Theresa May to make "big announcement" - Update Snap Elections - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14799020
Clangeddin wrote:I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that, deep down, Corbyn kind of wanted Brexit to happen as well, but he just couldn't openly admit it to avoid a shitstorm of epic proportions.
I don't know, call it a hunch, but the few times I've seen him on the issue, he just didn't seem interested / convinced enough.


It's pretty well known Corbyn wanted to leave the EU.
He wants to take all services and utilities back into public control and EU rules won't allow him to do that.

The fact that the turnout for remain was so poor may be another indicator that for the british left, staying in the EU was not such an important matter as it may have been portrayed...


The left cannot all be lumped together. There's people like me and there's the loonies.

People didn't bother to vote because they didn't think they needed to.
It was all very last minute.
Boris Johnson's rhetoric at that awful televised debate went a long way to convince the don't knows to vote to leave.
Of course, anyone with any sense knew exactly what he was up to.
#14799041
GandalfTheGrey wrote:This is what always amuses me about non-compulsory election countries - if only a tiny percentage of the remainers who couldn't be bothered voting at the referendum - actually went and voted, Brexit wouldn't have happened. Apparently the more pro-remain areas you had, the lower the turnout was. And like Brexit, I suspect this coming election will be characterised by a higher turnout of one side (torries and far right) than the other side.

If every eligible voter actually got off their arse and voted in this election, imagine what result you would get. I suspect you would get a far more left leaning (at least economically) government. I'm hoping the left have learned their lesson from Brexit, but I'm not holding my breath.


I think that really reflects the fact that only a fairly small minority of people actually believe in staying in the EU.

The biggest motive for voting Remain seemed to be avoiding economic disruption in the near term.

There are a few people with a principled belief in European political union and a group of indignants who believe the Leave vote was entirely about disliking foreigners or hankering for some bygone age. When you look at the support the Remain side had, from the government, the media, the unions, big business, the US President and other foreign leaders it really is a minor miracle that Leave won.

I suspect if voting was compulsory the result would have been a much stronger vote to leave.

However I'm glad we don't have compulsory voting. I think withholding consent and approval is an important signal which we should have the right to do.
#14799059
AJS wrote:
I think that really reflects the fact that only a fairly small minority of people actually believe in staying in the EU.

The biggest motive for voting Remain seemed to be avoiding economic disruption in the near term.

There are a few people with a principled belief in European political union and a group of indignants who believe the Leave vote was entirely about disliking foreigners or hankering for some bygone age. When you look at the support the Remain side had, from the government, the media, the unions, big business, the US President and other foreign leaders it really is a minor miracle that Leave won.

I suspect if voting was compulsory the result would have been a much stronger vote to leave.

Well said and I couldn't agree more.

If the one poll on the motivation for voting remain that I've seen is to be believed, fear of the economic consequences was a major factor or in other words, it wasn't primarily support for the EU that made people vote remain. I would therefore expect people to increasingly support Brexit, as they realise that Project Fear was mostly wrong and the economic consequences won't be as dire as predicted.

Having said that, many of those who cannot or will not accept the result seem to have a mental block with respect to the possible reasons in support of Brexit in that they are no longer able to imagine that for the rest of us economic reasons are not the only or even the most important determinant in decision making. This is a problem that goes beyond the EU debate and is increasingly relevant regarding so-called free trade agreements too. Hence in my view it's important to not solely argue on their terms but to shift the debate to the trade-offs of economic openness and harmonisation in terms of sovereignty, which is incidentally another area where the left-right divide breaks down.
#14799069
many of those who cannot or will not accept the result seem to have a mental block with respect to the possible reasons in support of Brexit in that they are no longer able to imagine that for the rest of us economic reasons are not the only or even the most important determinant in decision making.


Stating the bleeding obvious, there. There are no sound economic reasons to leave the EU.

The main reason, by far, for people voting to leave was to reduce immigration.

I suspect if voting was compulsory the result would have been a much stronger vote to leave.


That is extremely doubtful. I'm not sure where that comes from.

Project fear was absolutely right, by the way.
So far, so bad.
#14799102
snapdragon wrote:Stating the bleeding obvious, there. There are no sound economic reasons to leave the EU.

They aren't particularly important to me, but there actually are, especially in the long term. The EU is unlikely to be a future growth market and hence Britain may well be better off if it starts now to increasingly look elsewhere in terms of trade. Being outside the single market would help with this.

snapdragon wrote:The main reason, by far, for people voting to leave was to reduce immigration.

Which is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty. Retaining control over the decision how many and who is allowed into the country is absolutely essential.
#14799116
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:They aren't particularly important to me, but there actually are, especially in the long term. The EU is unlikely to be a future growth market and hence Britain may well be better off if it starts now to increasingly look elsewhere in terms of trade. Being outside the single market would help with this.


Britain already trades under WTO rules.
Leaving the EU doesn't change that, but leaving the single market is pretty disastrous.



Which is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty. Retaining control over the decision how many and who is allowed into the country is absolutely essential.


Oh, come on. Britain has always been a sovereign country.

There is always a trade off.

India has insisted that any future trade deal we make with them will have to mean Britain relaxes its immigration laws.

So much for sovereignty.
#14799203
snapdragon wrote:Stating the bleeding obvious, there. There are no sound economic reasons to leave the EU.

The main reason, by far, for people voting to leave was to reduce immigration.


Not according to the Ashcroft polls

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/ho ... d-and-why/

49% of both Tory and Labour voters cited “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK” as their primary reason.

By contrast both the first and second most common reasons for voting Remain were related to the economy.
#14799703
Theresa May might be in store for a nasty surprise from young people in the UK. Huge numbers of them are registering to vote. And if they actually cast their ballots, they could have a massive impact on the outcome of the general election.

In just three days, 103,439 18-24-year-olds registered. And a further 99,106 25-34-year-olds also signed up.
https://www.thecanary.co/2017/04/23/you ... eresa-may/
#14802618
Sorry for my late reply.

snapdragon wrote:
Britain already trades under WTO rules.
Leaving the EU doesn't change that, but leaving the single market is pretty disastrous.

My point is that being an EU member automatically diverts some trade, which Britain would otherwise have with the rest of the world, to the EU, simply due to the fact that within the EU there tend to be fewer barriers. But since, as mentioned, the EU is not really a future growth market, this diversion may not be beneficial, especially in the long term. Also, despite this UK trade is already 50/50 with the EU and the rest of the world, i.e. Britain has a larger proportion of trade with non-EU countries than most EU members already, meaning it is well positioned to make up for the reduction in trade with the EU by intensifying and expanding its trade with everybody else.

Whether leaving the single market will be disastrous remains to be seen. Unless the EU tries to punish Britain for leaving, I highly doubt it will be. On the other hand, if the EU does become vengeful, it should be rejected even more as a matter of principle, in my view.

snapdragon wrote:Oh, come on. Britain has always been a sovereign country.

There is always a trade off.

India has insisted that any future trade deal we make with them will have to mean Britain relaxes its immigration laws.

So much for sovereignty.

Within the EU ever more sovereignty is eroded and it is orders of magnitudes more advanced in its drive to centralise competencies in Brussels than any FTA or relationship with countries outside the EU could be. Further, its official aim and trajectory is to undermine sovereignty ever more, meaning that staying within the EU is a constant battle against this aim and trajectory, especially for a country like Britain whose population is generally opposed to this.

But you have stated before on this board that you don't particularly care about sovereignty anyway, so I wouldn't expect you to appreciate concerns of people like me.
#14802656
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Sorry for my late reply.


My point is that being an EU member automatically diverts some trade, which Britain would otherwise have with the rest of the world, to the EU, simply due to the fact that within the EU there tend to be fewer barriers.


I'm not getting what you mean? I need more detail.



But since, as mentioned, the EU is not really a future growth market, this diversion may not be beneficial, especially in the long term. Also, despite this UK trade is already 50/50 with the EU and the rest of the world, i.e. Britain has a larger proportion of trade with non-EU countries than most EU members already, meaning it is well positioned to make up for the reduction in trade with the EU by intensifying and expanding its trade with everybody else.


Not really. A lot of Britain's trade with the rest of the world is dependent on Britain being a gateway to the rest of the EU. Remember passporting?

Whether leaving the single market will be disastrous remains to be seen. Unless the EU tries to punish Britain for leaving, I highly doubt it will be. On the other hand, if the EU does become vengeful, it should be rejected even more as a matter of principle, in my view.


The only thing that remains to be seen is the extent of the disaster.

The rest is nonsense. I'm not sure what you mean by vengeful.
I don't see any signs of it. All I see is the usual suspects mouthing off about "them"needing us more than we need them and unless "they" give us what we want, we're going to walk away from our obligations.

Within the EU ever more sovereignty is eroded and it is orders of magnitudes more advanced in its drive to centralise competencies in Brussels than any FTA or relationship with countries outside the EU could be. Further, its official aim and trajectory is to undermine sovereignty ever more, meaning that staying within the EU is a constant battle against this aim and trajectory, especially for a country like Britain whose population is generally opposed to this.



https://www.chathamhouse.org/publicatio ... gnty-myth#

And please don't lump all the population together. We're not all Mail readers.

But you have stated before on this board that you don't particularly care about sovereignty anyway, so I wouldn't expect you to appreciate concerns of people like me.


You're idea of sovereignty is misguided at best.
#14802665
snapdragon wrote:
I'm not getting what you mean? I need more detail.

I'm not sure what's unclear. Reducing barriers between two markets - i.e. in this case the EU and Britain - will tend to increase the amount of trade between these two markets, and since the EU is not a future growth market the positive effects of this will quite likely decrease over time. Even over the last decade the UK has reoriented itself away from the EU and more towards the rest of the world, despite being extremely restricted in terms of its own trade policy by being a member of the custom union. What's more, the UK's trade balance with the rest of the world is relatively balanced while the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU.

snapdragon wrote:Not really. A lot of Britain's trade with the rest of the world is dependent on Britain being a gateway to the rest of the EU. Remember passporting?

I think you may be confusing foreign investment with trade, but please show us a source for this claim together with an estimate how much of British extra-EU trade is dependent on being a gateway to the EU.

snapdragon wrote:The only thing that remains to be seen is the extent of the disaster.

The rest is nonsense. I'm not sure what you mean by vengeful.
I don't see any signs of it. All I see is the usual suspects mouthing off about "them"needing us more than we need them and unless "they" give us what we want, we're going to walk away from our obligations.

By vengeful I mean the dictionary definition of the term, and if the EU becomes vengeful it should be opposed even more, as it would not only lose its legitimacy but would also act in contradiction to its own principles.

We'll have to wait and see whether it's going to be disastrous for the UK economy or not. Your side has already been completely wrong once, when all mainstream economic organisations, news outlets and your own treasury predicted that there would be an immediate economic downturn after the referendum in case of a Brexit vote. :lol:

snapdragon wrote:https://www.chathamhouse.org/publicatio ... gnty-myth#

And please don't lump all the population together. We're not all Mail readers.

You're idea of sovereignty is misguided at best.

Your paper is titled "Britain, the EU and the Sovereignty Myth" and in its summary it admits that Britain loses sovereignty as an EU member. Of course, as this is a pro-EU paper, it asserts that the sovereignty loss is not only inevitable and without alternative, but also in the UK's best interest. I'm somewhat concerned that people like you still believe that this kind of argument will make an impression. This is pretty much mainstream propaganda that we have been constantly bombarded with for decades.

As for lumping all the population together, I haven't. Please read my posts more carefully.

You basically said that you want the EU to save you from Tory governments, which means you are ok with people other than the British making decisions for you. Of course, you will in all likelihood only support the erosion of sovereignty as long as you agree by and large with the decisions the EU makes for Britain. Perhaps you have never thought of the possibility or cannot imagine that this may change in the future. It's therefore hard for me to take your position on sovereignty seriously.
#14802955
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm not sure what's unclear. Reducing barriers between two markets - i.e. in this case the EU and Britain - will tend to increase the amount of trade between these two markets, and since the EU is not a future growth market the positive effects of this will quite likely decrease over time. Even over the last decade the UK has reoriented itself away from the EU and more towards the rest of the world, despite being extremely restricted in terms of its own trade policy by being a member of the custom union. What's more, the UK's trade balance with the rest of the world is relatively balanced while the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU.


Half our exports go to the EU and as the EU countries are on our doorstep, that is likely to continue.

Our trade with other countries hasn't been in any way restricted by being a member of the EU.

There have been various papers published showing this to be the case.

You can find them quite easily.


think you may be confusing foreign investment with trade, but please show us a source for this claim together with an estimate how much of British extra-EU trade is dependent on being a gateway to the EU.


Foreign investment is certainly of enormous value, but so is the trade of financial services.


By vengeful I mean the dictionary definition of the term, and if the EU becomes vengeful it should be opposed even more, as it would not only lose its legitimacy but would also act in contradiction to its own principles.


Which is probably why the EU won't become vengeful.

Not allowing Britain to cherry pick a deal and protecting the interests of the rest of the EU countries would not be "vengeful".

We'll have to wait and see whether it's going to be disastrous for the UK economy or not. Your side has already been completely wrong once, when all mainstream economic organisations, news outlets and your own treasury predicted that there would be an immediate economic downturn after the referendum in case of a Brexit vote. :lol:


Mainly due to the British consumer acting as if nothing had happened. Which was a very good thing, of course, but perhaps it would be better for you not to get into a "which side told the most lies" argument.

Also what do you mean by "your own" treasury? is it not yours, too?


Your paper is titled "Britain, the EU and the Sovereignty Myth" and in its summary it admits that Britain loses sovereignty as an EU member. Of course, as this is a pro-EU paper, it asserts that the sovereignty loss is not only inevitable and without alternative, but also in the UK's best interest. I'm somewhat concerned that people like you still believe that this kind of argument will make an impression. This is pretty much mainstream propaganda that we have been constantly bombarded with for decades


Of course it's a pro EU paper. They all are. Try to find a scholarly paper that isn't and also maintains the UK is no longer sovereign.
That paper states Britain chose to pool some sovereignty with other EU countries.

The EU is not a sovereign state, and no country of the EU has any sovereignty over Britain. No foreign states overrides Parliament.


As for lumping all the population together, I haven't. Please read my posts more carefully.


"The whole population", you claimed . It's far from it.

You basically said that you want the EU to save you from Tory governments, which means you are ok with people other than the British making decisions for you.



No, no no. It's the British parliament that enacts those laws.
The fact the Tories hate some of them is a bonus.


Of course, you will in all likelihood only support the erosion of sovereignty as long as you agree by and large with the decisions the EU makes for Britain. Perhaps you have never thought of the possibility or cannot imagine that this may change in the future. It's therefore hard for me to take your position on sovereignty seriously.


There is always a trade off that has to be made when it comes to negotiating deals with other countries. That is not an erosion of sovereignty, that is the way the world works these days.

I certainly don't take your idea of sovereignty seriously.

Pimping the Queen to Trump as a kind of sweetener is something I can easily give up.
#14803421
Yep, my wife's co-worker at a psychiatric services dept in London killed herself months ago because of all the pressure she was under at work, because of the Toryscum targets imposed on NHS staff. I think there were other factors relating to why she killed herself, but work was a major factor and when she was denied time off to deal with her depression, she killed herself.

Countries can recover from bankruptcies fast. The[…]

Their sympathy for Muslim Syrian "refugees&qu[…]

There are only two teams and two sides on the play[…]