Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

I see another problem for the Tories, when you have Rees-Mogg in cabinet,

Jacob Rees-Mogg says Grenfell victims lacked ‘common sense’ for staying put

I suggest he didn't read the report or see that the London Fire Brigade told people to stay in their flats as those manning the calls thought it was the safest option and didn't have information that a breach had occurred.

In other news apparently there is a EU law that says government has to accept the lowest bid for a contract.

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1191668845523673088?s=20

Johnson wants to scrap that rule that doesn't exist. He will truly be the saviour of the UK, scrapping non-existing rules and stopping tragedies like Grenfell by cutting firefighters but stopping fires from happening.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is her seat in trouble? Think it might be, just a small bit.

Corbyn is always very good on this stuff, comes across strong and sincere. Some people seem to be surprised by him at these things, i never sure why. He's not great in commons admittedly so likely gets judged on that.

I would say her seat is safe enough. Voted strongly to remain in UK in IndyRef.

It is Corbyn's humour and wit that I'm impressed with today, I haven't really seen it before.

quokula wrote: »

Voters aren't doing it anyway - they're telling pollsters they're doing it anyway. There was a predicted Lib Dem surge in 2017 for the exact same reason and it never materialised at the ballot box.

Im as suspicious of the polls as anybody, but dismissing them out of hand would seem like extreme folly to me. Swing to ld isnt simply a figment of somebody's imagination after all.

Leroy42

quokula wrote: »

Voters aren't doing it anyway - they're telling pollsters they're doing it anyway. There was a predicted Lib Dem surge in 2017 for the exact same reason and it never materialised at the ballot box.

True, but a few things are different. The Tories have made a complete cluster££££ of brexit. The Tories are internally ripped apart by Brexit. Corbyn is deeply unpopular. People can now see the reality of Brexit.
There are no sunny uplands, it is either a terrible deal (in relation to the the current setup) of No Deal. The anger against the LibDems has reduced.

schmittel wrote: »

Yep, Swinson I think is a big issue for LDs. Just gut feeling again.

Watching Corbyn launch campaign now. He is actually coming across very well.

Is her seat in trouble? Think it might be, just a small bit.

Corbyn is always very good on this stuff, comes across strong and sincere. Some people seem to be surprised by him at these things, i never sure why. He's not great in commons admittedly so likely gets judged on that.

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, but whether thats right or wrong, voters are doing it anyway and it ultimately depends on in how many numbers. Its just gut feelings as schmittel rightly says above. I would agree that lib dems have momemtum right now (no pun intended), but i dont know if i see that maintained for 4-5 weeks. Not impressed by swinson, but then again, she's no tim farren!!

Voters aren't doing it anyway - they're telling pollsters they're doing it anyway. There was a predicted Lib Dem surge in 2017 for the exact same reason and it never materialised at the ballot box.

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson is a disgrace for describing his interpretation of an act of parliament?

We need a sense of perspective here. It's a descriptive term. You may not like Johnson's choice of words, but, for many people, it serves as an accurate descriptor of what the act involved. In earlier posts, I already outlined my own view, so I won't repeat it here.

The point to raise here is that using words like "disgrace" for a politican is allowing "abuse to thrive" against politicians with whom you disagree.

Johnson is a disgrace for using inflammatory language that means attacks become more frequent against MPs. I doubt anyone will go out to attack Boris Johnson because some poster on an Irish discussion thread thinks his actions is a disgrace. But Johnson/Cummings using language like surrender causes people to start believing it. You are an example of that.

I doubt anyone would have thought about the Benn act as surrender if not prompted by Johnson. What it is though is an embarrassing admission that he is not in control of his own PM premiership so he is resorting to insults to look big and strong. He campaigned on getting control back from the EU to the UK Parliament and it is so freaking funny that it is the control UK parliament always had is stopping him from doing anything that parliament thinks is harmful. That is so funny and Cummings knows this so he is on the attack and trying to cause division in UK politics.

I want to point you to another Johnson lie, he would not seek an early election but as soon as he realized he had the same numbers battle in the HoC as May did where he cannot get any Brexit through he demanded and pleaded and goaded for an election he didn't want.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, but whether thats right or wrong, voters are doing it anyway and it ultimately depends on in how many numbers. Its just gut feelings as schmittel rightly says above. I would agree that lib dems have momemtum right now (no pun intended), but i dont know if i see that maintained for 4-5 weeks. Not impressed by swinson, but then again, she's no tim farren!!

Yep, Swinson I think is a big issue for LDs. Just gut feeling again.

Watching Corbyn launch campaign now. He is actually coming across very well.

quokula wrote: »

Agree with Lewis Goodall here. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if you're a single issue remain voter (who are the only people the Libs are chasing), you'd be utterly crazy to vote Lib Dem and help ensure a Tory government, rather than vote for a Labour government offering a referendum between soft brexit and remain.

It's easy to get angry at Labour for taking too long to come to the position you wanted all along, and to tell pollsters you'll vote Lib Dem, but by the end of campaigning, when you're actually at the ballot box and deciding the future of your country, the outcome will surely be different.

Yes, but whether thats right or wrong, voters are doing it anyway and it ultimately depends on in how many numbers. Its just gut feelings as schmittel rightly says above. I would agree that lib dems have momemtum right now (no pun intended), but i dont know if i see that maintained for 4-5 weeks. Not impressed by swinson, but then again, she's no tim farren!!

quokula wrote: »

Agree with Lewis Goodall here. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if you're a single issue remain voter (who are the only people the Libs are chasing), you'd be utterly crazy to vote Lib Dem and help ensure a Tory government, rather than vote for a Labour government offering a referendum between soft brexit and remain.

It's easy to get angry at Labour for taking too long to come to the position you wanted all along, and to tell pollsters you'll vote Lib Dem, but by the end of campaigning, when you're actually at the ballot box and deciding the future of your country, the outcome will surely be different.

Perhaps (with my hypothetical UK vote hat on) I am neither angry nor happy with Labour's position, my preference all along has been Remain, ie revoke and I am happy that Lib Dem have finally arrived at the position I wanted all along.

Capt'n Midnight

theological wrote: »

Priorities like immigration, and trade deals are matters for after withdrawal. It will be a matter for subsequent governments as to who they want preferential trade deals with. I would have thought America was a bigger first priority. The UK already does a large portion of its trade with non-EU countries, those should be the first for preferential arrangements.

So far, the UK has signed 18 "continuity" deals covering 48 countries or territories. All together, these deals represent about 8% of total UK trade.
AFAIK none are better than what the UK gets by being in the EU.
Several will be worse because the EU is negotiating better deals with the likes of Switzerland. Others like Canada have got most of what they wanted handed on a plate by the UK announcing they will abolish so may tariffs.

Anyone who thinks the UK can get a good trade deal with the US needs to understand that the US isn't happy that the UK has a trade surplus with them of £41.8Bn.

The US can recoup half of that by targetting one aspect of the NHS
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-boris-johnson-brexit-trade-deal-us-nigel-farage-lbc-interview-a9182311.html

This week Channel 4’s Dispatches exposed how the US government wants to use a trade deal to prevent the NHS from being able to control medicine prices. Trump has said countries like Britain are “freeloaders” and must allow the market to dictate drug prices. But the NHS already spends £18 billion a year on drugs and is increasingly having to ration them because of spiralling prices. Dispatches showed that Big Pharma’s agenda would potentially hike up the NHS drugs bill to £45 billion, or £500m a week, presenting a profound threat to our health system.

That £27Bn increase in the cost of drugs could be part funded by the £8.9Bn nett contribution to the EU

Leaving the NHS to find another ...

Predictably enough ...

£350m a week

Stick that on a Big Red Bus.

(45 -18 -8.9 ) / 52 = .348

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You sound dangerously like a brexit voter there ;-)

But seriously, i get what your saying. I think issue for lib dems, or any smaller party, is overstretching and trying to go for too much. Time will tell.

This is what vince cable thinks, courtesy of one "expert", lewis goodall.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1191418825062965255?s=20

Agree with Lewis Goodall here. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if you're a single issue remain voter (who are the only people the Libs are chasing), you'd be utterly crazy to vote Lib Dem and help ensure a Tory government, rather than vote for a Labour government offering a referendum between soft brexit and remain.

It's easy to get angry at Labour for taking too long to come to the position you wanted all along, and to tell pollsters you'll vote Lib Dem, but by the end of campaigning, when you're actually at the ballot box and deciding the future of your country, the outcome will surely be different.

[Deleted User]

Enzokk wrote: »

Johnson again referred to the Benn act as the Surrender Bill. He is a disgrace and allows trolls and abuse to thrive.

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1191466150523265030?s=20

Johnson is a disgrace for describing his interpretation of an act of parliament?

We need a sense of perspective here. It's a descriptive term. You may not like Johnson's choice of words, but, for many people, it serves as an accurate descriptor of what the act involved. In earlier posts, I already outlined my own view, so I won't repeat it here.

The point to raise here is that using words like "disgrace" for a politican is allowing "abuse to thrive" against politicians with whom you disagree.

schmittel wrote: »

I'm certainly no expert either, but the more I have listened to experts the more I have learned to trust my gut feelings!

You sound dangerously like a brexit voter there ;-)

But seriously, i get what your saying. I think issue for lib dems, or any smaller party, is overstretching and trying to go for too much. Time will tell.

This is what vince cable thinks, courtesy of one "expert", lewis goodall.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1191418825062965255?s=20

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont know tbh, everybody talks of how unpredictable this election is yet a few political pundits I've heard have put the lib dems in around the 50 mark, sometimes a bit higher, sometimes lower. It seems about right to me but I'm certainly no expert and could well be surprised.

I'm certainly no expert either, but the more I have listened to experts the more I have learned to trust my gut feelings!

Sam Russell

quokula wrote: »

Lib Dems will go with the Tories - a third of their current MPs were elected as Conservatives and as seen in the post above they're willing to stand down in constituencies for remain-leaning Tories like Grieve (yes he's technically lost the whip, but on all matters other than Brexit he's a loyal Conservative), while simultaneously campaigning against strongly remain leaning Labour MPs (see Canterbury as an example)

However, the SNP are more likely to be kingmakers. If the Tories don't get a majority I'd predict a Lab-SNP government with an Independence referendum as the SNP's price (they're actually pretty aligned with Labour on most other matters)

I think it will depend on actual numbers. The SNP will not go with the Tories under any circumstances, but could go with Labour, particularly if they get Indyref2. They could also go with C&S if that is more appropriate.

The LibDems got destroyed by the Tories and their demands were delivered but in a way that was useless to them and as a consequence destroyed their base. I doubt they would go with the Tories again.

Now if the numbers fall such that a Labour/LibDem/SNP coallition made sense, and they could agree terms (which is not certain) then that might work. I think first item would either be 2nd EU Ref, or just a straight Revoke as the only way of getting rid of Brexit for ever and never speak of it again. They could then consign the Tory austerity to the bin where it belongs, and bring in a just tax system that does not favour corporations and the ultra rich.

schmittel wrote: »

As things stand right now I think Lib Dems will get well in excess of 55.

I dont know tbh, everybody talks of how unpredictable this election is yet a few political pundits I've heard have put the lib dems in around the 50 mark, sometimes a bit higher, sometimes lower. It seems about right to me but I'm certainly no expert and could well be surprised.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Optimistic to think even lab-lib dem could form a majority. Even if lib dems did really well and got, say, 55 seats, you're then talking about labour getting upwards of 270 which would be 15-20% increase for them. Will need snp too very likely, and thats going to make it complicated.

As things stand right now I think Lib Dems will get well in excess of 55.

Optimistic to think even lab-lib dem could form a majority. Even if lib dems did really well and got, say, 55 seats, you're then talking about labour getting upwards of 270 which would be 15-20% increase for them. Will need snp too very likely, and thats going to make it complicated.

CelticRambler

RickBlaine wrote: »

If neither the Tories or Labour gets a majority and both parties require the support of the LibDems to form a government, what do you think it is the most likely outcome:

As quokula says, if the margins are tight, chances are the SNP will have more seats to offer than the LibDems. It might well come down to a contest between a Lab-SNP coalition vs. a Tory-LibDem alliance.

In either case, thanks to the DUP creating a recent precedent, the minority party is more likely to opt for a confidence & supply arrangement than a formal coalition, in which case it would be arguably easier for the LibDems to support a Corbyn-led government with the promise of a 2nd Ref than to face criticism for hitching their wagon to the Tory horse that bit them in the past.

RickBlaine wrote: »

If neither the Tories or Labour gets a majority and both parties require the support of the LibDems to form a government, what do you think it is the most likely outcome:

- LibDems go with the Tories on the provisio that they agree to a second ref.

- Swinson revokes her promise never to form a government with Corbyn and they go with Labour.

Obviously a lot depends on the relative numbers. If Jo Swinson keeps her head down between now and election I think there is a good chance LDs will pick up a lot of seats from both Tories and Labour.

In that case there may be an argument for change of leader and thus policy in either of the big two parties and thus easier for Lib Dem to support one or other.

If Lib Dems numbers stay similiar to where they are now, difficult to see how they can support either party.

quokula

RickBlaine wrote: »

If neither the Tories or Labour gets a majority and both parties require the support of the LibDems to form a government, what do you think it is the most likely outcome:

- LibDems go with the Tories on the provisio that they agree to a second ref.

- Swinson revokes her promise never to form a government with Corbyn and they go with Labour.

Lib Dems will go with the Tories - a third of their current MPs were elected as Conservatives and as seen in the post above they're willing to stand down in constituencies for remain-leaning Tories like Grieve (yes he's technically lost the whip, but on all matters other than Brexit he's a loyal Conservative), while simultaneously campaigning against strongly remain leaning Labour MPs (see Canterbury as an example)

However, the SNP are more likely to be kingmakers. If the Tories don't get a majority I'd predict a Lab-SNP government with an Independence referendum as the SNP's price (they're actually pretty aligned with Labour on most other matters)

RickBlaine

If neither the Tories or Labour gets a majority and both parties require the support of the LibDems to form a government, what do you think it is the most likely outcome:

- LibDems go with the Tories on the provisio that they agree to a second ref.

- Swinson revokes her promise never to form a government with Corbyn and they go with Labour.

prawnsambo

Prospective LibDem candidate for Beaconsfield is standing aside for Dominic Grieve.

robinph wrote: »

He signed the letter as Jeremy Corbyn.

Luckily he signed his own name this time, it seems as though that is actually the way some letters are sent. The article 50 notification letter has the same layout as well with Donald Tusk written underneath May's signature.

I do think though that Johnson only signed the letter and was given a overview what it contained.

Leroy42

It is possible that they get a FTA within the TP timeframe.

They would simply agree to fully align all standards and regs etc. Brexit will have been done in January and it may well be that, as evidenced by the support for the latest deal despite it not dealing with any issues they claimed they had, that most MPs simply want to forget about the whole thing and will care more about being seen to get something done.

robinph

Enzokk wrote: »

Johnson again referred to the Benn act as the Surrender Bill. He is a disgrace and allows trolls and abuse to thrive.

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1191466150523265030?s=20

His letter is interesting, it seems clear the objective is to make this election about Brexit but much like May I feel the Tories will fail. Once the manifesto starts coming out from Labour and the Lib Dems and the other parties then the focus shifts off Brexit and if they only focus on Brexit they will be found out I feel.

He signed the letter as Jeremy Corbyn.