Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

May's principle objective is a solid five years of domestic Tory hegemony.
She probably already thought Brexit was going to be a disaster, she was a Remainer herself after all, but she accepts that risk with a view to domestic politics.
Why would May want to own this disaster?

Firstly, by being obstructive to the EU, she hopes to grab the bulk of the UKIP vote, which could in itself deliver a landslide (13% of the votes cast at the 2015 election!)

Secondly, she solidifies control of her own party, who have always had a love-hate relationship with the EU but a stronger love-love relationship with being in power. Some of them also retain a hard-on for the "Iron Lady" image.

Thirdly, by painting the EU as the villains of the piece, she forgives herself and the Tory government for the disaster.

In reality, the EU was always going to be in charge of the negotiations. They control the timetable and the agenda. They are not the ones who lose out if it comes down to the UK getting nothing. UK trade with the EU is vastly more important to the UK than EU trade with the UK is to the EU.
The EU of course loses our contribution, but they have plenty of up-and-coming states in Eastern Europe whose economies are growing rapidly.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm now in the "give them feth all" camp. No way should we put up with that gak.

I think £30-40 billion is a fair figure to pay the EU, but anything above that should be laughed out of town.

According to some EU law expert at Cambridge who was on the news last night, we'd get some of that back anyway, which shows how messed up it all is

 Orlanth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.

Unless:
We have to accept EU law as part of a trade deal - and the EU has hinted it wants to do that, as have primary members Germany and France.

We have to accept EU law for EU citizens within the UK - this has been dselected as a negotiation goal in Donald Tusks guidelines.

We have to accept the primacy of the European Court of Justice in matters regarding EU citizens in the UK or in trade negotiations. - Likewise highlighted as a negotiation goal. This part is most important, as if there is a trade disagreement within the bounds of a trade deal there isn't an impasse instead it gets referred to the ECJ or European commission, who will find in favour of the EU members states against us.

This is a deliberate misinterpretation of their stated intentions. Can you please point to the part of the EUs Brexit guidelines that compels the UK to refer all judgements, post Brexit to the ECJ.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/

Paras 16 and 17 detail the intent for dispute resolution prior to Brexit, anything that happens before the cut off date must be handled by the existing legislature, that's not unreasonable. Para 17 talks of negotiating the post Brexit arrangements which "bears in mind" the EUs interests in their current legislature. There is no compulsion there, just a statement of intent for negotiation.

 Orlanth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

It's also only demanding that the UK "respects" the EUs current regulations when dealing with the EU, not actually compelling us to comply. However, we can do what we like elsewhere when tra ding wit others.

 r_squared wrote:

We knew that throughout the whole Brexit process, we would have to comply with EU law in order to trade with them. What's the surprise or big deal?

No surprise at all. This was expected, however the EU want us to comply with EU law when not trading with the EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/aa0be31d-5de3-37db-a98e-0f0f91d3afee
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-banks-regulations-idUKKBN17D26W

The EU has made comment that it wants binding legislation to prevent us from undercutting EU legislation. If they get their way we wont be in the EU or have any of the benefits, but still unable to undercut its labyrinthine complexity and inefficient bureaucracy. This is wanted especially with regards to financial institutions to prevent what the French claim to be a 'regulatory race to the bottom' which is a spun out way of saying that the UK can be more competitive than the EU by ditching its heavy legislative burdens.

From your own link quoting Reuters...

Maijoor said it was essential that national regulators do not compete on regulatory and supervisory treatment of UK firms wanting to relocate operations.

"Some practical examples where this may be a risk include such issues as UK firms seeking authorisation from one of the EU27 financial markets regulators and subsequently outsourcing and delegating some of the activities back to the UK entity," he said.

In essence, the EU is attempting to prevent the UK from operating a system whereby they circumvent EU regulation by creating a shell in the EU, granting them their licence, whilst punting all that business back to an unregulated UK based company who proceeds to do what they want. In essense, it's about closing loopholes, and not attempting to reap the benefits of an EU licence, whilst ignoring the contracts and regulation that places upon the institutions. Not unreasonable.

 Orlanth wrote:
[

 r_squared wrote:

Sigh. Firstly, we had our part in creating that legislative behemoth.

We did, but actually very little of it, and long campaigned unsuccessfully to reduce it. Remember we joined the EEC not the EU, The Uk has resisted federalisation at every turn.
No we are not responsible for the behemoth. The European Commission is unelected and meets behind closed doors. Policy is mostly dicatated by Germany and France, this is why the UK is seen as complaining a lot in chamber. Anything that the French or Germans don't want doesn't even get tabled to begin with. Take the common agricultural policy for example, its tailor made for the French, and nobody can shift it.

You can't keep banging the same old "powerless little Britain" drum. We had our chance, and kept electing UKIP MEPs. We were a big deal in the EU, and had influence, and we squandered it on electing Eurosceptic clowns with no interest in engaging in the political process.

 Orlanth wrote:
[

 r_squared wrote:

Secondly, in order to trade with other nations, we have to comply with their laws.

Yes but

 r_squared wrote:

We are not a vassal state of Nicaragua by complying with their laws when we export whisky to them.

Ok, how to rewrite this even simpler so you will understand.

Nicaragua has everyright to consider how its laws are effected in a Nicarague-UK trade deal. However the EU also wants a say.
Its not only about EU wanting to negotiate for the EU with regards to post Brexit trade between EU and UK, they also want to have treaty legislation that binds how the UK trades with any country.

I can understand why. London is the EU' and Europes primary finance centre, and one of two globally. This accounts for about 16% of the UK economy. As London leaves the EU one of two things will happen, either London's financial power will flow to the EU, or EU financial power will stay where it is or even in part flow to London.
The French and the Germans want heavy legislation both in the EU and between the EU and UK to prevent the UK from undercutting financial services, and also to try and steal global business from London.
The UK wants to prevent an asset stripping of the city, which is very likely to be a condition of any Brexit trade deal.

Yes, and we should be negotiating to prevent that happening, however, only a naive fool would think that the UK is going to walk away unscathed, many leavers trumpeted their belief that they were happy to take a financial hit to regain "sovreignty", so no one should be whining that they didn't know this would happen.
It is deliberate self delusion on behalf of many people to believe that BREXIT will be both simple, and painfree, unfortunately that delusion appears to be infecting our Govt.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.

I've said from the beginning that we as a nation have a duty to honour our treaty obligations. So, if we're legally obliged to pay £30 billion, then we should pay it, but this 100 billion figure is pure nonsense and seems to have been plucked from thin air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The thread is open again! Yeah!!!!

Back OT.

As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.

Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.

And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!

Unless thr ghosts of our grandfathers have returned with there ships, we may struggle to rouse a few battle wagons.
Are we that hard up we resorting to soul stone powered dreadnoughts pf thr past lol?

Next up... Load the Victory, Nelsons ghost. You have your spiritual reserve call up!

Nelson? If we're going up against the Spanish, then it's Drake's ghost we need

True. We can save Nelson for the EU negoiations to bring some propper hat and pomp to our negotiation team.
And it furfils our commitment to disability equality!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
May's principle objective is a solid five years of domestic Tory hegemony.
She probably already thought Brexit was going to be a disaster, she was a Remainer herself after all, but she accepts that risk with a view to domestic politics.
Why would May want to own this disaster?

Firstly, by being obstructive to the EU, she hopes to grab the bulk of the UKIP vote, which could in itself deliver a landslide (13% of the votes cast at the 2015 election!)

Secondly, she solidifies control of her own party, who have always had a love-hate relationship with the EU but a stronger love-love relationship with being in power. Some of them also retain a hard-on for the "Iron Lady" image.

Thirdly, by painting the EU as the villains of the piece, she forgives herself and the Tory government for the disaster.

In reality, the EU was always going to be in charge of the negotiations. They control the timetable and the agenda. They are not the ones who lose out if it comes down to the UK getting nothing. UK trade with the EU is vastly more important to the UK than EU trade with the UK is to the EU.
The EU of course loses our contribution, but they have plenty of up-and-coming states in Eastern Europe whose economies are growing rapidly.

The first point is working - John Curtice is saying the UKIP is heading back to the Tories at a rate of knots.

On the second point, a large majority would allow May to boot the rebels and nutters on the backbenches back to the long grass where they belong, and she might even silence tem enough to get Single Market access.

On your third point, blaming the EU will work in the short term, but long term, people will wise up to the fact that's we're out of the EU, and that responsibility for any debacle lies at Westminster's door.

I suspect that we in Scotland will be next on the list once the blame the EU option is no longer feasible. I'm expecting Hadrian's wall to be re-built any day.

My main concern is Theresa May.

Frankly, I don't think she's fit to lead the country.

Look at her campaigning. All behind closed doors. All very hush-hush.

She seems to be missing any kind of warmth or humanity. She's coming across as an authoritarian nightmare who doesn't like to be challenged. On anything.

She's already bungling the EU talks. Where does this line of incompetence end?

Well, hopefully with the utter destruction of the Tory Party. That'd be a nice start.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
May's principle objective is a solid five years of domestic Tory hegemony.
She probably already thought Brexit was going to be a disaster, she was a Remainer herself after all, but she accepts that risk with a view to domestic politics.
Why would May want to own this disaster?

Firstly, by being obstructive to the EU, she hopes to grab the bulk of the UKIP vote, which could in itself deliver a landslide (13% of the votes cast at the 2015 election!)

Secondly, she solidifies control of her own party, who have always had a love-hate relationship with the EU but a stronger love-love relationship with being in power. Some of them also retain a hard-on for the "Iron Lady" image.

Thirdly, by painting the EU as the villains of the piece, she forgives herself and the Tory government for the disaster.

In reality, the EU was always going to be in charge of the negotiations. They control the timetable and the agenda. They are not the ones who lose out if it comes down to the UK getting nothing. UK trade with the EU is vastly more important to the UK than EU trade with the UK is to the EU.
The EU of course loses our contribution, but they have plenty of up-and-coming states in Eastern Europe whose economies are growing rapidly.

Absolutely, she feels she's already defeated labour, and knows that many people consider the EU to be the "opposition", which is why she is making this all about BREXIT.
We're in a lose lose situation here, however we vote. BREXIT is going to hurt no matter who's in power, however, if we elect the Tories, we're stuck with them for 5 years and they will blame all problems on the EU, guaranteed.
If labour or a coalition get in, they get to be the reigns as we head through some pretty choppy water, their support networks will be disillusioned, again, and that will ensure a Tory majority pretty much forever when they swing in to "save" us.
That will lead to the tearing down of our institutions, and the "Americanisation" (no insult intended) of our infrastructure through privatisation and deregulation.

One can only hope that if that's the case, that firearms laws relax, I may need to defend the old homestead.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My main concern is Theresa May.

Frankly, I don't think she's fit to lead the country.

Look at her campaigning. All behind closed doors. All very hush-hush.

She seems to be missing any kind of warmth or humanity. She's coming across as an authoritarian nightmare who doesn't like to be challenged. On anything.

She's already bungling the EU talks. Where does this line of incompetence end?

Well, hopefully with the utter destruction of the Tory Party. That'd be a nice start.

There's still 6 weeks to go.
And that's a very long time in this political climate.

It took Donald trump a week to demolish and turn the us elections against Hillary from losing to walking into the white house.

France is reportedly 20% undecided and that 20% could be ernough to make le pen president of France if it swung. Unlikely. But it only takes one event, story or mommemt to trigger the ball going one way or another.

How many % are undecided in Uk. Pretty high.
There's a big swinging pendulam. And whoever can use it, van gain a big win.

And Corbyn is at least trying to reach traditional non-voters, those who (quite correctly) felt the choice between Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR Tory was hardly a choice at all.

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.

I dunno, if he stopped making up stuff in return for them to pick on (no trains seats at all, eh? No Trots trying to force out MP's anywhere, eh?), he might have more luck. He has more conviction on his principles than May I think, but I also think that he marries quite firmly into the old Soviet Socialist style of 'We say it is and therefore it is', and willingness to stand next to anyone (hello Iranian state TV) to get what he wants. Which aren't at all desirable traits in my book. Certainly, they rank up there next to May's deficiencies.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

No they are not. Either you don't understand at all or you are wilfully misrepresenting the situation.

No, I am not. You are.
See below for links showing why.

 Steve steveson wrote:

They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU.

This has been available from the outset:

https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/overview

Continued residency is not an actual issue, however remainers like to drum up a good scare, by implying that a continually applicable right somehow doesn't exist despite assurances and evidence to the contrary.

The link you gave relates to people who can show continual residency for 5 years prior to the application, and requires them to apply for citizenship, when many countries do not alow duel citizenship.

 Steve steveson wrote:

No one is asking for what you are claiming. So much of the leave campaign has been built on this kind of lack of understanding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/

12. The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus and recognise in that respect bilateral agreements and arrangements between the Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom which are compatible with EU law, in particular as regards the situation of those EU citizens resident or working in the Sovereign Base Areas.

13. Following the withdrawal, the Union with 27 Member States will continue to have the rights and obligations of the Union with 28 Member States in relation to international agreements.

15. Arrangements ensuring legal certainty and equal treatment should be found for all court procedures pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union upon the date of withdrawal that involve the United Kingdom or natural or legal persons in the United Kingdom. The Court of Justice of the European Union should remain competent to adjudicate in these procedures.

Again, your throwing irrelevant things in that don't mean what your claiming.

1) relates to respecting the EU rights of EU citizens working in the base in Cyprus. This is to avoid the situation we have with embassies around the world. Local workers being employed under less protective laws of other countries. Hardly what you are claiming.

2) Is saying that the UK leaving does not effect international agreements. So, for example, Trump can't back out of trade deals claiming that he is dealing with a different entity now the UK has left. The same the other way, that the EU is not going to try and back out of deals with other countries claiming they are a different organization now they are only 27 countries where some documents will refrence something like "The EU and it's 28 member states"

3) Says that any cases with the ECJ at the point of leaving will continue.

Non of these things represent what you claim.

It's not the remainers "drum up a good scare". It's the leave camp manipulating facts, using obfuscation and relying on ignorance or lazyness. Same as the claim about the NHS during the campaign. What has happened to the £350 million? If you have facts to prove your point please present them. No need to resort to bullying and shouting down.

 Ketara wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.

I dunno, if he stopped making up stuff in return for them to pick on (no trains seats at all, eh? No Trots trying to force out MP's anywhere, eh?), he might have more luck. He has more conviction on his principles than May I think, but I also think that he marries quite firmly into the old Soviet Socialist style of 'We say it is and therefore it is', and willingness to stand next to anyone (hello Iranian state TV) to get what he wants. Which aren't at all desirable traits in my book. Certainly, they rank up there next to May's deficiencies.

Lucky we don't elect Presidents then, innit?

The train thing - still up in the air. Conflicting reports and evidence. Seats he walked by were apparently all booked - I for one wouldn't sit in one of those.

And.....I'm not aware of any successful or implemented Trotsky coups against sitting Labour MPs? I do clearly remember an utterly pointless Blairite coup which failed miserably?

May and her Tories are a clear and present danger to the UK. They'll sell us, as they always do, to the lowest bidder. They'll strip away the NHS. Privatise anything they can get their grubby mitts on.

Corbyn has workable policies in the interests of the majority. Look beyond the man and at the policies. That's what we're electing.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.

You mean just like May is doing? "give us everything or I'll be bloody difficult"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.

Vote til you Boak. Put a number in for any candidate you can tolerate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm now in the "give them feth all" camp. No way should we put up with that gak.

I think £30-40 billion is a fair figure to pay the EU, but anything above that should be laughed out of town.

I don't think we can know until we've negotiated what we're going to remain involved in. That's why the figures are all wild-ass-guestimates at this stage.

I dread to think how much money we're wasting arguing over how much money we might have to hand over. The paperwork bill must be well into 6 figures already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

The link you gave relates to people who can show continual residency for 5 years prior to the application, and requires them to apply for citizenship, when many countries do not alow duel citizenship.

I think that's the key thing the EU are trying to get at; they want EU citizens that remain in the UK to have the same rights to the EU as if they left. That means not having to give up EU citizenship in order to stay in the EU. It's not about them being bound to different laws, it's just about them not having to give up citizenship.

Just voted Labour in my local council election, for what good it will do.
We've got UKIP/ conservative run council here, and to be fair to them, they do a reasonable job of filling in potholes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR Tory.

That made me chuckle, I quite like the sound of FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR though, sounds like it'd have a bit of a kick.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Lucky we don't elect Presidents then, innit?

We're closer than we ever have been, sadly. Tony Blair rerigged a good chunk of the system in that direction, by making the House of Lords more subservient to the ruling party, setting in motion the abolition of the Law Lords in favour of politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court, and so on. We're not quite at the American level yet, but it's notable, I think, that the last real period of cabinet responsibility was probably John Major, and even he was stepping into Thatcher's recently vacated dicatatorial shoes.

The train thing - still up in the air. Conflicting reports and evidence. Seats he walked by were apparently all booked - I for one wouldn't sit in one of those.

I'm going to be blunt, you can literally see the footage. I have. I know what a reserved seat looks like on that service, I've ridden them. They're marked in a certain way. The seats in those videos aren't. If you're going to quarrel with literal video footage, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I get that you want to promote an alternative to May, but the fact is that Corbyn got caught out making stuff up to try and score a political point. Whether Branson should or shouldn't have released the footage is fine debate in it's own right, but it's established there were seats. IIRC, he even admitted it about three days later, attached to a load of guff about how he meant to be talking more generally.

And.....I'm not aware of any successful or implemented Trotsky coups against sitting Labour MPs? I do clearly remember an utterly pointless Blairite coup which failed miserably?

There's been all sorts of details in the Eye, if you want to go and dig for them. They'll probably have republished some of them in the Annual. It's not the sort of thing you find in the newspapers, it's too local.

The general gist, I do believe, has been attempts to take things over on a local level in order to force through different MP's at the next election. They've met with mixed success, IIRC, some local branches pushed back quite hard, others not so much. Their efforts have flagged of late though, because now Corbyn isn't flavour of the month, and has generally just been shown to be a bit of a naff leader even when nobody's trying to actively depose him, people are less willing to believe it's just the evil press selling him short. Also, lot of their press apparatus (the Canary, for example), has been making increasingly daft and disprovable claims.

I think that this election has shot any further attempts by them in the foot, they haven't managed to dominate at a local level anywhere near to the extent they'd hoped. McCluskey's power base has trembled slightly due to his various attempts to rig votes, and although he's remained in power, he's set up quite a lot of other Union enemies in doing so. And attempts to gain control of the NEC have been piecemeal at best, they needed another one or two clear runs at it.

All this in turn has crippled Corbyn further still, having cut his ties with the Parliamentary MP support base. His original hope was to use the time in between elections to wedge his Momentum and Union supporters into key Labour positions, but it's met with far harder resistance than they imagined, especially since a lot of the grassroots are now deserting him. It's why he agreed to the election, he's unlikely to be in a better position in two years, quite the opposite. It's now or never.

May and her Tories are a clear and present danger to the UK. They'll sell us, as they always do, to the lowest bidder. They'll strip away the NHS. Privatise anything they can get their grubby mitts on.

You mean like signing the NHS up to PFI? Cor, I seem to remember some blokes in red rosettes doing that too. That's because the reasons for privatisation are more about core fundamental issues with our taxation and funding setup in a short termist political system as opposed to something delineated on vague party lines.

Corbyn has workable policies in the interests of the majority. Look beyond the man and at the policies. That's what we're electing.

Link to them please? I wasn't aware he'd set out his manifesto yet, all I've seen is the usual vague guff on two or three points he reckons he can hammer the Tories on. And even those have been piecemeal at best (Trident confusion, anyone?)

 Ketara wrote:

May and her Tories are a clear and present danger to the UK. They'll sell us, as they always do, to the lowest bidder. They'll strip away the NHS. Privatise anything they can get their grubby mitts on.

You mean like signing the NHS up to PFI? Cor, I seem to remember some blokes in red rosettes doing that too. That's because the reasons for privatisation are more about core fundamental issues with our taxation and funding setup in a short termist political system as opposed to something delineated on vague party lines.

To be fair, that was the red Tories. Corbyn appears to be a more traditional socialist, and has stated his support for the NHS, and the re-nationalisation of the rail Infrastructure.
So the choice is a party you know absolutely are committed to privatisation as an ideology, and one that has supporters of privatisation, but has a leader and party members that support nationalisation.

I have returned from doing my civic duty.

I take back what I said about filling in every box - there were ten candidates in my area

None the less. isn't it great to walk into the village hall, say hello to the staff, and get your vote, without any of this voter ID nonsense?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And Corbyn is at least trying to reach traditional non-voters, those who (quite correctly) felt the choice between Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR Tory was hardly a choice at all.

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.

Corbyn, by all accounts, is a decent guy who stands up for things he believes in, unlike the red and blue Blairites that dominate British politics.

But as a politician and a leader of a political party, he's bloody hopeless.

 Ketara wrote:

You mean like signing the NHS up to PFI? Cor, I seem to remember some blokes in red rosettes doing that too. That's because the reasons for privatisation are more about core fundamental issues with our taxation and funding setup in a short termist political system as opposed to something delineated on vague party lines.

As said, that was Tory-light. I think he means things like contracting out departments/functions to private companies, rather than using private funding to get stuff built earlier (at extortionate rates). The latter is pure short-termism that we'll eventually learn from and move on, but the former is more damaging.

And on the plus side, vote counting doesn't start until tomorrow, so I won't have to wait until 3am to see the results coming in from places like Peckham North

I was the first person to vote in Henley!

 r_squared wrote:

Paras 16 and 17 detail the intent for dispute resolution prior to Brexit, anything that happens before the cut off date must be handled by the existing legislature, that's not unreasonable. Para 17 talks of negotiating the post Brexit arrangements which "bears in mind" the EUs interests in their current legislature. There is no compulsion there, just a statement of intent for negotiation.

Check the wording, the legal restrictions do not expire, and are already in place so dont need to be currently added as the U currently has thrm as an EU member state.

 r_squared wrote:

From your own link quoting Reuters...

Maijoor said it was essential that national regulators do not compete on regulatory and supervisory treatment of UK firms wanting to relocate operations.

"Some practical examples where this may be a risk include such issues as UK firms seeking authorisation from one of the EU27 financial markets regulators and subsequently outsourcing and delegating some of the activities back to the UK entity," he said.

In essence, the EU is attempting to prevent the UK from operating a system whereby they circumvent EU regulation by creating a shell in the EU, granting them their licence, whilst punting all that business back to an unregulated UK based company who proceeds to do what they want. In essense, it's about closing loopholes, and not attempting to reap the benefits of an EU licence, whilst ignoring the contracts and regulation that places upon the institutions. Not unreasonable.

However the means to do this should be within the EU itself, however the EU wants to place the treaty restriction on London when outside the EU, not on the 27 remaining member states within its aegis.
Hence is not about closing loopholes, as existing laws already cover that.

 r_squared wrote:

You can't keep banging the same old "powerless little Britain" drum. We had our chance, and kept electing UKIP MEPs. We were a big deal in the EU, and had influence, and we squandered it on electing Eurosceptic clowns with no interest in engaging in the political process.

The problem pre-exists before UKIP existed. Thanks for playing.
Also UKIP is only a portion of the MP's the Uk sends to Brussels, Nigel Farage doesnt speak for everyone

 r_squared wrote:

Yes, and we should be negotiating to prevent that happening,

Good, so can we expect you to leave remainer la la land, thinking that the negotiations will be fair.
The EU might only offer extremely negative trade deal offers that include said restrictions, if they do a hard Brexit may be necessary to prevent a double punishment.

 r_squared wrote:

however, only a naive fool would think that the UK is going to walk away unscathed, many leavers trumpeted their belief that they were happy to take a financial hit to regain "sovreignty", so no one should be whining that they didn't know this would happen.

Most leave voters, and those who voted remain but are resigned the the fact the UK voted leave understand that we will lose many benefits of EU membership, and knew that prior to the vote.

 r_squared wrote:

It is deliberate self delusion on behalf of many people to believe that BREXIT will be both simple, and painfree, unfortunately that delusion appears to be infecting our Govt.

True, but first don't assume that every leave voter or hard Brexitter is of that opinion.
Second deal with your own delusion.

The delusion that Brexit is purely about national pride, and we should get a fair trade deal if we stick at it. Sorry no. There is a lot of EU bias that wants to proactively punish the UK, though the reasons for that varies, from anglo-phobia, to wanting to damage our economy in the hope of attracting over our business centres through to simply raising a price as high as possible for direct profit.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.

Unless you're saying that membership of the EU would somehow ameliorate an economic crisis but would provide no significant economic advantages under less dire circumstances. Is that what you mean?

Erm, I never said this? I think Ketara stated this not me?

Sorry, I thought I'd corrected it but it must not've saved. I'm still new to these boards.

I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...

Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...

It's not real devolution, real devolution was blocked.

Also the commissioners were just a smokescreen, they dont do much and have little real policy power. As a community ombudsman program they work well enough behind sceens, but people are expecting some sort of executive authority because they are elected, but this is not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.

Blair intends to take over after Corbyn.

His thinking is along thge lines of: Corbyn will be so toxic post election defeat that I will no longer be toxic. Blair is toxic, and a thoroughly corrupt and evil piece of work, below and beyond pretty much anyone else in UK politics, but he is a master of spin, and may well pull it off.

 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.

If opinion polls for today's council elections and the GE in June are to be believed, then there might not be a Scottish labour party left!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...

It's not real devolution, real devolution was blocked.

Also the commissioners were just a smokescreen, they dont do much and have little real policy power. As a community ombudsman program they work well enough behind sceens, but people are expecting some sort of executive authority because they are elected, but this is not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.

Blair intends to take over after Corbyn.

It's better than nothing, and you have to start somewhere.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...

They asked us two years ago and across the midlands the result was a pretty unanimous no, so they're making us have one anyway (after all the Mayor with Powers they had in Stoke went so badly the they gave up on it)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.

If opinion polls for today's council elections and the GE in June are to be believed, then there might not be a Scottish labour party left!

Tories are counting on taking enough seats to indicate that the tide has turned and the high water mark of the SNP is behind them. It may not be true, but if the Tories gain seats while Sturgeon is on her Indyref tunnel vision it will be taken as a sign that one vote is enough.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Blair intends to take over after Corbyn.

It's better than nothing, and you have to start somewhere.

 Orlanth wrote:


Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt.

This was a funny joke.

@ Orlanth

'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'

Ha, good one.