreigners.

    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    So because one idiot says something on QT your thesis is complete. You ignore completely the fact that T.May and every other Tory within and without the government along with the vast majority of other leading leavers have given a completely different message. It is because you want to wallow in defeat and lash out at those who took a different view. I don't know how else I can say this. :)
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Scott_P said:
    Resorted to quoting a Guardian contributor who runs a theatre company? Hot take!
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    No ... the transition period will end by ... the next general election even if FTA talks are ongoing
    ... At most, we will be able to get rid of a few Romanian beggars and tweak benefit entitlements a bit...though even this might be difficult under the "regulatory equivalence" that we've agreed to. But the fields will still be full of Latvian strawberry pickers and Pret A Manger will still have its thousands of charming Italian and Spanish baristas. The hard Leave voters who expected a wholesale clearout of foreigners are going to be very disappointed, whether or not free movement can be said to have technically ended.
    Only a minority even of Leavers wanted mass deportations. A work permits system focused on skills we need is what voters want
    Only a minority of Leavers yes - perhaps 20% - but that is still a lot of voters, the majority of whom will have voted Tory or UKIP in 2017. Given what May agreed last week, there is no way that we are going to be able to establish a meaningful work permit system with regard to EU workers - unless it is merely a formality whereby the EU immigrant asks for a permit and is automatically granted one. That is the system in Norway by the way, and I expect the government may set up something similar.
    It is nowhere near the same number as the roughly 80 to 90% of Leave voters who wanted to end free movement, most of whom voted Tory or UKIP in 2017 too.
    Once we leave the single market in 2021 (unlike Norway which is in the single market) a work permits system will be implemented without problems
    A work permit system that will be nothing more than a formality, therefore a meaningless sop for the sake of appearances which will have no impact on the immigration stats.
    Ditto we may be officially out of the single market but we will still be totally aligned with it as per May's deal last week.
    We are headed for Norway brexit in all but name.
    No. Free movement means any EU citizen can come here to work, travel or study, live or even look for work for 3 months. Work permits will only be given to those whose skills the UK needs. Norway has to accept free movement
    Does the 'Liechtenstein loophole' still exist?
    http://futurus-thinktank.com/liechtenstein-has-it-all.html
    [1st. post above edited to shorten it]
    Only if we are the size of Liechtenstein
    Does it legally only apply to Alpine tax havens?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    ......support for populism is not motivated primarily by demands for more redistribution but by more fundamental concerns about social recognition and respect. Since social recognition is closely-linked to having a decent job, addressing those concerns will require efforts to create such jobs and to make existing jobs more decent. But it will also require efforts on the symbolic plane of political discourse to ensure that people in all walks of life are recognised as valued members of society.

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/12/14/brexit-appealed-to-white-working-class-men-who-feel-society-no-longer-values-them/

    Interesting read.

    If it’s respect and social recognition the Brexit working class men want... then perhaps actually that’s not all that expensive - it requires a tone shift from politicians. Hard working fathers rather than families. Politicians who come from working class communities and haven’t been to university. Etc.

    It also suggests - as I suspect - that a fall in the level of immigration is not that likely to reduce this alienation.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    ?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
    Comprehension skills: C-
    Alongside the same smug attitude. You'd think they'd have learned a bit of humility since their massive defeat, but have instead gone with doubling down.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Is it any more complicated than Eurocratic for "would you mind telling us what on earth you actually want?"

    Yes, because that is an impossible question for the UK to answer, beyond what Theresa May has already said. The difficulty isn't establishing what we want, it's establishing the degree to which we can have it, and the trade-offs involved.

    Admittedly we could and should have started this discussion with the EU27 a year ago, but we are where we are.
    They need to give space for the UK to understand what it has agreed to in phase one.
    Nothing is agreed..



    ... until everything is agreed.


    and


    parliament has voted on it..
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    We are told by all of those _who know_ that the vote was to keep the foreigners out. How does being "more outward-looking than ever before" square with this. It would be a betrayal, siri?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
    Wonder a feeling of amazement and admiration surely not.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2017
    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If ll/

    Weiri?
    Demolish your own straw men

    Innit
    If yitter.
    I'm a g message also.
    And you wilfully miers.
    'course it is - I think I mentioned that in one of my posts. But the fact is that, just as that bloke on QT last night who everyone portrayed as a hero of modern Britain, and as also told to us repeatedly by those who know, the referendum was won by those who want fewer foreigners.

    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    So because one idiot says something on QT your thesis is complete. You ignore completely the fact that T.May and every other Tory within and without the government along with the vast majority of other leading leavers have given a completely different message. It is because you want to wallow in defeat and lash out at those who took a different view. I don't know how else I can say this. :)
    So now the QT guy who all the Leavers were praising earlier today is an idiot?

    The Leave campaign was centred around immigration and the reduction of same. Some Leavers said it was about control, but you would have to wade through the actual and implied message of immigration reduction to get there. If you are happy and believe that the Leave campaign was conducted free of such implications, then you have every right to have the spring in your step you undoubtedly have. But them's the facts.

    As for wallowing in defeat? Not at all. I am posting on a political chatroom on the internet. And enjoying it even if at times it is frustrating on account of the wilful disinclination of other contributors to see what the whole world knows to be blindingly obvious.
  • TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    I'm not fighting for continued EU membership. I am trying to get inside the heads of the victorious leavers. And quite a fascinating place it is, too. A bit like wandering around the Pitt Rivers Museum.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    I agree - and it's due to the track record of successive governments back tracking on referendums and also the EU ignoring referendum results and asking for a re-vote.

    Add in nuggets like Lord Adonis suggesting they are going to work to block it and the angst is justified.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    I thought there was lots of discussion about that yesterday? It hardly went unnoticed!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    ?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limlcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
    Comprehension skills: C-
    Alongside the same smug attitude. You'd think they'd have learned a bit of humility since their massive defeat, but have instead gone with doubling down.
    Not at all, I am probably the most humble person I know.

    Just as mentioned trying to get inside the minds of you lot.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    Terrible that threats are made.

    But irrelevant as to changing course on Brexit.

  • RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    I thought there was lots of discussion about that yesterday? It hardly went unnoticed!
    Yes, the average Leaver comment on it is:

    "Oh yeah, bit off really. Still, BREXIT!"

    And then Leavers wonder why they have an image problem.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    ?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
    Comprehension skills: C-
    Alongside the same smug attitude. You'd think they'd have learned a bit of humility since their massive defeat, but have instead gone with doubling down.
    52:48 isn't 'massive'.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545
    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    The NEC report to the Labour Party conference began

    "The European issue in British politics is now settled...."

    I am, of course, referring to the NEC report to the Labour Party Conference in 1975.

    And we all know how settled the European issue has been since then.

    It will not be settled anytime soon, Brexit or no Brexit.
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    Terrible that threats are made.

    But irrelevant as to changing course on Brexit.

    For once the word "unspoofable" does seem appropriate.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    I thought there was lots of discussion about that yesterday? It hardly went unnoticed!
    Yes, the average Leaver comment on it is:

    "Oh yeah, bit off really. Still, BREXIT!"

    And then Leavers wonder why they have an image problem.
    I read many condeming it, and I got the impression they were sincere.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If ll/

    Weiri?
    Demolish your own straw men

    Innit
    If yitter.
    I'm a g message also.
    And you wilfully miers.
    'course it is - I think I mentioned that in one of my posts. But the fact is that, just as that bloke on QT last night who everyone portrayed as a hero of modern Britain, and as also told to us repeatedly by those who know, the referendum was won by those who want fewer foreigners.

    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    So because one idiot says something on QT your thesis is complete. You ignore completely the fact that T.May and every other Tory within and without the government along with the vast majority of other leading leavers have given a completely different message. It is because you want to wallow in defeat and lash out at those who took a different view. I don't know how else I can say this. :)
    So now the QT guy who all the Leavers were praising earlier today is an idiot?

    The Leave campaign was centred around immigration and the reduction of same. Some Leavers said it was about control, but you would have to wade through the actual and implied message of immigration reduction to get there. If you are happy and believe that the Leave campaign was conducted free of such implications, then you have every right to have the spring in your step you undoubtedly have. But them's the facts.

    As for wallowing in defeat? Not at all. I am posting on a political chatroom on the internet. And enjoying it even if at times it is frustrating on account of the wilful disinclination of other contributors to see what the whole world knows to be blindingly obvious.
    Oh grow up for heavens sake. 'Them's the facts' ! Spend some time with a dictionary to discover the difference between fact and opinion. While you're at it try a thesaurus for 'sore loser'.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    Terrible that threats are made.

    But irrelevant as to changing course on Brexit.

    For once the word "unspoofable" does seem appropriate.
    You suggest that policy should be guided by whether death threats are made or not ?

    It's a view.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    The NEC report to the Labour Party conference began

    "The European issue in British politics is now settled...."

    I am, of course, referring to the NEC report to the Labour Party Conference in 1975.

    And we all know how settled the European issue has been since then.

    It will not be settled anytime soon, Brexit or no Brexit.
    Maybe we can have that second referendum sometime in the 2050s? :p
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    edited December 2017
    TOPPING said:



    Not at all, I am probably the most humble person I know.

    Just as mentioned trying to get inside the minds of you lot.

    Yes you sound very humble whilst branding the majority of people as nasty.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    I thought there was lots of discussion about that yesterday? It hardly went unnoticed!
    Yes, the average Leaver comment on it is:

    "Oh yeah, bit off really. Still, BREXIT!"

    And then Leavers wonder why they have an image problem.
    I read many condeming it, and I got the impression they were sincere.
    People seemed more annoyed with me than with the accusations of treachery and death threats.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    Because no one else ever received death threats on Twitter and Facebook for holding particular political views....
  • So the Royal Wedding is the same day as the FA Cup final.

    The poor rozzers.
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    Terrible that threats are made.

    But irrelevant as to changing course on Brexit.

    For once the word "unspoofable" does seem appropriate.
    You suggest that policy should be guided by whether death threats are made or not ?

    It's a view.

    I suggest you read the (very good) thread header and consider its contents carefully. You have much to learn from it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    ?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    And you wilfully misunderstand and then denigrate millions of your fellow citizens because they voted differently to you. You need to get over yourself. I voted remain but it was a close call. It is a perfectly reasonable position to oppose FOM without hating foreigners.
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limlcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
    Comprehension skills: C-
    Alongside the same smug attitude. You'd think they'd have learned a bit of humility since their massive defeat, but have instead gone with doubling down.
    Not at all, I am probably the most humble person I know.

    He said with all due modesty!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    I thought there was lots of discussion about that yesterday? It hardly went unnoticed!
    Yes, the average Leaver comment on it is:

    "Oh yeah, bit off really. Still, BREXIT!"

    And then Leavers wonder why they have an image problem.
    I read many condeming it, and I got the impression they were sincere.
    AM is saying that if leavers were really sincere in condemning threats then they would change their minds and remain. Until they do - their concerns and sympathy are worthless.

  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Floater said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If only Mrs May had said something like this:

    I want this United Kingdom toe could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

    ?
    Demolish your own straw men
    The problem is, that all of that does not square with stopping foreigners coming here. Now, ySNIPs a country have just voted to have fewer of you.

    Innit
    If you stopped listening to the strange voices inside your head and started listening to what other people actually say you'd make a lot more sense yourself. Also possibly less bitter.
    I'm a mild man, but that makes me bitter.

    What noises? What strange? What?

    And that is a tricky message to sell if you also want to sell the open, outward-looking message also.
    .
    'course i

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    You know that putting limits on numbers coming here does not mean being less welcoming to those we allow in?

    Of course you know this - it just doesn't suit your narrative
    That again is the theory. We don't want fewer foreigners, we just want to be in control of which foreigners we let in. Perfectly sensible and honourable.

    Thing is, the campaign as run didn't quite make that distinction - it was a pretty blunt anti-foreigner message. So as has been pointed out by @AlastairMeeks, The Times, and small (British) children in Wheathampstead, you must all now accept that you have unleashed, if I may use quite a dramatic word, a very nasty streak in our country.
    Christ are the same people on here still going on about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is a horrible person?

    And they still wonder why they lost.
    Comprehension skills: C-
    Alongside the same smug attitude. You'd think they'd have learned a bit of humility since their massive defeat, but have instead gone with doubling down.
    52:48 isn't 'massive'.
    Ah ok so Brexit isn't a big deal after all. Just a small defeat in the referendum nothing major.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Miss Cyclefree, I quite agree. It's why I was so irked by the 'Little Englander' line trotted out by Cameron et al., (to the tittering of some of those on the other side of the fence), and partly why the atmosphere now is becoming more poisonous (talk of treachery and idiocy/bigotry do not help bring a polarised nation together).
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Very poor threader article. It's just a long, unedited whinge about how beastly it is that the majority won't defer to the minority, who are clearly better people in all respects.

    Well I made that point but apparently as it mentions a nasty Labour poster from a decade ago it's fair and balanced.
    I realise that it's cold but I wouldn't have expected an entire drift of snowflakes.

    Meanwhile, death threats against MPs who dare to think independently and casual accusations of treachery go uncommented upon.
    Terrible that threats are made.

    But irrelevant as to changing course on Brexit.

    For once the word "unspoofable" does seem appropriate.
    You suggest that policy should be guided by whether death threats are made or not ?

    It's a view.

    Unless it is death threats at someone like Farage. Then it's a jolly good show.

    There is literally zero point trying to reason with these people, especially since the referendum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,571
    edited December 2017
    TOPPING said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    I'm not fighting for continued EU membership. I am trying to get inside the heads of the victorious leavers. And quite a fascinating place it is, too. A bit like wandering around the Pitt Rivers Museum.
    Not at all - the latter is a place of delight.


    .... though I suppose if you have an interest in eccentric ethnography...
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Slightly off topic, wrt the 'meaningful vote' at the end of the negotiation I am still not clear on what practical impact this can have.

    If 29/03/19 is passed as the hard leave date and we arrive at this point before a trade deal is agreed then what is the point of the vote?

    If a trade deal is agreed prior to 29/03/19 and the parliament vote against then are they voting for 'No Deal'?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    SunnyJim said:

    Slightly off topic, wrt the 'meaningful vote' at the end of the negotiation I am still not clear on what practical impact this can have.

    If 29/03/19 is passed as the hard leave date and we arrive at this point before a trade deal is agreed then what is the point of the vote?

    If a trade deal is agreed prior to 29/03/19 and the parliament vote against then are they voting for 'No Deal'?

    Suspect they will be voting on the arrangements for 2019-2021. Which are pretty much settled now..

  • TOPPING said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    I'm not fighting for continued EU membership. I am trying to get inside the heads of the victorious leavers. And quite a fascinating place it is, too. A bit like wandering around the Pitt Rivers Museum.
    I'd vaguely assumed it would be more like a ghost train: dark with the occasional flashes, covered in cobwebs and from time to time bogeymen suddenly lurching out at you.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545
    TGOHF said:



    AM is saying that if leavers were really sincere in condemning threats then they would change their minds and remain. Until they do - their concerns and sympathy are worthless.

    I doubt there is a greater number of of death threats against politicians today than there were in previous years. It's just that in previous years, before twitter and facebook, the threats were heard by only a handful of people in the pub and nobody took them seriously. Now they reach a wider audience and everyone panics. Which only encourages nutters to issue more threats.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "I suggest you read the (very good) thread header and consider its contents carefully. You have much to learn from it."

    "I'd vaguely assumed it would be more like a ghost train: dark with the occasional flashes, covered in cobwebs and from time to time bogeymen suddenly lurching out at you."


    Unspoofable as someone once said.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:



    AM is saying that if leavers were really sincere in condemning threats then they would change their minds and remain. Until they do - their concerns and sympathy are worthless.

    I doubt there is a greater number of of death threats against politicians today than there were in previous years. It's just that in previous years, before twitter and facebook, the threats were heard by only a handful of people in the pub and nobody took them seriously. Now they reach a wider audience and everyone panics. Which only encourages nutters to issue more threats.
    Well quite - but leaver nutters are the worst of the worst right ? Apparently.
  • TOPPING said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    I'm not fighting for continued EU membership. I am trying to get inside the heads of the victorious leavers. And quite a fascinating place it is, too. A bit like wandering around the Pitt Rivers Museum.
    I'd vaguely assumed it would be more like a ghost train: dark with the occasional flashes, covered in cobwebs and from time to time bogeymen suddenly lurching out at you.
    Bogeymen like sanctimonious twats on messageboards saying exactly the same pointless crap every five minutes?

    Sadly I don't think leaving the EU will get rid of them.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784
    edited December 2017
    It was said before Brexit that there was no one vision of Brexit, no single tribe or party to whom Brexit belongs. And now, no common tribe to blame or to admit/refute blame.

    So now we have Leavers split between saying of course it was immigration and That's Not My Brexit. Mr Meeks is spitting in the wind railing at non immigration-led leavers. There is no common vision, so why should any contributer concede one?

    Cyclefree correctly identifies that it is the government who ultimately need ownership, both of reconciliation and delivering Brexit. It will be difficult before 2019, I think, the shape of the Brexit deal itself needs to form a very substantial part of the reconciliation process, as the last few weeks have just begun to show.
  • Pro_Rata said:

    It was said before Brexit that there was no one vision of Brexit, no single tribe or party to whom Brexit belongs. And now, no common tribe to blame or to admit blame.

    So now we have Leavers split between saying of course it was immigration and That's Not My Brexit. Mr Meeks is spitting in the wind railing at non immigration-led leavers. There is no common vision, so why should any contributer concede one?

    Cyclefree correctly identifies that it is the government who ultimately need ownership, both of reconciliation and delivering Brexit. It will be difficult before 2019, I think, the shape of the Brexit deal itself forms a very substantial part of the reconciliation process, as the last few weeks have just begun to show.

    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Pro_Rata said:

    It was said before Brexit that there was no one vision of Brexit, no single tribe or party to whom Brexit belongs. And now, no common tribe to blame or to admit blame.

    So now we have Leavers split between saying of course it was immigration and That's Not My Brexit. Mr Meeks is spitting in the wind railing at non immigration-led leavers. There is no common vision, so why should any contributer concede one?

    Cyclefree correctly identifies that it is the government who ultimately need ownership, both of reconciliation and delivering Brexit. It will be difficult before 2019, I think, the shape of the Brexit deal itself forms a very substantial part of the reconciliation process, as the last few weeks have just begun to show.

    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.
    So leaving in name only? How does that take into account the views of the 52% that voted to leave?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:



    AM is saying that if leavers were really sincere in condemning threats then they would change their minds and remain. Until they do - their concerns and sympathy are worthless.

    I doubt there is a greater number of of death threats against politicians today than there were in previous years. It's just that in previous years, before twitter and facebook, the threats were heard by only a handful of people in the pub and nobody took them seriously. Now they reach a wider audience and everyone panics. Which only encourages nutters to issue more threats.
    Well quite - but leaver nutters are the worst of the worst right ? Apparently.
    There are nutters on all sides - the best policy is to ignore them, not big them up by pretending they are an existential threat to civilisation. Of course in the context of Jo Cox and newspapers which sell existential threats on a daily basis this is easier said than done.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    TOPPING said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I think much of the ongoing angst around our leaving the EU is down to the possibility (however remote) of the process being stopped.

    Remainers are not going to rollover whilst there is still an EU membership to fight for.

    Once the process is complete the subject will wither and die within a pretty short period of time.

    I'm not fighting for continued EU membership. I am trying to get inside the heads of the victorious leavers. And quite a fascinating place it is, too. A bit like wandering around the Pitt Rivers Museum.
    I'd vaguely assumed it would be more like a ghost train: dark with the occasional flashes, covered in cobwebs and from time to time bogeymen suddenly lurching out at you.
    you should remember to keep taking the tablets
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,571

    So the Royal Wedding is the same day as the FA Cup final.

    The poor rozzers.

    Sympathy for the rozzers is currently a little on the low side...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42365521

    Though, to be fair, this egregious behaviour seems to have resulted from overstretched resources.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Pro_Rata said:

    It was said before Brexit that there was no one vision of Brexit, no single tribe or party to whom Brexit belongs. And now, no common tribe to blame or to admit blame.

    So now we have Leavers split between saying of course it was immigration and That's Not My Brexit. Mr Meeks is spitting in the wind railing at non immigration-led leavers. There is no common vision, so why should any contributer concede one?

    Cyclefree correctly identifies that it is the government who ultimately need ownership, both of reconciliation and delivering Brexit. It will be difficult before 2019, I think, the shape of the Brexit deal itself forms a very substantial part of the reconciliation process, as the last few weeks have just begun to show.

    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.
    but one man's soft is another man's hard - trying to simplify the process into a word or two is ridiculous
  • Pro_Rata said:

    It was said before Brexit that there was no one vision of Brexit, no single tribe or party to whom Brexit belongs. And now, no common tribe to blame or to admit blame.

    So now we have Leavers split between saying of course it was immigration and That's Not My Brexit. Mr Meeks is spitting in the wind railing at non immigration-led leavers. There is no common vision, so why should any contributer concede one?

    Cyclefree correctly identifies that it is the government who ultimately need ownership, both of reconciliation and delivering Brexit. It will be difficult before 2019, I think, the shape of the Brexit deal itself forms a very substantial part of the reconciliation process, as the last few weeks have just begun to show.

    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.
    Yeah I'm sure you'd be calling for the same if remain had won by a narrow margin.
  • Pro_Rata said:

    It was said before Brexit that there was no one vision of Brexit, no single tribe or party to whom Brexit belongs. And now, no common tribe to blame or to admit blame.

    So now we have Leavers split between saying of course it was immigration and That's Not My Brexit. Mr Meeks is spitting in the wind railing at non immigration-led leavers. There is no common vision, so why should any contributer concede one?

    Cyclefree correctly identifies that it is the government who ultimately need ownership, both of reconciliation and delivering Brexit. It will be difficult before 2019, I think, the shape of the Brexit deal itself forms a very substantial part of the reconciliation process, as the last few weeks have just begun to show.

    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.
    Brexit must be pursued in accordance with the mandate secured. Within the scope of that mandate, the government must seek to secure the broadest possible consensus. But that doesn't mean filing down the edges of the anti-immigration mandate that was secured. That would be an affront to democracy.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784

    Pro_Rata said:

    It was said before Brexit that there was no one vision of Brexit, no single tribe or party to whom Brexit belongs. And now, no common tribe to blame or to admit blame.

    So now we have Leavers split between saying of course it was immigration and That's Not My Brexit. Mr Meeks is spitting in the wind railing at non immigration-led leavers. There is no common vision, so why should any contributer concede one?

    Cyclefree correctly identifies that it is the government who ultimately need ownership, both of reconciliation and delivering Brexit. It will be difficult before 2019, I think, the shape of the Brexit deal itself forms a very substantial part of the reconciliation process, as the last few weeks have just begun to show.

    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.
    We cannot ignore immigration. Even whilst I was advocating EEA, I was noting the need to apply the rules that are available, to effect a reduction from non EU countries, and to properly address what the sustainable level actually looks like.

    The HBINO we are pitching for will end FoM whilst aiming to be as soft as possible on almost all things trade and customs related. Yes, that works for me too, if they can manage it.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106

    Pro_Rata said:


    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.

    If a very soft Brexit is the end point which includes whatever Labour call FoM then you can foresee the marginals in the Midlands and the North reacting very negatively.

    I should think Tory remainers will accept and move on but the wwc will not see 'their' issues
    resolved by Brexit.

    They will feel like they have been stitched up by the political establishment.

  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    SunnyJim said:

    Pro_Rata said:


    Reconciliation will require taking into account the views of the 48% as well as those of the 52%. That must mean the softest of all possible Brexits.

    If a very soft Brexit is the end point which includes whatever Labour call FoM then you can foresee the marginals in the Midlands and the North reacting very negatively.

    I should think Tory remainers will accept and move on but the wwc will not see 'their' issues
    resolved by Brexit.

    They will feel like they have been stitched up by the political establishment.

    Not sure what I did to make it look like you posted that logical - apologies.

    Still finding my way around.
  • Thanks for this article. The young are indeed making their voices heard (Youthquake anyone?) but not uniformly. My 17 y.o. son is a firm Brexiteer having come to the view that the EU project is a political construct with many economic weaknesses similar to the former Yugoslavia. The whole Brexit issue is causing so much anger because it changes how all of us see ourselves, and that kind of fundamental change is challenging. We all need to be kinder to each other, hard though it is.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Nigelb said:

    So the Royal Wedding is the same day as the FA Cup final.

    The poor rozzers.

    Sympathy for the rozzers is currently a little on the low side...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42365521

    Though, to be fair, this egregious behaviour seems to have resulted from overstretched resources.
    it's not uncommon these days to complain about being busy as if the contractual obligation is to not have to work too hard - what's difficult about passing on evidence that you're obliged to pass on. As it is, the cops only investigate minor crimes (their interpretation thereof) when they feel like it. To then decide to effectively continue to pursue a serious crime allegation when in possession of evidence that no crime had been committed, stinks.
  • TGOHF said:



    AM is saying that if leavers were really sincere in condemning threats then they would change their minds and remain. Until they do - their concerns and sympathy are worthless.

    I doubt there is a greater number of of death threats against politicians today than there were in previous years. It's just that in previous years, before twitter and facebook, the threats were heard by only a handful of people in the pub and nobody took them seriously. Now they reach a wider audience and everyone panics. Which only encourages nutters to issue more threats.
    I disagree. I'm quite sure that there's more now, partly because social media is both simple and anonymous - even writing a letter took much more time and effort than sending a tweet, but also simply because there's more anger now.

    Politicians did used to have to beware of terrorist groups but the threat from the general public, from nationalist extremists to ISIS-inspired lone wolves, is demonstrably greater now than it was in, say, the 1980s.
  • Mr. B, agree entirely, and it's not fair that the innocent man's name is in the public domain whereas the source of a spurious accusation remains anonymous (NB not calling for all complainants who don't succeed to be named, only those who do so maliciously/have been proven to do so deceitfully).

    Mr. Scotland, your seventeen year old makes an interesting comparison. Weirdly, it seems the youthful rebels of today are, er, Conservatives.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If ll/

    Weiri?
    Demolish your own straw men

    Innit
    If yitter.
    I'm a g message also.
    And you wilfully miers.
    'course it is - I think I mentioned that in one of my posts. But the fact is that, just as that bloke on QT last night who everyone portrayed as a hero of modern Britain, and as also told to us repeatedly by those who know, the referendum was won by those who want fewer foreigners.

    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    So because one idiot says something on QT your thesis is complete. You ignore completely the fact that T.May and every other Tory within and without the government along with the vast majority of other leading leavers have given a completely different message. It is because you want to wallow in defeat and lash out at those who took a different view. I don't know how else I can say this. :)
    So now the QT guy who all the Leavers were praising earlier today is an idiot?

    The Leave campaign was centred around immigration and the reduction of same. Some Leavers said it was about control, but you would have to wade through the actual and implied message of immigration reduction to get there. If you are happy and believe that the Leave campaign was conducted free of such implications, then you have every right to have the spring in your step you undoubtedly have. But them's the facts.

    As for wallowing in defeat? Not at all. I am posting on a political chatroom on the internet. And enjoying it even if at times it is frustrating on account of the wilful disinclination of other contributors to see what the whole world knows to be blindingly obvious.
    Oh grow up for heavens sake. 'Them's the facts' ! Spend some time with a dictionary to discover the difference between fact and opinion. While you're at it try a thesaurus for 'sore loser'.
    LOL patronising, much?

    I appreciate that it suits your conscience to portray me as a bitter Remoaner who is inventing the malicious nature of the Leave campaign but I'm afraid I'm not the one who built the campaign on a heap of scaremongering lies.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    For all the Brexiteers whining that the vote was about Sovereignty, not immigration...

    @hourlyterrier: BREXITEERS: "Parliament should be sovereign!"

    So... err... like they get a vote?

    BREXITEERS: "No! The British people should be sovereign!"

    What... so like a referendum on the final deal?

    BREXITEERS: "No! What fucking part of 'sovereign' don't you understand!?"
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784
    edited December 2017
    On the Barnsley thing. Yes, Barnsley has been a low immigration area, but what it does have is first wave immigration, an immigration that has been predominately from Eastern Europe, from EU free movement.

    I think the attitudes shown there, or in NE Derbyshire or in Lincolnshire may actually compare favourably with first large wave immigrations to London 60 years ago, or to Italy 20 years ago, or to Eastern Europe now. Which is not to say they are good, but that there has been at least some account taken of the broader cultural landscape in the UK beyond their own towns or WWC neighbourhoods.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If ll/

    Weiri?
    Demolish your own straw men

    Innit
    If yitter.
    I'm a g message also.
    And you wilfully miers.


    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    So because one idiot says something on QT your thesis is complete. You ignore completely the fact that T.May and every other Tory within and without the government along with the vast majority of other leading leavers have given a completely different message. It is because you want to wallow in defeat and lash out at those who took a different view. I don't know how else I can say this. :)
    So now the QT guy who all the Leavers were praising earlier today is an idiot?

    The Leave campaign was centred around immigration and the reduction of same. Some Leavers said it was about control, but you would have to wade through the actual and implied message of immigration reduction to get there. If you are happy and believe that the Leave campaign was conducted free of such implications, then you have every right to have the spring in your step you undoubtedly have. But them's the facts.

    As for wallowing in defeat? Not at all. I am posting on a political chatroom on the internet. And enjoying it even if at times it is frustrating on account of the wilful disinclination of other contributors to see what the whole world knows to be blindingly obvious.
    Oh grow up for heavens sake. 'Them's the facts' ! Spend some time with a dictionary to discover the difference between fact and opinion. While you're at it try a thesaurus for 'sore loser'.
    LOL patronising, much?

    I appreciate that it suits your conscience to portray me as a bitter Remoaner who is inventing the malicious nature of the Leave campaign but I'm afraid I'm not the one who built the campaign on a heap of scaremongering lies.
    Being ever so humble I assumed you'd enjoy being patronised. You are correct about the campaign - there were lies on both sides. That's pretty much the way politics works. Maybe you're just new to it.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If ll/

    Weiri?
    Demolish your own straw men

    Innit
    If yitter.
    I'm a g message also.
    And you wilfully miers.

    I can perfectly understand your reluctance to grasp this nettle but there you have it; we as a nation just voted for fewer foreigners. People may not hate them, I'm sure you don't, but we as a country voted to make the UK less welcoming for them.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    So because one idiot says something on QT your thesis is complete. You ignore completely the fact that T.May and every other Tory within and without the government along with the vast majority of other leading leavers have given a completely different message. It is because you want to wallow in defeat and lash out at those who took a different view. I don't know how else I can say this. :)
    So now the QT guy who all the Leavers were praising earlier today is an idiot?

    The Leave campaign was centred around immigration and the reduction of same. Some Leavers said it was about control, but you would have to wade through the actual and implied message of immigration reduction to get there. If you are happy and believe that the Leave campaign was conducted free of such implications, then you have every right to have the spring in your step you undoubtedly have. But them's the facts.

    As for wallowing in defeat? Not at all. I am posting on a political chatroom on the internet. And enjoying it even if at times it is frustrating on account of the wilful disinclination of other contributors to see what the whole world knows to be blindingly obvious.
    Oh grow up for heavens sake. 'Them's the facts' ! Spend some time with a dictionary to discover the difference between fact and opinion. While you're at it try a thesaurus for 'sore loser'.
    LOL patronising, much?

    I appreciate that it suits your conscience to portray me as a bitter Remoaner who is inventing the malicious nature of the Leave campaign but I'm afraid I'm not the one who built the campaign on a heap of scaremongering lies.
    was not the counter campaign built on a similar heap of establishment scaremongering lies which have already been shown to have been such
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Time for some Kreminology (or perhaps Brusselology) on what the EU27 are saying about the next steps. The EU27 negotiating guidelines published today say:

    The European Council will continue to follow the negotiations closely and will adopt additional guidelines in March 2018, in particular as regards the framework for the future relationship. It calls on the United Kingdom to provide further clarity on its position on the framework for the future relationship.

    This is being interpreted by some people as an unwarranted delay and therefore as a negative. I think it's the exact opposite - it gives space for the UK and Commission to negotiate behind the scenes before Barnier is given public red lines which he can't cross.

    Is it any more complicated than Eurocratic for "would you mind telling us what on earth you actually want?"
    Every industry is waiting for an answer to that question.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    Every industry is waiting for an answer to that question.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga3BQWoNPq0
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2017
    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    If ll/

    Weiri?
    Demolish your own straw men

    Innit
    If yitter.
    I'm a g message also.
    And you wilfully miers.
    em.

    I don't know how else I can say this.
    So because one idiot says something on know how else I can say this. :)
    So now the QT guy who all the Leavers were praising earlier today is an idiot?

    The Leave campaign was centred around imm the spring in your step you undoubtedly have. But them's the facts.

    As for wallowing in defeat? Not at all. I am posting on a political chatroom on the internet. And enjoying it even if at times it is frustrating on account of the wilful disinclination of other contributors to see what the whole world knows to be blindingly obvious.
    Oh grow up for heavens sake. 'Them's the facts' ! Spend some time with a dictionary to discover the difference between fact and opinion. While you're at it try a thesaurus for 'sore loser'.
    LOL patronising, much?

    I appreciate that it suits your conscience to portray me as a bitter Remoaner who is inventing the malicious nature of the Leave campaign but I'm afraid I'm not the one who built the campaign on a heap of scaremongering lies.
    Being ever so humble I assumed you'd enjoy being patronised. You are correct about the campaign - there were lies on both sides. That's pretty much the way politics works. Maybe you're just new to it.
    Finally! We have established that the Leave campaign was built on a heap of scaremongering lies. God anyone would have thought I'd said the earth was flat, such was the reaction to such a bleedin' obvious point.

    As to the other side's lies ( @ReggieCide), George Osborne said there would be an emergency budget, and severely negative consequences just after the vote. And indeed GBP dropped 15% overnight. Luckily, the wisdom of Mark Carney in reassuring the markets with an immediate rate cut, and the display of preparedness displayed by both him and GO, together with the rate cut, meant that a recession was avoided and people kept on spending (which is of course a huge component of our GDP growth).

    So what lies? Comparable to Nigel's poster, etc?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Nigelb said:

    So the Royal Wedding is the same day as the FA Cup final.

    The poor rozzers.

    Sympathy for the rozzers is currently a little on the low side...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42365521

    Though, to be fair, this egregious behaviour seems to have resulted from overstretched resources.
    Always plenty of resources for a fishing-trip raid on the Palace of Westminster though.....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: Local media reports Dutch police have shot a man armed with a knife at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam
This discussion has been closed.