Deleted User wrote: » For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics. As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying.
Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism.
Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence,
coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.
Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum.
They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism. The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.
[Deleted User] wrote: » For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics. As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying. Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism. Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office. Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum. They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism. The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.
Deleted User wrote: » Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » i watched the Joe Duffy doc on the Children killled in The Troubles and it really brought it home to me just how evil the IRA was. sickening atrocities. that and the young girl (now a mature lady) blinded in the Omagh bomb who was on the Gaybo tribute last evening. truly evil baastaards they were in case we ever forget.
lawred2 wrote: » yeah the IRA are bad This is a Brexit thread
Letwin_Larry wrote: » yes but as a previous poster pointed out corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election. you need to try joining up the dots.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I think the ira thing was done to death in 2017 tbh. Didnt really change much then and see no reason why it would have much effect now. Bigger problems for corbyn than that old attack line.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » you need to try joining up the dots.
theological wrote: » The UK's reduced competence in trade negotiations is because it joined the EEC in the 70's and later the EU in post-Maastricht. This is the reason I find your argument poor here. It highlights a downside to EU membership which is that countries are required to give up an independent trade policy to join. Leaving the EU and building up this capacity will be good for the UK.
I disagree with the pessimism about the UK being able to agree FTA's. Smaller countries have been able to negotiate good FTA's that have been beneficial to their economies.
This is presuming that the UK won't be able to negotiate a FTA with the European Union. Smaller countries like Canada have been able to do this.
I don't deny that it will take time for the UK to develop its own trade and immigration policy, I simply think it is a step worth taking. What Brexit offers is the opportunity for the British parliament to make these decisions rather than the European Union. That for me is a good thing because I believe in national sovereignty.
[Deleted User] wrote: » However, my point regarding spending-on-steroids stands; it's a typical socialist stance - spend your way out of existing problems, often at the expense of future generations.
ambro25 wrote: » The obvious flaw in your core argument, is that the UK is a smaller economy, pre- just like post-Brexit, than the integrated supranational economy made up of these smaller countries. So, with your above sentence, you have inadvertently validated the fundamental use case of the Single Market, at the expense of the notion of Brexiting: trade union makes trade might.
theological wrote: » Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country. Secondly - the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.
theological wrote: » Although the UK economy is smaller than the entire EU. It is a large market in it's own right as the world's 5th biggest. I'm not convinced of your assumption that the EU will automatically negotiate better deals for the UK. This is because the EU has to negotiate on the basis of the priorities of 28 disparate countries rather than the needs of the UK alone. This will allow the UK to negotiate on priorities that suit it. Negotiating on the basis of less countries should allow the UK to negotiate with greater agility. You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I'm not saying there are no advantages to single market membership or even EU membership. I am saying two things however. Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country. Secondly - the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU. My position is more nuanced than the Brexiteer caricature that you are seeking to lump me in with.
theological wrote: » the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.
gooch2k9 wrote: » https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50323768 Sylvia Hermon standing down as North Down MP. Definitely a bad thing for pro remain side in NI. Hopefully her votes move to Alliance en masse otherwise DUP have it in the bag.
First Up wrote: » And its a lot more nuanced than trade "deals". Single Market membership has enabled UK companies become part of Europe wide supply and value chains. EU membership has allowed the UK to participate in the Europe wide science and research programmes that keep Europe at the top in competitiveness with China and the US. Most of that will be lost by Brexit. Leaving the Single Market also greatly reduces the case for mobile investment from outside Europe to go to the UK. The consequences of all that will become clear over time.
quokula wrote: » With the Brexit votes so important to Ireland and on such a knife edge, and the possibility of another hung parliament looming large, I assume there's still no talk from Sinn Fein on the possibility of turning up and voting? I know they were pushed on it for some of the key votes last year, and the response was that voters elected them on a promise of abstentionism, but a new election is a new opportunity to revisit that surely?
quokula wrote: » I see the Lib Dems have been at it again with their lying election material. .
quokula wrote: » I see the Lib Dems have been at it again with their lying election material. First of all they've been misattributing quotes. When a newspaper reported "Jo Swinson said X", Lib Dem election material quoted the newspaper as saying X, in order to falsely make it look like it's a quote from a neutral party rather than their own leader. And even when challenged on it they've been defending it as technically those words were printed. Then their endless misleading graphs and false poll data designed to trick tactical voters into choosing them over Labour has been continuing, to the point that one of the polling companies they use have actually issued a statement condemning the misuse of their data, as seen here: https://flavible.co.uk/statement They're a liability to the remain cause.
boring accountant wrote: » This election will be the most bitter in my lifetime without a doubt. I've noticed editorial standards at several Remain supporting publications fall of a cliff almost as soon as the election was announced. Case in point is the manufactured outrage over JRM's comments about Grenfell. Of course people lap it up and it fuels the hatred necessary to drive people to the polls, but it comes at the cost of social cohesion.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Have you heard of The Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Express? Bastions of independent reportage. Check them out of you want unbiased information.
