• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

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

Gutter Boy said:
I think it's very obvious that will happen after the local elections in May. The two prime candidates (Javid and Hunt) have been on massive manoeuvres over the past couple of weeks because they know it is coming.

The whole Begum citizenship revocation thing was Javid playing to Tory party members, while Hunt has been making no deal isn't so bad noises and comparing the EU to the USSR for the same reason.
Click to expand...

And we thought it could not get any more surreal! Hunt:eek:
 
the dza said:
Ok, here's my stab at suggesting where you might be wrong (disclaimer, I have no phucking idea what I'm talking about, but I will take a guess):

No confidence vote, GE, Lab minority win -- I'm good with that so far (shock, I know)

Labour have agreement with SNP as Tories do with DUP -- I would differ here, slightly. Policy wise, there's nothing the SNP could/would/should really object to, there's lots of overlap between the SNP and Labour on general policies. They obviously want a 2nd referendum for independence, but they will only call one if there is appetite i.e if they think they can win. And the only way I see that happening is if Labour were to refuse a 2nd referendum/enable a hard brexit. Which doesn't seem to be on the agenda for Labour. And this bleeds into your next point

Corbyn tries to negotiate Labour deal, fails, we end up with Norway+ (he has been talking to the Norway+ MPs a lot recently about this): I think you are probably right, we'd end up in this position. It's likely that Labour would put the choice of this deal or remain back to the public. SNP are good with that, there is no reason for 2nd independence vote for them now either.

And from there we see what happens under a Labour government. If policies are good and work for "Labour leavers" in the heartlands, then they forgive over the EU. If things go to sh1t, Labour get buried at the next GE.

I actually have to go and do something useful for a minute, so if/when you reply I will have to respond later!
Click to expand...

Disclaimer - Im in exactly the same boat!

I cant stand Sturgeon (probably surprising no one), shes basically a Farage in my book - and I would not bet against her leveraging SNP support for an independence vote at all. While the SNP should really align with Labour on most things, it doesnt mean there isnt an opportunity there to exploit, does it? And I think she is just the sort to try it.

What does Norway+ even mean? If its essentially a neutered remain what does that do for Corbyns domestic policies? How much room for manouvre is there?

And, honestly, aside from potentially hamstringing himself - it really does boil down to a betrayal of Brexit full stop for me.

If the options are "Leave" and "Technically leave, but basically stay" - how can it be anything else?

And if THAT is the case, good luck with maintaining power... Labour will get one term, achieve little, and that will be Corbyns legacy.
 
Gutter Boy said:
It should only be a technicality. The precedent is that they only need to change a word or comma in the bill. Otherwise Bercow has completely destroyed any claim of impartiality.
Click to expand...
he has addressed that and a change in wording will not suffice:

If the government brings forward a new proposition, that would be in order.

But the government cannot bring back “the same proposition”, or “substantially the same proposition”.
 
StephenH said:
And we thought it could not get any more surreal! Hunt:eek:
Click to expand...

The junior doctors' strike is a career blemish, but otherwise he seems quite well regarded by his peers. He's a better speaker than Javid, which could be the latter's downfall.

Both have probably positioned themselves in the best place re Brexit i.e. not Brexiteers per se, but more Canada to May's Norway.
 
The ERG are getting exactly what they deserve!!
Shame Corbyn won’t get a huge majority just to rub it in!
I’m past caring, I’m just in it for the amusement!
 
Gutter Boy said:
The junior doctors' strike is a career blemish, but otherwise he seems quite well regarded by his peers. He's a better speaker than Javid, which could be the latter's downfall.

Both have probably positioned themselves in the best place re Brexit i.e. not Brexiteers per se, but more Canada to May's Norway.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t reflect well on his peers. He’s a corpse!
 
StephenH said:
The ERG are getting exactly what they deserve!!
Shame Corbyn won’t get a huge majority just to rub it in!
I’m past caring, I’m just in it for the amusement!
Click to expand...

Or they could just filibuster now and get no deal across the line instead. I would love the irony if Bercow caused that.
 
Gutter Boy said:
It should only be a technicality. The precedent is that they only need to change a word or comma in the bill. Otherwise Bercow has completely destroyed any claim of impartiality.
Click to expand...

Could it actually be helpful though I wonder, in a roundabout way? Ever so sorry EU, but we need substantive changes to even take this back to another vote...
 
There was some chatter, last week amongst the talking heads, that Bercow might do this. But they seemed to think it very unlikely. Right honourable members of Glory Glory know what they do now then?

Can they just stick on one of the amendments that was likely to get through and then put that forward for a vote?
 
I guess if we needed any further confirmation that Bercow is in the remain camp then this is it, also means (apparently) that amendments which have been rejected can't be raised again but we've rejected no deal, referendum, indicative votes, EEA, customs union and probably a few other things so not sure where it leaves us.
 
SpurMeUp said:
You are refering to Ireland holding 2 referendum on the treaty? We didn't have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Only Ireland did, and they choose to run it again - not the EU. Is it factually correct to state the EU ran it again? To me that's misinformation.

I don't know what the stability and growth pact is. But stability and growth sounds a good thing, why wouldn't you want that? How does it effect you day to day?

Re. Mortgages I am guessing this is something that has occured globally post credit crunch. If you recall the global financial industry collapsed because banks were lending to anyone regardless of whether they could pay back the money. We entered Austerity becuase of this, meaning nurses and teachers have barely had a pay rise for 10 years (with inflation their pay has actually gone down). The UK have taken steps to ensure this does not occur again with our own UK laws. The EU have too. That is good thing is it not? Maybe the laws need refining further, but if that is the best you can find - the only example of how the EU affects you or the UK in a day to day sense - then that is pretty weak. I'm not biased in saying that am I? It's far from overiding evidence that the EU holds us back is it?

We wouldn't prefer a credit crunch every couple of decades. Responsible government that ensures fiancial stability has to be good thing. Remember fiancial systems are global. The UK could legislate, but others in the US, Europe can still bring about ruin with improper financial practice. EU directives are without doubt useful for things that don't respect national boarders - such as finance. How could the UK ensure their own dilligence is not udermined by others without things like the EU? This is the same for pollution. How can a UK factory spend money on cleaning up emissions if Spanish ones are not, and producing their goods cheaper? Hopefully you can see that for issues that don't respect boarders - flows of money, air pollution - the Eu has a role to play?

CAP is in need of reform, however, farmers need some protection otherwise we would lose our famring industries. During WWII we found out we did not produce some things in the UK and we could not improt them due to the war. That is why there is the CAP - to protect local national farming. The premise of local food production is a good one - environmentally we should get local food rather than import it.

So migration is not an issue for you. Flagging up clever people coming to the UK is an arguement for remain then, an area you think is a postive for the UK? We take other peoples clever folkes to help us.

There are Federalists in the EU, but look around european nations, who would allow a federal EU? Its a type of project fear to suggest it would happen. We have a veto, others have a veto, most EU nations have strong national movements, and they don't want it. There will always be a tension between the EU executive who want to be able to get more done by nations being more alligned and member states who want to maintain their own control. It is a healthy tension as we end up with only the useful and essential within the EU remit on the whole. Things like polution, phone roaming etc. make it into the eu remit because it makes sense. But will we ever see a united states of Europe? Never. Its impossible. We have such distrinct languages and cultures. Even if everyone wanted it, it would be impossible to achieve.

Had the UK been part of the EU movement over the past 2 years, we could have influenced the Japan trade deal so we didn't lose production overnight. However the deal is potentially worth trillions to the UK in goods we could now sell to Japan from within the EU. Its about comromise and representation. If we had been at the table we could have had both - protected UK jobs, and increased trade to Japan. I think if there wasn't Brexit on the horizon these Japanese firms would have moved a lot slower with the car production to Japan. Brexit sped it up for them.

You have one example about mortgages - is that affecting you personally? Otherwise you're very light on examples. State aid rules and the EU are a misnomer. The French government part-own Renult, all of their railways, part of phone comapnies like Orange etc

So the only example of how the EU negatively impacts us day to day is mortgage lending? And this may or may not effect you. I'm sold.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the criteria to cast your vote has to be on things that affect you personally. You obviously haven't read up on the items I mentioned so there's no real point discussing them.

As for migration I am in favour of it but I also believe that it disadvantages other countries i.e. lots of states fund doctors and dentists etc then they move abroad soon after qualifying and the same goes for other industries e.g. engineering etc.

As it so happens a good example of state aid came up today and I'd like to see the government able to override these types of rulings - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47609536
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back