Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Across the UK political divide voters regard Theresa May as a

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited July 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Across the UK political divide voters regard Theresa May as a much better leader than Donald Trump

To coincide with the Trump visit the latest ICM/Guardian poll has a series of findings examining the attitudes of British voters to the current incumbent at the White House. The responses to two of the questions are featured above with breakdown on party support.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,512
    Is "a politician like Trump [as British PM]" perhaps seen as code for Boris?
  • Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,730

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 898
    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,730

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
    The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.

    And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    It requires FOM, so it is of no use to the UK just on that basis.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
    The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.

    And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
    Fundamentally the UK economy is based around services. Strategically, we need to enter into FTAs to allow other countries to import goods to us tariff free in return for us gaining access to their markets for our services.

    The Chequers plan does the exact opposite. It grants the EU free access for their goods and restricts our abilities to export services and then restricts our ability to strike these types of FTAs. Like the EU, it a strategy locked in the past.
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 154
    Why do people think that UK economy is all about services? What about JLR, Ford, Airbus, Nissan, Toyota, Mini, Tata, etc.

    London can survive on services alone - but Wales would be decimated.. as would most of England outside of SE..
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,641

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
    The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.

    And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
    Fundamentally the UK economy is based around services. Strategically, we need to enter into FTAs to allow other countries to import goods to us tariff free in return for us gaining access to their markets for our services.

    The Chequers plan does the exact opposite. It grants the EU free access for their goods and restricts our abilities to export services and then restricts our ability to strike these types of FTAs. Like the EU, it a strategy locked in the past.
    I could imagine the kind of deal where we traded open goods access, including integrated supply chains, for open service access in the other direction, across a whole continent...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,771
    Little bit gutted to see as many as 1 in 5 keen on a politician like Trump. Tailor Trump to British context and that could go higher still.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,857

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    It requires FOM, so it is of no use to the UK just on that basis.
    I thought the Swiss had a referendum about FOM as they don't like it???
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,197
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
    The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.

    And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,283
    I think UKIP voters would prefer a Trump figure to May but they are the only main party voters who would do so.

    Boris is probably the closest we have to a Trump figure even if he does not replicate him exactly but offers a British version of him
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,310
    It is something of a relief that the UK public recognise him as the worst President in living memory, Nixon included.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,283

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    It requires FOM, so it is of no use to the UK just on that basis.
    Pretty much, though Switzerland does give preference to local jobseekers first in terms of job interviews etc
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,283
    Nigelb said:

    It is something of a relief that the UK public recognise him as the worst President in living memory, Nixon included.

    Was that question asked?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,869
    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,088
    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    You'd get similar figures in most countries - many higher.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,283
    felix said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    You'd get similar figures in most countries - many higher.
    Look at Salvini or Orban or Le Pen certainly
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167
    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's probably lower than average for most countries.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,300
    Foxy said:

    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.

    No we could not. Not without charging British citizens the NHS insurance fee too - is that what you're proposing?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554
    Foxy said:

    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.

    We couldn't force EU citizens to buy health insurance, because they had to have access to welfare/healthcare on the same terms as UK citizens. Arguably however that is far more an indictment of the uselessness of our welfare systems and underlines the need for drastic reform, rather than one of the EU.

    For your second point, I would have agreed with you three years ago. However, now Selmayr is so powerful I'm not sure I still can. Nasty piece of work and in effect running the Commission as a private fiefdom despite having no legal right to do so.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,197

    Foxy said:

    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.

    No we could not. Not without charging British citizens the NHS insurance fee too - is that what you're proposing?
    We could make a history of NI contributions compulsory, but I think it the welfare rather than health benefits that most affect low skilled immigration.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554
    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,300
    'A politician like Trump' is rather vague as it depends upon what the person being surveyed takes away from Trump.

    Do you mean a racist bigot who's in league with literal fascists?
    Do you mean someone simply anti-immigration?
    Do you mean a buffoonish loudmouth? (hello Boris - Ed)
    Do you mean a leader putting their own country first?
    Or something completely different?

    I imagine especially after the Chequers news there might be people out there who wouldn't hold any truck with the racist sentiments but might appreciate a leader that is vocally and strongly pro-Britain on the international stage.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 718
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's probably lower than average for most countries.
    Trump at least has the guts to call out the Reichskanzlerin, whereas May just takes orders from her.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,300
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.

    No we could not. Not without charging British citizens the NHS insurance fee too - is that what you're proposing?
    We could make a history of NI contributions compulsory, but I think it the welfare rather than health benefits that most affect low skilled immigration.
    So are you proposing ending Britain's universal welfare? Should the unemployed without NI contributions be denied the NHS?

    The Swiss outside the EU can discriminate between their own citizens and foreigners. Inside the EU we can not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.

    No we could not. Not without charging British citizens the NHS insurance fee too - is that what you're proposing?
    We could make a history of NI contributions compulsory, but I think it the welfare rather than health benefits that most affect low skilled immigration.
    While I think linking NHS treatment to NI contributions with some flexibility is an admirable idea, and would bring us in line with every functioning healthcare system in the world (that gets rid of the US system from the discussion) do you actually think any senior politician would dare propose it? It would finish them.

    That said I also agree with your second point. Equally, reforming welfare has been a goal of all administrations for forty years and they have made pretty well zero progress.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 718

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    +1
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,017
    Good morning, everyone.

    Bit peeved I hedged the wrong damn semi. Oh well. Will probably hedge Croatia in the final, just hope the odds aren't too long.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 718
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
    The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.

    And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.
    -5

    The whole purpose of Brexit is not to be ruled from Brussels/Berlin.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,643
    edited July 12
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487
    daodao said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.

    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
    The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.

    And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.
    -5

    The whole purpose of Brexit is not to be ruled from Brussels/Berlin.

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    It is ironic. But it's funny because it's also true.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487
    HYUFD said:

    I think UKIP voters would prefer a Trump figure to May but they are the only main party voters who would do so.

    Boris is probably the closest we have to a Trump figure even if he does not replicate him exactly but offers a British version of him

    Yep, a lazy sexual predator comfortable in the company of racists.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,300

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,643
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    It is ironic. But it's funny because it's also true.
    Trump would be Brexit supporting, right wing economically and wanting to cut immigration. He's basically matching you vote for vote with Brexit and the Tories (although maybe a UKIPper previously only recent votes)

    It is funny to say the other side are the bad guys and like bad people you don't like but it takes a massive lack of understanding to pretend it is actually true...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,835
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    39.99? when was that?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    It is ironic. But it's funny because it's also true.
    Trump would be Brexit supporting, right wing economically and wanting to cut immigration. He's basically matching you vote for vote with Brexit and the Tories (although maybe a UKIPper previously only recent votes)

    It is funny to say the other side are the bad guys and like bad people you don't like but it takes a massive lack of understanding to pretend it is actually true...
    Corbyn is Brexit supporting, intends to massively raise taxes on the poor and wants to cut immigration. He's just appointed somebody who supports ethnic cleansing on grounds of race as his Equalities lead.

    He may not realise those things are what he is, but that's because he's also as dim as a three watt bulb.

    I'm still not seeing your objection to the parallel.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487
    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

    I think you will find Ireland did vote to leave the Empire, although the British tried to nullify the result (made easier by the IRB's huge vote-rigging operation which called the legitimacy of the results into question).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,283

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.

    Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.

    No we could not. Not without charging British citizens the NHS insurance fee too - is that what you're proposing?
    We could make a history of NI contributions compulsory, but I think it the welfare rather than health benefits that most affect low skilled immigration.
    So are you proposing ending Britain's universal welfare? Should the unemployed without NI contributions be denied the NHS?

    The Swiss outside the EU can discriminate between their own citizens and foreigners. Inside the EU we can not.
    Even in the US the unemployed can get Medicaid if they don't have health insurance, most countries have a public health system mainly funded by insurance
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,452

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Well quite.

    Political sovereignty is only half of it. Economic sovereignty in a globalised economy is more important. Sadly we're finding out Brexit actually undermines that.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

    I think you will find Ireland did vote to leave the Empire, although the British tried to nullify the result (made easier by the IRB's huge vote-rigging operation which called the legitimacy of the results into question).

    My bad - Ireland could vote to leave the Empire, but could not actually do it without an armed uprising. In other words, it was only through violence that sovereignty was achieved. And Ireland remains sovereign to this day. If it wishes to, it can leave the EU.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554
    Jonathan said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Well quite.

    Political sovereignty is only half of it. Economic sovereignty in a globalised economy is more important. Sadly we're finding out Brexit actually undermines that.
    Well, the punchline of Brexit is that to get more political and economic independence we've had to give up a lot of it, in the short term at least.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,300

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

    I think you will find Ireland did vote to leave the Empire, although the British tried to nullify the result (made easier by the IRB's huge vote-rigging operation which called the legitimacy of the results into question).

    My bad - Ireland could vote to leave the Empire, but could not actually do it without an armed uprising. In other words, it was only through violence that sovereignty was achieved. And Ireland remains sovereign to this day. If it wishes to, it can leave the EU.

    Which is back to my original point.

    But please don't talk about armed uprisings. We could do without giving the ERG ideas.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 955

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

    And if it turns out that Brexit is impossible?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Well quite.

    Political sovereignty is only half of it. Economic sovereignty in a globalised economy is more important. Sadly we're finding out Brexit actually undermines that.
    Well, the punchline of Brexit is that to get more political and economic independence we've had to give up a lot of it, in the short term at least.
    It occurs to me that this calls for a contribution by the great Sir Boyle Roache MIP, master of the Irish Bull:

    'MR Speaker, we must be prepared to give up a part or, if need be, the whole of our constitution, in order to preserve the remainder.'
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.

    We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,300

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.

    We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.

    Yes we were.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,452

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
    You're wrong. There are plenty of situations where it's important not to exercise a power. In your marriage analogy your arguing you have to divorce just to prove you can.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,771

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,452

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

    And if it turns out that Brexit is impossible?
    Brexit without economic damage is impossible. No deal is trivial to achieve. We could leave tomorrow. It's trying to engineer a situation that provides equivalent economic benefits to EU membership within two years that's turning out to be a little hard.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.

    We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.

    Yes we were.

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.

    We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.

    Yes we were.

    The UK lost 76 out of 2,446 votes and ...

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,771

    HYUFD said:

    I think UKIP voters would prefer a Trump figure to May but they are the only main party voters who would do so.

    Boris is probably the closest we have to a Trump figure even if he does not replicate him exactly but offers a British version of him

    Yep, a lazy sexual predator comfortable in the company of racists.

    I don't see Boris as being nearly as bad as Trump. But perhaps I've been taken in by the boris marketing and mythology...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,460

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
    Being at the table where collective decisions are made is exercising sovereignty; leaving the table so others can make decisions we need to follow, without any reference to us or considering our interest in any way is not exercising sovereignty. We voted for the latter. Sovereigntist leavers have a blind spot on this.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 955
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    I can see him banning people from the only Jewish state in the world though, and a humble man would not have ignored the vote of no confidence in him from the PLP.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

    And if it turns out that Brexit is impossible?

    Brexit without significant harm is impossible. A No Deal Brexit is as easy as pie. Nothing can stop us leaving. We are sovereign. As we have always been.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,452
    edited July 12
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    Corbyn likes to whip up a mob. He has an enormous ego. He surrounds himself with aggressive political advisors that peddle divisive politics and prefers to avoid MSM. His agenda, like Trumps, is very backward looking. He doesn't compromise...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,554
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    Leaving aside the fact you've fallen for his spin - because in reality he isn't many of those things and in particular a man who found this joke funny is neither respectful nor opposed to violence - I'm talking about the real impact of his policies. He wouldn't, for example, tax the wealthy. He would end up taxing the poor - the very ones who have least money to spare.

    And it's dead easy to imagine him doing those things you say are unimaginable - just not for those groups. Try substituting 'privately educated' and 'Jew.'
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,017
    Mr. Doethur, worth also noting that the EU had and continues to have a drive to integrate ever more. It wasn't a case of 'this settlement forever or leaving' but 'leaving or more integration'. The shift to QMV, outright majority of the eurozone nations, and the ongoing shift to strip ever more vetoes from nations and hand ever more power to Brussels were all factors.

    Mr. 43, those advocating we follow EU laws after we leave are also those who thought we shouldn't have left. [For the sake of fairness, it's worth noting some soft leavers appear ok-ish with the May-Chequers proposition. But many are furious, and even more are less than thrilled].

    If the electorate vote to leave the EU and the political class decide that means we should continue to follow EU laws, that's not a flaw with those who want to leave but deliberately thwarting of the electorate's decision by those tasked with representing them.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,191

    'A politician like Trump' is rather vague as it depends upon what the person being surveyed takes away from Trump.

    Do you mean a racist bigot who's in league with literal fascists?
    Do you mean someone simply anti-immigration?
    Do you mean a buffoonish loudmouth? (hello Boris - Ed)
    Do you mean a leader putting their own country first?
    Or something completely different?

    I imagine especially after the Chequers news there might be people out there who wouldn't hold any truck with the racist sentiments but might appreciate a leader that is vocally and strongly pro-Britain on the international stage.

    You're right, but one can overinterpret a poll. Essentially Trump is alien in both style and content. It would be interesting to see comparisons with other well-known foreign leaders. Would people prefer a leader like Putin to May? Macho, vain, championing national interest above others, but without the Trump vulgarity? Or a leader like Merkel? Sober, rational, low-key?

    Difficult to separate from the policies, though - people look at Putin and think "Salisbury", or at Merkel and think "immigration crisis". I reckon there's a market for nationalist loudmouths in every country, but no more than 25% in most, and a market for quiet competence that is larger. May does quite well at times when she's perceived as competent...
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 955

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    For many Leavers, almost certainly yes. They see the EU in the way India saw the British between the wars - as masters in someone else's house.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.

    Where the parallel falls down is that unlike any country in the Empire except Ireland, we had significant influence in Europe and were therefore not being ruled by it. I don't think however that was enough for Leavers who wanted to see that we always got our own way, because anything else is not by definition self-government.

    India could not vote to leave the Empire. Neither could Ireland.

    And if it turns out that Brexit is impossible?

    Brexit without significant harm is impossible. A No Deal Brexit is as easy as pie. Nothing can stop us leaving. We are sovereign. As we have always been.

    You are right, but it doesn’t always feel like we are.

    Part of the problem of course is the confusion between the EU and the European Court of human rights that many if not most people have.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,771
    Jonathan said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    Corbyn likes to whip up a mob. He surrounds himself with aggressive political advisors that peddle divisive politics and prefers to avoid MSM. His agenda, like Trumps, is very backward looking. He doesn't compromise...
    I think you're right on a mistrust on mainstream media. I don't see his agenda as backward looking, but that's a personal preference. Clearly though his agenda is backwards looking in a different way to Trump. I agree Corbyn is stubborn/won't compromise on core beliefs but I see that as different to Trump who is widely said to have the views of the last person he talked to/last TV show he watched.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,771

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    I can see him banning people from the only Jewish state in the world though, and a humble man would not have ignored the vote of no confidence in him from the PLP.

    No chance he bans people from Israel coming to the UK. Perhaps people accused of war crimes, but from a whole country no chance. He didn't even want to run for leader, that's fairly humble I think in the world of politics.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 955
    rkrkrk said:

    Jonathan said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    Corbyn likes to whip up a mob. He surrounds himself with aggressive political advisors that peddle divisive politics and prefers to avoid MSM. His agenda, like Trumps, is very backward looking. He doesn't compromise...
    I think you're right on a mistrust on mainstream media. I don't see his agenda as backward looking, but that's a personal preference. Clearly though his agenda is backwards looking in a different way to Trump. I agree Corbyn is stubborn/won't compromise on core beliefs but I see that as different to Trump who is widely said to have the views of the last person he talked to/last TV show he watched.
    The ability to change your mind in the face of changed circumstances (e.g. the modern Tory attitude to gay marriage compared to Section 28), particularly when the original conditions that formed your views are decades old, is just as significant as consistency over the short term.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,452
    rkrkrk said:

    Jonathan said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    Corbyn likes to whip up a mob. He surrounds himself with aggressive political advisors that peddle divisive politics and prefers to avoid MSM. His agenda, like Trumps, is very backward looking. He doesn't compromise...
    I think you're right on a mistrust on mainstream media. I don't see his agenda as backward looking, but that's a personal preference. Clearly though his agenda is backwards looking in a different way to Trump. I agree Corbyn is stubborn/won't compromise on core beliefs but I see that as different to Trump who is widely said to have the views of the last person he talked to/last TV show he watched.
    Both are energised by fuelling division and distrust. They like to hate.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,643
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    It is ironic. But it's funny because it's also true.
    Trump would be Brexit supporting, right wing economically and wanting to cut immigration. He's basically matching you vote for vote with Brexit and the Tories (although maybe a UKIPper previously only recent votes)

    It is funny to say the other side are the bad guys and like bad people you don't like but it takes a massive lack of understanding to pretend it is actually true...
    Corbyn is Brexit supporting, intends to massively raise taxes on the poor and wants to cut immigration. He's just appointed somebody who supports ethnic cleansing on grounds of race as his Equalities lead.

    He may not realise those things are what he is, but that's because he's also as dim as a three watt bulb.

    I'm still not seeing your objection to the parallel.
    Corbyn is ambivalent about Brexit, the true believers, like Trump are mostly Tories.

    I'm not sure Corbyn does intend to raise taxes on the poor, your secret knowledge of his intentions or knowledge that it will definitely go wrong so will mean he does have to raise taxes on the poor don't count... although that aside I'm not sure Trump has or wants to raise taxes on the poor? and it certainly isn't a big thing about being Trump if he does so that line seems a little weird... Admittedly I haven't been paying a huge amount of attention to US politics so maybe Trump does intend that....

    From what I remember pre election the Tories and Trump had a more similar tax policy...

    The immigration line I'll give you, can't remember exactly his wording but close enough to that goal. Although let's be honest Trump would think Labour are far too soft on immigration, definitely a Conservative vote there, although they would be too soft as well!

    Yeah I am sure Trump would be well up for appointing Naz Shah... Also freeing the Palestinians does not equal ethnic cleansing, although I can understand why Trump would object to anything positive towards Muslims.

    You may not like the fact that you and Trump would vote in sync in the UK but it just makes you look silly to pretend that somehow Trump is your opponent.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,643
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    It is easy to oppose Trump in another country but some people have trouble recognising the parts they like and would vote for themselves so find it easier to rationalise their opponent as a manifestation of Trump than admit the similarities in their own views.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487

    Mr. Doethur, worth also noting that the EU had and continues to have a drive to integrate ever more. It wasn't a case of 'this settlement forever or leaving' but 'leaving or more integration'. The shift to QMV, outright majority of the eurozone nations, and the ongoing shift to strip ever more vetoes from nations and hand ever more power to Brussels were all factors.

    Mr. 43, those advocating we follow EU laws after we leave are also those who thought we shouldn't have left. [For the sake of fairness, it's worth noting some soft leavers appear ok-ish with the May-Chequers proposition. But many are furious, and even more are less than thrilled].

    If the electorate vote to leave the EU and the political class decide that means we should continue to follow EU laws, that's not a flaw with those who want to leave but deliberately thwarting of the electorate's decision by those tasked with representing them.

    The UK backed QMV. It could not have happened otherwise.

    The British people cannot be forced into a situation where the UK follows EU law. If they oppose that, they will vote for a government that will change it.

  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 955
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    I can see him banning people from the only Jewish state in the world though, and a humble man would not have ignored the vote of no confidence in him from the PLP.

    No chance he bans people from Israel coming to the UK. Perhaps people accused of war crimes, but from a whole country no chance. He didn't even want to run for leader, that's fairly humble I think in the world of politics.
    Given whom he has just appointed to the Shadow Equalities post I’m not so sure about no chance, and if he didn’t want to stand as leader why did he do so twice?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,643

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    I can see him banning people from the only Jewish state in the world though, and a humble man would not have ignored the vote of no confidence in him from the PLP.

    A principled man would have not ignored all those he was called to serve...

    That is regular people not MPs.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,703

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Indeed!

    Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.

    We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.

    Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.

    That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.

    We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.

    You won’t persuade Leavers. Only this week they’ve convinced themselves that an orchestrated resignation by Leavers to change agreed Cabinet policy amounts to a night of the long knives by Remainers. Their ability to rewrite history is inexhaustible, like Thor’s drinking horn.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,771
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    Leaving aside the fact you've fallen for his spin - because in reality he isn't many of those things and in particular a man who found this joke funny is neither respectful nor opposed to violence - I'm talking about the real impact of his policies. He wouldn't, for example, tax the wealthy. He would end up taxing the poor - the very ones who have least money to spare.

    And it's dead easy to imagine him doing those things you say are unimaginable - just not for those groups. Try substituting 'privately educated' and 'Jew.'
    Honestly I think if I said Corbyn was old you'd come up with some theory to say he's actually 35. We clearly can't agree on even what Corbyn's views are, never mind what the impact of his policies would be, so there isn't much more to say really.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,310

    'A politician like Trump' is rather vague as it depends upon what the person being surveyed takes away from Trump.

    Do you mean a racist bigot who's in league with literal fascists?
    Do you mean someone simply anti-immigration?
    Do you mean a buffoonish loudmouth? (hello Boris - Ed)
    Do you mean a leader putting their own country first?
    Or something completely different?

    I imagine especially after the Chequers news there might be people out there who wouldn't hold any truck with the racist sentiments but might appreciate a leader that is vocally and strongly pro-Britain on the international stage.

    I think you missed pathological liar, narcissist and grifter. Oh, and the misogyny.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    Mr. Doethur, worth also noting that the EU had and continues to have a drive to integrate ever more. It wasn't a case of 'this settlement forever or leaving' but 'leaving or more integration'. The shift to QMV, outright majority of the eurozone nations, and the ongoing shift to strip ever more vetoes from nations and hand ever more power to Brussels were all factors.

    Mr. 43, those advocating we follow EU laws after we leave are also those who thought we shouldn't have left. [For the sake of fairness, it's worth noting some soft leavers appear ok-ish with the May-Chequers proposition. But many are furious, and even more are less than thrilled].

    If the electorate vote to leave the EU and the political class decide that means we should continue to follow EU laws, that's not a flaw with those who want to leave but deliberately thwarting of the electorate's decision by those tasked with representing them.

    There are inevitably going to be times when we have to follow other countries' rules. We have to follow US rules to sell goods and services into the US, for example.

    My objection to the EU is to the whole push towards making it one state. I never wanted EU citizenship, but had it foisted on me.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,643
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
    He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.

    I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,017
    Mr. Observer, the politicians backed QMV. The electorate was promised a vote on the treaty that vastly expanded it (Lisbon) which was subsequently reneged upon.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 898
    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
    Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.

    The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487

    Mr. Observer, the politicians backed QMV. The electorate was promised a vote on the treaty that vastly expanded it (Lisbon) which was subsequently reneged upon.

    And the electorate then had an opportunity to hold those politicians to account.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,643
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    Leaving aside the fact you've fallen for his spin - because in reality he isn't many of those things and in particular a man who found this joke funny is neither respectful nor opposed to violence - I'm talking about the real impact of his policies. He wouldn't, for example, tax the wealthy. He would end up taxing the poor - the very ones who have least money to spare.

    And it's dead easy to imagine him doing those things you say are unimaginable - just not for those groups. Try substituting 'privately educated' and 'Jew.'
    Honestly I think if I said Corbyn was old you'd come up with some theory to say he's actually 35. We clearly can't agree on even what Corbyn's views are, never mind what the impact of his policies would be, so there isn't much more to say really.
    It's irritating because he does seem quite logical on other subjects but everything goes out the window when it comes to Corbyn.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
    He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.

    I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
    He is very selective about the civil liberties he favours.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,703
    On topic, if there’s one thing that the last few years have shown it’s that a sizeable percentage of the electorate are arseholes and vote accordingly, even when they would be the first to suffer the consequences. This doesn’t matter when the non-arseholes are reasonably united but that normal state of affairs is some way off.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
    Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.

    The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.

    Yep - I guess I just don’t feel as emasculated and unfree as poor old Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg do!!

  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.

    Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.

    Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
    Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?

    Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
    The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.

    And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
    Fundamentally the UK economy is based around services. Strategically, we need to enter into FTAs to allow other countries to import goods to us tariff free in return for us gaining access to their markets for our services.

    The Chequers plan does the exact opposite. It grants the EU free access for their goods and restricts our abilities to export services and then restricts our ability to strike these types of FTAs. Like the EU, it a strategy locked in the past.
    I could imagine the kind of deal where we traded open goods access, including integrated supply chains, for open service access in the other direction, across a whole continent...
    Let me know if you ever find one. I have seen estimates that the single market in services was no more than 5% complete.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    Mr. Observer, the politicians backed QMV. The electorate was promised a vote on the treaty that vastly expanded it (Lisbon) which was subsequently reneged upon.

    And the electorate then had an opportunity to hold those politicians to account.

    And that is why we are where we are.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,746

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
    He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.

    I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
    What about the civil liberties of Jewish people?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,879
    There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.

    I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.

    We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.

    We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,017
    Mr. Observer, how? There wasn't another election for years after that. In that election (2010) no party offered a renegotiation or referendum.

    The reason we got a referendum was because UKIP was on the rise. But for that, we would've continued to have the political class make sceptical promises and EU-phile actions, binding us ever closer to the EU.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,596
    Just heard Gareth Southgate say that he and the team went through the tournament as a collective and left as a collective.

    By George, I think he's a Corbynite!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,487
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Observer, the politicians backed QMV. The electorate was promised a vote on the treaty that vastly expanded it (Lisbon) which was subsequently reneged upon.

    And the electorate then had an opportunity to hold those politicians to account.

    And that is why we are where we are.

    Exactly. We are and always were sovereign.

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,427

    Is "a politician like Trump [as British PM]" perhaps seen as code for Boris?

    Bloody Hell, over a quarter of Conservative voters would like to see someone like Trump as British PM.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,857

    Just heard Gareth Southgate say that he and the team went through the tournament as a collective and left as a collective.

    By George, I think he's a Corbynite!

    Sounds like the Borg to me...

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,283
    edited July 12

    ydoethur said:

    Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.

    Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
    Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.

    The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
    The difference is the EU is not yet a country and the UK had stayed out of most of the most Federal bits like the Euro and Schengen. In 1921 the UK the Irish Free State broke away from was very much a country
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,771

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.

    That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
    Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...

    It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
    Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.

    He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
    I can see him banning people from the only Jewish state in the world though, and a humble man would not have ignored the vote of no confidence in him from the PLP.

    No chance he bans people from Israel coming to the UK. Perhaps people accused of war crimes, but from a whole country no chance. He didn't even want to run for leader, that's fairly humble I think in the world of politics.
    Given whom he has just appointed to the Shadow Equalities post I’m not so sure about no chance, and if he didn’t want to stand as leader why did he do so twice?
    Reportedly he did so in 2015 only because it was his turn to try fr the left, McDonnell having done it in 2010. Did he stand before then? Or do you mean when he was challenged?

    As for Naz Shah, she has apologised, and what she retweeted was wrong, but she isn't in favour of banning Jews from the country and it will never be labour policy to do so.
This discussion has been closed.