Monday 12th June 2017

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:15 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Talking of boundaries, I read somewhere that the DUP weren't exactly in favour of the proposed boundary changes which is why they might not happen.

I think I said that here yesterday

The above, as I'm sure you are fully aware, is classic understatement - they GENUINELY LOATHE the NI proposals.

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:21 pm

Scottish devolution has saved us from the prospect of Ruth Davidson successfully and popularly taking the leadership of the conservative party, for the time being at least...

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:26 pm

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/j ... n-turmoil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:28 pm

Queens speech is delayed

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:29 pm

Well.

Joel Taylor‏ @JoelTaylorhack 6m6 minutes ago
More
Queen's speech 'will be delayed by a few days'..... that's the stability and certainty we were promised

The Sun had a story where it said that there were some bits of the manifesto - including fox hunting and grammar schools - were being tossed aside.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:31 pm

Barry Gardiner now telling the Daily Politics that Labour is committed to leaving the single market.

I don't think Bazza had read the manifesto...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:31 pm

Good morfternoon.

Faisal Islam (Sky News) reporting that there's talk of the Queen's Speech being delayed.

Edited - crashing typo! But I think I've got away with it . . .

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:33 pm

The election seems to have changed the significance of the new boundaries...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour has shifted its "base" from the working class poor to middle class sophisticates. Dems v Reps.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:45 pm

If we leave the EU (and I imagine EEA and EFTA although legally I am not quite sure how that works) then we automatically leave the Single Market.

I assume that the future relationship will be decided once we leave......and that will be for a defined level of 'access', although there may be a transitional arrangement. That access may be a Norway type access or a Switzerland one, or one completely different.

The best one would be not to leave at all...and that may eventually come to pass but it is not on the table at the moment

You really need to start looking beyond your own personal definition of what the words mean

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:52 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:If we leave the EU (and I imagine EEA and EFTA although legally I am not quite sure how that works) then we automatically leave the Single Market.

I assume that the future relationship will be decided once we leave......and that will be for a defined level of 'access', although there may be a transitional arrangement. That access may be a Norway type access or a Switzerland one, or one completely different.

The best one would be not to leave at all...and that may eventually come to pass but it is not on the table at the moment

You really need to start looking beyond your own personal definition of what the words mean

I am not an expert here and I'm open to persuasion, but I think the problem with this is that the rest of the EU are fairly clear, and seem to be very united, about what these things mean to them, and are very clear about what is likely to be acceptable or not acceptable to them.

It is obviously quite reasonable to say, at the moment, that almost anything could happen, but I think there is a guiding principal to the EU's position in all of this, and that isn't an issue of technical definitions, it's an issue about protecting the EU by showing its members that there is nothing to gain and much to lose by leaving.

We (the UK we, not 'us here' we) can be as aspirational as we like about what we'd like to achieve and what we think might be achievable, but I don't think the conservatives or the labour party appear to be paying too much attention to that EU guiding principle.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:56 pm

Worth watching this again
David Schneider‏Verified account
@davidschneider

Enough of pretending a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the Single Market. Leave promised Norway, EEA, even the Single Market

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 12:57 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:If we leave the EU (and I imagine EEA and EFTA although legally I am not quite sure how that works) then we automatically leave the Single Market.

I assume that the future relationship will be decided once we leave......and that will be for a defined level of 'access', although there may be a transitional arrangement. That access may be a Norway type access or a Switzerland one, or one completely different.

The best one would be not to leave at all...and that may eventually come to pass but it is not on the table at the moment

You really need to start looking beyond your own personal definition of what the words mean

Norway is a member of the single market. To get that it has freedom of movement.

Switzerland is a better example as it isn't a member of the single market, but instead has many bilateral agreements with the EU, but not in the service sector (ie its banks can't operate in the single market). To get that the Swiss had to accept freedom of movement. Which both the Tories and Labour explicitly rejected in their manifestos.

If we want to end freedom of movement, the best option looks like the Turkish model. Turkey has no freedom of movement with the EU but does have a (limited) customs union. Even that doesn't cover some sectors (eg agriculture).

For the UK which has an economy that is 80% services, a customs union is nice, but not really the important bit.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:00 pm

I can scarcely imagine how incandescent I'd be if I were 15-20 years younger/had young adult children...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:02 pm

Faisal Islam‏Verified account @faisalislam 18m18 minutes ago
More
Scottish Conservative Leader @RuthDavidsonMSP is to meet PM at lunchtime, & will be part of Political Cabinet, meeting later. Kingmaker.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:03 pm

adam wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:If we leave the EU (and I imagine EEA and EFTA although legally I am not quite sure how that works) then we automatically leave the Single Market.

I assume that the future relationship will be decided once we leave......and that will be for a defined level of 'access', although there may be a transitional arrangement. That access may be a Norway type access or a Switzerland one, or one completely different.

The best one would be not to leave at all...and that may eventually come to pass but it is not on the table at the moment

You really need to start looking beyond your own personal definition of what the words mean
I am not an expert here and I'm open to persuasion, but I think the problem with this is that the rest of the EU are fairly clear, and seem to be very united, about what these things mean to them, and are very clear about what is likely to be acceptable or not acceptable to them.

It is obviously quite reasonable to say, at the moment, that almost anything could happen, but I think there is a guiding principal to the EU's position in all of this, and that isn't an issue of technical definitions, it's an issue about protecting the EU by showing its members that there is nothing to gain and much to lose by leaving.

We (the UK we, not 'us here' we) can be as aspirational as we like about what we'd like to achieve and what we think might be achievable, but I don't think the conservatives or the labour party appear to be paying too much attention to that EU guiding principle.

I think this is currently correct Adam

But if the UK government engaged constructively with Brussels that dynamic could change quite a bit IMHO.

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:05 pm

*most likely looking towards Anatoly* - are there rules about how long a new government have before tabling/passing a Queen's Speech?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:06 pm

adam wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:If we leave the EU (and I imagine EEA and EFTA although legally I am not quite sure how that works) then we automatically leave the Single Market.

I assume that the future relationship will be decided once we leave......and that will be for a defined level of 'access', although there may be a transitional arrangement. That access may be a Norway type access or a Switzerland one, or one completely different.

The best one would be not to leave at all...and that may eventually come to pass but it is not on the table at the moment

You really need to start looking beyond your own personal definition of what the words mean
I am not an expert here and I'm open to persuasion, but I think the problem with this is that the rest of the EU are fairly clear, and seem to be very united, about what these things mean to them, and are very clear about what is likely to be acceptable or not acceptable to them.

It is obviously quite reasonable to say, at the moment, that almost anything could happen, but I think there is a guiding principal to the EU's position in all of this, and that isn't an issue of technical definitions, it's an issue about protecting the EU by showing its members that there is nothing to gain and much to lose by leaving.

We (the UK we, not 'us here' we) can be as aspirational as we like about what we'd like to achieve and what we think might be achievable, but I don't think the conservatives or the labour party appear to be paying too much attention to that EU guiding principle.

I am not sure you can draw that conclusion - I would be happy to concede that a Keir Starmer is perfectly aware of what/what isn't feasible as he will have had direct access to the main players and what their views are.

The EU are fairly certain what Freedom of Movement means but are the British people? The issue is that there are lots of mistruths about that may not be quite so difficult to deal with as people think. The Tories made Europe the scapegoat for all problems, as did some of the left to be fair

I think the Tories still think like that but Labour has moved on - okay this is an opinion but it is one that I am happy with

If it comes down to jobs/economy vs immigration then there is an argument to be made that immigration is not as big an issue as it is made out to be as long as there are ways of mitigating the impact and ways of managing it better than we do now

The trouble is Labour is trying to keep both strands together in this phoney war period and it is difficult to do - one day you have someone on the Remain side maoning, the next day someone from the Leave side.

The election indicates labour is doing the best at treading this line so I am happy to let them carry on until it is obvious they are getting it wrong

If there is another election soon we have to try to hold on to the progress made.....and provide a credible narrative, even though it is 'having your cake and eating it'

Labour, in the end, will come down on the side of jobs not immigration I am sure.....but do they want to sacrifice those 'Leave' seats at the moment with another GE potentially around the corner? If the Tories limp on for a few more years then Labour could take some more risks - and it will be easier when the negotiations have actually started

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:10 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
adam wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:If we leave the EU (and I imagine EEA and EFTA although legally I am not quite sure how that works) then we automatically leave the Single Market.

I assume that the future relationship will be decided once we leave......and that will be for a defined level of 'access', although there may be a transitional arrangement. That access may be a Norway type access or a Switzerland one, or one completely different.

The best one would be not to leave at all...and that may eventually come to pass but it is not on the table at the moment

You really need to start looking beyond your own personal definition of what the words mean
I am not an expert here and I'm open to persuasion, but I think the problem with this is that the rest of the EU are fairly clear, and seem to be very united, about what these things mean to them, and are very clear about what is likely to be acceptable or not acceptable to them.

It is obviously quite reasonable to say, at the moment, that almost anything could happen, but I think there is a guiding principal to the EU's position in all of this, and that isn't an issue of technical definitions, it's an issue about protecting the EU by showing its members that there is nothing to gain and much to lose by leaving.

We (the UK we, not 'us here' we) can be as aspirational as we like about what we'd like to achieve and what we think might be achievable, but I don't think the conservatives or the labour party appear to be paying too much attention to that EU guiding principle.

I am not sure you can draw that conclusion - I would be happy to concede that a Keir Starmer is perfectly aware of what/what isn't feasible as he will have had direct access to the main players and what their views are.

The EU are fairly certain what Freedom of Movement means but are the British people? The issue is that there are lots of mistruths about that may not be quite so difficult to deal with as people think. The Tories made Europe the scapegoat for all problems, as did some of the left to be fair

I think the Tories still think like that but Labour has moved on - okay this is an opinion but it is one that I am happy with

If it comes down to jobs/economy vs immigration then there is an argument to be made that immigration is not as big an issue as it is made out to be as long as there are ways of mitigating the impact and ways of managing it better than we do now

The trouble is Labour is trying to keep both strands together in this phoney war period and it is difficult to do - one day you have someone on the Remain side maoning, the next day someone from the Leave side.

The election indicates labour is doing the best at treading this line so I am happy to let them carry on until it is obvious they are getting it wrong

If there is another election soon we have to try to hold on to the progress made.....and provide a credible narrative, even though it is 'having your cake and eating it'

Labour, in the end, will come down on the side of jobs not immigration I am sure.....but do they want to sacrifice those 'Leave' seats at the moment with another GE potentially around the corner? If the Tories limp on for a few more years then Labour could take some more risks - and it will be easier when the negotiations have actually started

As I said earlier, with the welcome rise of the eastern EU economies, immigration may start to disappear as an issue and some notional immigration controls may be easier to implement. Until Brits are complaining that they can't get jobs in Budapest and it's not fair of course!

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:13 pm

I entirely accept that my unhappiness with labour not being a lot more anti-leave would have led them down much more of an electoral dead end, and I agree that a lot of former apparent certainties are currently up in the air BUT...

1. I don't think eating your cake and having it is a credible narrative
2. I would like to hear something from somebody with more than 'Labour will be better at this than the Conservatives' (which I completely agree with, no questions there) and also more than 'the Eu states will look differently on us as time goes by'. Don't get me wrong, I want them too, but why will they and what can you point to now that can reasonably lead us to believe that they will?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:17 pm

adam wrote:I entirely accept that my unhappiness with labour not being a lot more anti-leave would have led them down much more of an electoral dead end, and I agree that a lot of former apparent certainties are currently up in the air BUT...

1. I don't think eating your cake and having it is a credible narrative
2. I would like to hear something from somebody with more than 'Labour will be better at this than the Conservatives' (which I completely agree with, no questions there) and also more than 'the Eu states will look differently on us as time goes by'. Don't get me wrong, I want them too, but why will they and what can you point to now that can reasonably lead us to believe that they will?

Macron!

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:21 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
adam wrote:I entirely accept that my unhappiness with labour not being a lot more anti-leave would have led them down much more of an electoral dead end, and I agree that a lot of former apparent certainties are currently up in the air BUT...

1. I don't think eating your cake and having it is a credible narrative
2. I would like to hear something from somebody with more than 'Labour will be better at this than the Conservatives' (which I completely agree with, no questions there) and also more than 'the Eu states will look differently on us as time goes by'. Don't get me wrong, I want them too, but why will they and what can you point to now that can reasonably lead us to believe that they will?
Macron!

Ha! Well okay - you could also have said Corbyn! - but tell me more than 'they will be seized by a giant hand.'

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:21 pm

Hardly new though,I was continually being told I would be voting Tory before I was thirty,hopefully it will imbue a live long disdain.

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:21 pm

The reasoning behind delaying the queen's speech - that the ink won't dry on the modern goatskin substitute quickly enough - is absurd.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:23 pm

FrankThomas‏ @FrankThomas27 Jun 11

The DUP got 238k votes in #GE2017
The Greens got 525k votes.
We can't keep pretending that our electoral system works anymore

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:26 pm

Thanks for the reply Paul

We are in a great game of politics at the moment and the danger is there is too much 'certainty' around

I think there are a few areas that are clear. The EU will not let us leave with a better deal than that we have as a member. Also, I am pretty clear now we are leaving the EU......or we start negotiations with that intent. Both main parties have are agreed on that

We know the EU will not compromise of the 4 freedoms for us to have the full access to the Single market, in fact we can assume they will demand it of anything that is useful access (using Switzerland as the example here - any less access would be not very useful)

The thing is though the attitude of the British isn't quite as certain and what they will accept will change hugely over the course of the negotiations. labour, according to the election results, has actually proved pretty adept at managing that and we should keep the same message of ambiguity and fuzziness as long as we can

The promising of EU citizens right to stay and the commitment to getting the best deal possible with jobs first also helped in giving a positive message that can be interpreted differently. If you drill down then it becomes trickier but it has been managed ok at the moment

The Tories, by contrast, made the mistake of the 'No Deal better than Bad Deal' and seemingly being unpleasant. This really turned off the ex-Remainers (although appealed to ex-UKIP but to be honest they are welcome to them)

This mantra of jobs first is a good message as it will put the maximum access to the EU at the forefront of the debate. The difficulty is, of course, with the anti-immigrant voters but I think that people can over-estimate the power of this message with a good proportion of Labour voters (I would be interested to see some analysis on this)

My prediction, as useless as it will be, is that Labour will eventually go for a pretty much full access to the Single Market, accept FoM but put in some proper protections for the areas that are impacted most. Funding, minimum wage, jobs only being advertised abroad, exploitation etc. It will not keep all the voters happy but that is impossible

I trust Starmer on this - he is a clever man and he is used to dealing with difficult decisions......the EU probably wish he was negotiating rather than the bumbling threesome

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:30 pm

We don't stand a chance really.

Michel Barnier‏Verified account
@MichelBarnier

Preparing #Brexit negos w/ 24 EP committee chairs. Committed to working hand-in-hand & in full transparency
@GuyVerhofstadt @CeciliaWikstrom

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:33 pm

...the EU probably wish he was negotiating rather than the bumbling threesome

If Labour are to get a shot at this then, in reality (because whilst it's not impossible for them to form a minority government on the current numbers and make progress it's very very unlikely), they will have to present their plans to the electorate in a new general election and that will happen in the context of negotiations being active and ongoing - and for that reason I think that they need to think about nailing down what their plans will actually be. I suspect that, even if this wasn't happening earlier, other EU leaders will be happy to informally talk to them at the moment (quietly and through backchannels but still..)...

ETA - because otherwise it will be the bumbling threesome.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:36 pm

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
adam wrote:I entirely accept that my unhappiness with labour not being a lot more anti-leave would have led them down much more of an electoral dead end, and I agree that a lot of former apparent certainties are currently up in the air BUT...

1. I don't think eating your cake and having it is a credible narrative
2. I would like to hear something from somebody with more than 'Labour will be better at this than the Conservatives' (which I completely agree with, no questions there) and also more than 'the Eu states will look differently on us as time goes by'. Don't get me wrong, I want them too, but why will they and what can you point to now that can reasonably lead us to believe that they will?
Macron!
Ha! Well okay - you could also have said Corbyn! - but tell me more than 'they will be seized by a giant hand.'

It is a credible approach at the moment....it won't be for much longer (when we have more substance on what is happening in Brussels) and then there will have to be a decision on what to support. The British people's views will be changing then too.

The alternative is coming down clearly and definitively on one side but I don't see what benefit that gives us as it will just alienate some people

Labour have set out some principles and they should stick with them - Starmer should be put at the front of this now as well

I am not sure that the EU states will look differently on us but actually being plite and non-threatening is probably a good start. This is not a 'walk away' negotiation - this is us trying to get the best deal we can. They have less pressure. Being constructive, such as with recognizing EU citizens right to stay, looking to maintain as much as possible instead of starting at the other extreme will give us the best chance. Whether the EU will move is not for us to say but we can definitely make it easier to do

I think your criticisms are a it too premature.....I, personally, will jusge as it goes along to see what I think should be the position at certain points. At the moment I am pretty happy - will I be in 6 months - who knows?

Also, the Labour Party will not be negotiating with the EU as things look now so our battles will be in the HoC and the country at large......as May's credibility drops so labour's will increase, especially if we have a good team working on this. Starmer for the brains, Thornberry for the humour and charm, Gardiner for the aggression

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:37 pm

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 63036.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Theresa May sidelined as Tory cabinet 'sensibles' plot soft Brexit

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:40 pm

adam wrote:*most likely looking towards Anatoly* - are there rules about how long a new government have before tabling/passing a Queen's Speech?

IIRC back in 1992 it was announced in advance there would be over a fortnight between polling day and the QS.

(of course, this was decided in the widespread expectation that there would be a hung parliament)

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:41 pm

[youtube]RqE4MeSQe2w[/youtube]

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:43 pm

adam wrote:
...the EU probably wish he was negotiating rather than the bumbling threesome

If Labour are to get a shot at this then, in reality (because whilst it's not impossible for them to form a minority government on the current numbers and make progress it's very very unlikely), they will have to present their plans to the electorate in a new general election and that will happen in the context of negotiations being active and ongoing - and for that reason I think that they need to think about nailing down what their plans will actually be. I suspect that, even if this wasn't happening earlier, other EU leaders will be happy to informally talk to them at the moment (quietly and through backchannels but still..)...

ETA - because otherwise it will be the bumbling threesome.

I don't think a minority would work as you say but it is good politics to keep the pressure on the Tories

If there is another election then they will have to put out there stall if negotaitions are ongoing but that is easier than before they start because the context will be easier to use to explain the policy position

They may already know their intentions and what their approach would be but don't feel it is sensible to share it at the moment....and to be honest there is no need to. Why hold themselves at the mercy of a press that is looking for a diversion away from the Tory omnishambles by making detailed announcements proactively. The manifesto should be the basis of communication for as long as it can be made to stick.

Everyone seems so keen to try and pin Labour down when they are not the ones starting negotiations in a week

React to what the Tories propose to do (or with their DUP pals) and then be ready for when the battles start in the HoC. And in the background work up some policies based on good scenario planning, as well as keeping communication open to the EU as you suggested

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:50 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Everyone seems so keen to try and pin Labour down when they are not the ones starting negotiations in a week

yeah, totally agree. My issue, I think, is that I expect the cons to be useless and dangerous but I expect the labour party to be doing better than that. There is no need to be precise about things now but there might be, sooner rathe than later, and I really don't want to hear them proposing things that have been clearly ruled out by the rest of the EU. At the moment, that still seems to be happening - that's what I'm mithering about.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 1:54 pm

Good thread on the need for government neutrality when dealing with NI politics.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:03 pm

EU nurses' applications to work in UK down 96% since Brexit vote

Just 46 nurses applied in April this year, adding to concerns about a shortage of around 30,000 nurses in the NHS. (Sky News)

http://news.sky.com/story/applications- ... e-10913295

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:07 pm

One of the excuses for delaying the Queen's Speech is fairly risible.

Faisal Islam‏Verified account
@faisalislam
Follow
More
One of the reasons for Queens Speech delay - it takes a week to dry the goats skin upon which it is carved. I am not joking. #velum

Jo Maugham QC‏Verified account @JolyonMaugham 6m6 minutes ago
More
Jo Maugham QC Retweeted Faisal Islam
Fair enough too. Who could have guessed that a General Election would be followed by a Queen's Speech?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:25 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:One of the excuses for delaying the Queen's Speech is fairly risible.

Faisal Islam‏Verified account
@faisalislam
Follow
More
One of the reasons for Queens Speech delay - it takes a week to dry the goats skin upon which it is carved. I am not joking. #velum

Jo Maugham QC‏Verified account @JolyonMaugham 6m6 minutes ago
More
Jo Maugham QC Retweeted Faisal Islam
Fair enough too. Who could have guessed that a General Election would be followed by a Queen's Speech?

I expect they're keeping the "we've run out of ink" excuse for later.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:27 pm

Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams has pledged to oppose any alliance between the British government and the DUP. (Politics Live, Guardian)

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:36 pm

But James Brokenshire claimed the government’s current discussions with the DUP were separate from issues about power sharing.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:39 pm

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
adam wrote:I entirely accept that my unhappiness with labour not being a lot more anti-leave would have led them down much more of an electoral dead end, and I agree that a lot of former apparent certainties are currently up in the air BUT...

1. I don't think eating your cake and having it is a credible narrative
2. I would like to hear something from somebody with more than 'Labour will be better at this than the Conservatives' (which I completely agree with, no questions there) and also more than 'the Eu states will look differently on us as time goes by'. Don't get me wrong, I want them too, but why will they and what can you point to now that can reasonably lead us to believe that they will?
Macron!
Ha! Well okay - you could also have said Corbyn! - but tell me more than 'they will be seized by a giant hand.'

Sorry Adam I had to dash

For Europe, the significance of the French vote is that for the first time since the introduction of the euro, the Continent’s second-largest country has a leader with the will and the mandate to pursue a deep reform of the European Union.

Macron’s vision for taking Europe forward, which includes plans for a common eurozone budget, a finance minister and even a separate parliament for the currency bloc, is as bold as it is controversial.

So, possibly a two tier Europe on its way. Membership of Tier 2 anyone?

It will be interesting to see what Merkel proposes in this space when she stands for re-election in September.

Post by **adam** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:40 pm

Interesting NI times with another quote, this time from the Irish premier (Q: Why call him that? A: Because I can spell 'Premier')

If you have, in a sense, the DUP in government in Westminster, it is going to be difficult for the parties there, particularly for Sinn Fein and the nationalist side, to contemplate any prolonged period of direct rule, because essentially it will be direct rule by DUP-Conservative coalition, which wouldn’t be acceptable to them.

The government will either have to keep breaking/bending its rules about deadlines for either imposing direct rule or calling elections or will have to call an election to the NI assembly. Earlier this year we ended up with DUP 28 SF 27, and a lack of an overall Unionist majority. It wouldn't have taken many votes to switch the DUP and SF around in first and second place...

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:43 pm

IT company threatens redundancy for staff voting Labour

Edit to take link out - not 100% sure about the web site link was from

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:44 pm

@adam

Spell it? I have trouble pronouncing it.

Edited to add -

As an aid, I have to imagine going to the kitchen and discovering that I've run out of teabags.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:53 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:IT company threatens redundancy for staff voting Labour

Edit to take link out - not 100% sure about the web site link was from

Too late. Read it . . .

Bonnylad · Post by **Bonnylad** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:55 pm

he marvellous @SophiaCannon on @BBCNews 24 just said the government were "caught between the devil and the DUP".
This is genius.

Retweets
122

Likes
188

Iain Brassington Clare Willison clothilde Nicola Kerr Alice Thomas Kiran Solanki caroline cherry Ellen Wilson

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 2:57 pm

Tom Hamilton‏ @thhamilton 11m11 minutes ago

Theresa May's post-election scapegoats so far, in full:
1) Nick Timothy
2) Fiona Hill
3) Literally a goat

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 3:15 pm

adam wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Everyone seems so keen to try and pin Labour down when they are not the ones starting negotiations in a week
yeah, totally agree. My issue, I think, is that I expect the cons to be useless and dangerous but I expect the labour party to be doing better than that. There is no need to be precise about things now but there might be, sooner rathe than later, and I really don't want to hear them proposing things that have been clearly ruled out by the rest of the EU. At the moment, that still seems to be happening - that's what I'm mithering about.

Hi Adam

I can understand why some people on each side are not happy because the Labour position is a compromise between two mutually contradictory things.

The trick is to make sure they just stay and the mithering stager and don0't turn fully oppositional - I think that at the moment they have a lot of people on both sides mithering but not enough to stop them voting Labour - the Tories have managed to alienate a lot of people from one side and haven't convinced 'the mitherers' from the other

I think that this position is only sustainable until concrete things come to the HoC or information starts coming from the negotiations.

At that point you may continue mithering, stop mithering, or become completely disillusioned......depends what the final result is

We do not know what position the Government is taking on the negotiations yet and we should not pre-empt it.....that could go horribly wrong. Sturgeon called things wrong recently and look what is cost her (although the cost was exaggerated as the SNP vote would probably have fallen anyway)

I don't think we are far apart....just the timing is a bit difference

As I said, I am happy to put my trust in Starmer to manage the negotiations on behalf of the party

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 3:55 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
And it is not impossible that if the UK asked for major Treaty changes the other 27 member states would not just dismiss it.

Incredibly unlikely though, and so not sensible to base any plans upon it.

But, it is impossible to have a single market without freedom of movement. The latter is part of what makes it a single market. It isn't just about what others might agree to.

Labour MPs are beginning to sound like Brexiteers. Making all kinds of ridiculous claims about what the EU27 will agree to.

At the risk of being called a flybye or some such (which I am not, I have read here every single day that I have had an available connection since FTN started) I have something I wish to say to you all.

Regardless of personal feelings re the current iteration of the Labour party it actually did incredibly well against the government, and has been able to so shake its confidence that it is now in a terrible mess. You would think that given this the requests for how things could progress would be taken seriously, we are now at a real crossroad. Also that any of the really offensive areas of government would also get discussed. (I understand that Brexit is a big deal, but there are oother issues too, that are passing under the radar, one was raised last night, and it is at least as important as Brexit. But not a hint of take up on the topic at sll.)

In the context of today, right now, I wish to know why nearly all posts by Hugo are still ended with the obligatiry negative statement about Labour or its leadership. It gets immensely wearing because it is obvious that is the real purpose of his posts, not to enlighten or inform as the majority of people post to do, but to get in an anti-Labour dig.

But apparently it is not PC to say so.

I think myself that there are a huge amount of things that genuinely need and deserve discussion about the whole of how politiccs are done in this country, some of them have just been upended by an unprecedented election result that indicates that people want something very different. Hugo's style so imitates the media stances of the ladt decade, and the negative anti-Labour propaganda as to be almost indistinguishable from it.

So Hugo, how about it? Can you actually post consistently without doing that?

I had been quite enjoying getting through a backlog of posts and catching up after completely wiping myself out for a couple of days by venturing out. I have to admire the conviction and fortitude of someone having surgery and still remaining dogmatic to the core. The pain control must be fabulous. Hope you are recovering well, Hugo.

I would like to add my weight to those 'suck it and see' advocates. A year wasted dibbling round the edges has had some very bad side effects. See also nationalist demonstrations and DUP off-season marches to understand why I am concerned about political sophistry. Not to mention the kind of campaign that was run against Labour.

What we really need is some kind of programme of national reconstruction and the Conservative party out for at least a generation. And a dimunition of activity in those who pander to them.

When you are in the pot and the temperature is rising you are mostly too busy dealing with the heat to consider things clearly. The heat is down temporarily, what we are going to do with it is another matter. I suggest that even more than brexit which is looming very large, this should be where efforts should be focussed, before things become unbearable again. I know everything seems wesk and wobbly and on the edge of imploding, but there is plenty of legacy stuff about to hit. Most of it will start hitting even relatively well protected people very soon. (UC is and has been in the bag for years, only the roll out has been delayed, please look for maps on this and what is happening in areas where it is now being rolled out to families. The rest of the country has this to look forward to.)

But you are still focusing on what may or may not be wrong with the Labour approach to Brexit, instead of saying how can we define what is needed given the current state of play, and how can wevmove things in a direction where there will be a good outcome.

On this may I note that neither Corbyn or McDonnell ruled out anything, and they also declined to say that they did or did not support any given stance. They only stated what is known to be currently possible or not. Others have probably said better than I can that this is exactly where negotiation comes in. We cannot know what we don't know.

But whatever happens with Brexit, talks may now be delayed, what happens when we no longer have the EU red herring to blame for our internal woes? Which we fail to address over and over.

I suggest that the answer to that played a key part in the election results. People aren't so fussed about Brexit, but they are hugely fussed about the way their voices have systematically been erased from nearly every aspect of governance you could care to think of, and they want more democracy, and to establish a collective voice again.*

A difficult task in itself. But not if we bolster human rights rather than dispose of them.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 3:58 pm

Leg hurts a lot, but up and about on crutches. Thanks for asking.

NHS was great (unlike my GP surgery which has been crap for over a decade.)

As for the negatively: I'm not a Labour supporter. I voted Green. I think, as I said before the vote, that the crushing of the kind of politics I support by the Hard Brexit parties was a disaster.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 12 Jun, 2017 4:01 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Worth watching this again
David Schneider‏Verified account
@davidschneider

Enough of pretending a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the Single Market. Leave promised Norway, EEA, even the Single Market

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More vthan that, there was a very definite statement from Leave on nearly all their publicity, "within the single market".