JoeLeg

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem you face with that strategy, GG, is > that - AFAIK - each of the 27 EU countries has a > veto on whatever trade deal is settled. And, as > we know, you have to do the trade deal with the EU > - not each individual country. Is it not the case that the threshold is 20 EU nations in agreement with 65% of the population of the EU? Happy to be corrected either way. And it's still a pretty big mountain to climb. Interested to hear GG's responses to the actual facts laid out by LL516, as opposed to their own thoughts. Not holding my breath though.

Rook Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What lies are you referring to? > That they would spend 350m on the NHS? I didnt > believe that Well a lot of people did. Just because you didn't doesn't make it any less of a lie. > > I also didnt believe from the Remain camp that it > would be impossible to strike a new trade deal, > that there would have to be an emergency budget , > that interest rates would immediately go up, or > that we would be ostracised from Europe, We have no idea what kind of trade deal we will strike. Germany today has started taking tough again, and while I agree that's likely a preliminary move by them, akin maybe to trash talking before a sports match, it still reminds us that no one has any idea where this will end. or that > everyone would fry alive etc etc Do you have a link to the Reamin campaign claiming that? 😉 There seems to be a curious expectation that many > who voted leave are now certain to be head in > hands, crying at their stupidity. Ummmm no, not > here or with many others I know (yes educated > professionals too!) Well, some people are, most Leave voters aren't. Why sticks in my craw is the fervent belief by Leavers, as epitomised by you, that this automatically means the UK is going to be fine. While I hope it's true, only a fool thinks that we won't encounter any resistance from Europe as we exit. We are a long way from knowing how this will end. > > Maybe you are all spending too much time laughing > at silly memes on facebook. You do know that > Facebook is not exactly a true reflection of fact > or understanding ? Thats certainly my view given > the stuff Ive seen on there - way wide of the > mark. The same is could be true of the East Dulwich Forum. And you and me, if we're honest. Again, no one ha any idea where this is heading. > What made me laugh was comments like "I cant > believe Farage is in Brussels now" (17 years now > is it?) Yeah, some people are bears of very little brain. OR "They are all resigning they dont know > what they are doing" (when Boris didnt resign he > withdrew from nomination as he didnt have enough > backing for nomination Extremely debatable. Boris had no plan for winning, and his withdrawal is he end result of that. He never really thought he would be in that position. -and Farage was not > official part of Leave campaign, is not an MP, and > so was never going to be part of Government > anyway). Farage is however a very public figure who has been driving for this for many years, and UKIP cannot be separated from the Leave campaign, no matter how hard any of us wish it. He does speak for a lot of people on this country unfortunately. > Markets are reflecting uncertainty yes but i think > this is normal no? Im telling you it is as I work > within them. Im very much looking forward to the > negotiations getting started. Brexit hasnt > happened yet. But will any informal negotiations be allowed before we announce A50? If they are then I feel a lot more confident. If not then I'm worried. > Have a nice day! You too.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > The first indication that the people were > concerned should have been the 2006 local council > elections when the BNP won 12 seats in Barking and > Dagenham- but then the people of that area are > poorly educated, they are not rich and wtf do they > know eh? Did you, or would you, vote BNP? If not, why not?

Rook Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > = Its a fact that its an unknown quantity because > its a new future. (crap analogy warning....)= You > might decide to trade in your partner for a better > model. Lets say you are a fresh singleton from > today. Much of your new relationship, and what its > like will depend on your relative attractiveness > and if you are out there actual meeting people and > er, talking (!) Sitting in your bedroom crying > will get you nowhere, and breed negativity. > It doesnt mean you wont enter a fantastic > relationship (or that you are due a terrible > one)and its the same for the UK. The plan was to > "get out there" immediately but given internal > politics (from the Remain camp!) I disagree with the idea that it's the Remain camp who are pushing it back. Firstly Micheal Gove is on favour of delaying, and he's hardly a Remainer. Secondly there are no more politicians being Remainers: they have accepted what they see as the new political reality. The only disagreement is one of how fast we go, and personally I'm glad they're slowing it down - we had no plan, and we need to form one. that has been > pushed back to Sep time. Political uncertainty is > the current drag! Political AND economic uncertainty, as well as the huge uncertainty over immigration. > > "And somehow people think we will automatically > get trade agreements within two years?" > > = We just dont know. There is so much sense in > striking a good deal for the UK (with Germany for > instance given we are a huge market for them). > Much of the speed will probably be driven more by > politics than anything else. Disintegration risk > in the EU is high so they want to deter others, > but dont want to cut off their nose to spite their > face. Germany want a good deal, but we need agreement from far more country's than just Germany. While I agree there's no way to predict what will happen, I'm worried that other nations will stick too closely to demands for freedom of movement for the UK to agree. Theoretically we could strike deals quickly > IF we accepted free flow of people, but this seems > very unlikely given immigration was such a huge > issue during the referendum. Yet strangely so many people claimed it was about sovereignty or making our own laws. Now it comes out that for many it really was about the foreigners. And now it's a Big Problem. Because no one during the campaign really talked about immigration, about what it might look like if we left, only vague 'promises' (as IDS so arrogantly put it after winning) to 'do something' about it. So a lot of people voted on the basis of what they wanted our immigration policy to be, and are now angry that it might be something else, whatever it turns out to be. Operating under WTO > rules with special dispensation is also an option. > This is all why a delay to invoking article 50 > looks likely. The powers that be want to "sound > out" trade deals to get the vital elements agreed > prior to official exit. Even Teresa may said of > course the EU will need to accept tariff free > terms for the UK. Many think they will have to! Andrea Leadsom seems to disagree, and she's about to give May a run for her money. If she becomes our next PM we're in trouble. > > "Are you so sure we won't have just replaced them > with home-grown power crazy loonies?" > > = Yeah we probably have! In my mind this whole > thing has been around choosing the lesser of 2 > evils and the same goes for politicians. Has there > ever been one the public has truly loved though! Well, of course you're entitled to your view. I'm of the view that soon this nation will have to face the fact that we made a lot of these problems ourselves, and when we find we can't blame he EU any more, what will we do?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whether you agree with Farage's views or not, it's > hard to deny he achieved his goal. The jury is out on whether he achieved it or not. He may frequently pop up to blast the government if he feels they haven't gone far enough in breaking with Europe or dealing with immigration. And to be honest I doubt anything they do will be good enough for him. So no, I don't think he'll ever feel he's achieved his real, true goals.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > That's bigotry if ever I read it . Just because > you don't agree with him , you call him scum. No, he's scum because he explicitly wants this country to shut down immigration, he wants to return this nation to a rose-tinted view of a path that never existed. He's a racist in a nice suit, and his followers often talk the same language. There's a lot of "I'm not racist, but...", a lot of wanting those funny talking people gone. Farage had actively courted the bigoted in society, on the left and right. He's felt able to pander to people's most basic fears of those who look and sound different. And if you challenged him you got called a left wind facist, or unpatriotic, or that you were a shill for Brussels. He lied, openly lied, during the referendum. He took money from the EU while professing to hate it. He's a hypocrite and bigot of the worst kind. We all know what his immigration message means. He's scum.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------- > I blame foreigners for nothing. . I'm happy to use > Polish , Hungarian , Black workmen in my home.. > > I'm happy to eat / drink in any restaurant and be > served by people of ANY ethinic origin. > > I'm happy to be seen to my any doctor / nurse what > ever their nationality > > I welcome skilled people who have something to > give.. This country depends on them.. > So DO NOT play the race game with me.. > I'm not playing any 'race game', I know you're not a racist or xenophobe; I'm accusing you of a double standard, in that you want separation from Europe but would still like access to the labour market it offers. You don't want to be told what to do by foreigners, because you think the EU is to blame for or problems. But why are we so attractive to migrants? Why are they coming here if not for the jobs? Because the fact is that large parts of our economy are reliant on migrant workers. Let's not even try to go down the benefits-scrounged route, we both know that isn't true. > So I am convinced of nothing as you suggest.. Alright, I'll concede that if you can answer me this; What is your positing on UNSKILLED labour in this country? I would suggest that the reason so much work like fruit picking around Peterborough (and much, much else across the UK) goes to immigrants is because large parts of British youth is frankly too lazy to do it. How do we fill these low-skilled roles like hospital cleaning and street sweeping and so on? > > -------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------- > You really are one of the most arrogant online > presences I've ever encountered. > > Is that right ? Yes. And I'm pretty arrogant myself so I reckon I know what I'm talking about. > > DulwichFox

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > We haven't left yet.. The country is still IN The > E.U.. and the mess it is in has been happening for > some time.. You seem pretty sure all our problems are due to the EU. Others disagree. > The UK has been going down the pan for years.. not > a week.. Well in the future we will find out who is really to blame. You're convinced it's those nasty foreigners, I reckon a lot more of thoE problems are home grown - why don't British people want to do all that fruit picking jobs around Peterborough? Any idea? > > Now.. for the first time we can put it right.. Our > laws.. Our rules... You've condemned the future youth of this nation to the future you think they should have. > ..and I do give more than 2 shits (as you > eloquently put it in your usual manner) about the > future of MY country. It's not just your country, and other people will have to live with the consequences of your ill-informed decision for much longer than you. > > DF. You really are one of the most arrogant online presences I've ever encountered.

Won't get fooled again? You already got fooled by a campaign that lied to you!

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No-one could have had any kind of concrete plan > about what to do next because it is an unknown > quantity... So you admit we just voted away stability for an 'unknown quantity'? You admit we had no idea what was going to happen? That's a big chance to take given that no one had a plan. I disagree strongly with the idea that the Leave campaign didn't need to have some kind of strategy - they wanted it, they should've been ready for it. there will be years of wrangling- It > took Greenland 9 years to get agreement over > fishing rights after it became independent of > Denmark and left the EU. And somehow people think we will automatically get trade agreements within two years? Just goes to show what a > grasping, power crazy bunch of loonies we have > hopefully left behind. Are you so sure we won't have just replaced them with home-grown power crazy loonies?

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm basically saying the Labour party no longer > stand for anything fair, I do not believe people > have moved from wanting a more just society, which > that way of thinking is often attributed to left > wing. Fair enough, agree to disagree and all that. I still maintain Corbyn just doesn't have the supporters nationwide to gain power, and I think Momentum, McDonnell and the rest should think about that, but what do I know? Joel your post above "the left in this > country etc" covers a lot of people, many who may > feel they have no political party they wish to > vote for, or were you meaning the left parties in > this country. I mean that Loz is right when he points out that the left covers a very wide range of people while the right is often more tightly grouped under an ideology. Look at Labour in the 70's, 80's, 90's and look st it now. Look at the difference between the PLP and much of the grass roots support. We can see huge variances in what the party is, as well as how it is seen. Now look at the Conservatives, and tell me if you can see the sa kind of fractures, arguments and issues. I'll save you the time; you can't, because they've always been better organised. I believe this to be a major factor in the rights historical dominance of politics, namely that they can get a coherent message across.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > B) which leads neatly onto my second, much > shorter point. The right wing of politics in this > country > > has always, always been much better organised. > If it was the Tories Corbyn would've been gone > > already and they would be coalescing under a new > leader. But Labour has itself set up so that > > infighting and disagreement is more public and > affects the party more. Twas ever thus...the > right > > looks after itself much better, and the left > look like they couldn't run a tea party. > > That's probably because the right essentially have > the one primary ideology, with differing levels of > belief. > > The left look more like a coalition of various > ideologies - the urban middle-class lefty, the > radical lefty, the old-school unionist. These > should be different parties and, if we had PR, > they probably would be. But they are forced to > come together, which leads to power struggles like > we see now. Yes, very true. I've often felt that PR would be better, but I'm not sure the problems outweigh the benefits. The left in this country has often felt to me as you describe it - like one continuous argument that really needs to work out what it is before taking on the right. Hasn't got there yet.

I'm kind of confused by your response, not really sure what point you're trying to make, but I'll respond as best I can. TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-general-election- > vote-statistics-how-the-left-gained-2015-5 > Well, ok, but that's a set of statistics from the last election, so not really relevant to theorising about a party led by Jeremy Corbyn who has become a far more polarising figure than Ed Milibamd ever was, though I'll concede Milibamd was a terrible leader in his own way (in my opinion). > There will always be people who only look out for > themselves and can manage that way of life by not > giving a shit about others, My point is that for most of our history, and particularly since Thatcherism, this has been prevalent. who vote or abstain > for the same reason. This seems the only option in > politics, what is the point of an opposition that > refuses to oppose, I don't think Labour is refusing to oppose; I think it's engaged in a civil war for the soul of the party. Can we truly say that hard-left/socialist policies represent the feelings of enough of the electorate for a party to embrace them and be able to say they really speak for working class people? I think there's many people who Labour believe they should be representing who would say Labour is not the party for them, for myriad reasons. Labour hasn't yet worked out how to be relevant in modern times. i'm sure the political parties > will remind everyone what class means which > hopefully will naturally bring people to fight > against this contempt for change. I'm not sure what you mean by 'contempt for change', or rather, who you mean by that. Tories? Labour? Both?

Oh yeah, and everything Louisa said. More succinct and spot on than me!

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't quite get where this unelectable status > has came from. When you look at most of the > puppets, psychopaths, etc. who have been elected, > > or the ones who will be standing for pm, I just > can't see why he's that unelectable, other than > the labour party moving so far right, its > impossible for the majority support. I'm glad > he's > refusing to go its showing the labour party for > what they are Personal opinion, there's two reasons... A) You talk about 'majority support' for Labour, but let's put personal beliefs or wishes to the side for a moment and ask ourselves, how successful has the Labour Party been in the last forty or so years at achieving power? Well, apart from Tony Blair, it hasn't really, plain and simple. Why is that? Well, maybe I'm just getting old and cynical, but I really don't see much evidence that there's enough support in this country as a whole for hard-left government. Scotland dropped Labour and went to the SNP, believing it to be the party that will look out for them. Far too much of Labours base has swallowed the UKIP line, and the centre ground which Blair successfully courted has gone straight back to the Tories. What does this tell me? I think there is, really, very little appetite amongst voters as a whole for looking out for others. I remember seeing Tony Benn giving an inspirational talk many years ago in which he confidently predicted the rise of a socialist society, but nothing I've seen in the 20 years since has convinced me he was right. He was followed by Norman Tebbit (ugh), and I'm afraid to say much more of what Tebbit predicted about the future has come to pass. There is not the desire in the UK - overall - for the type of policies a Corbyn government would follow. We can argue till the sun comes up what that says about Britain today, but it changes not one iota the fact that he doesn't speak for most people. Now that we have definate left-wing supporters, including myself and many I know (though not all) voicing serious misgivings about his leadership, I think he is done. I don't know where Labour is heading, but I believe those at the top - on all sides - have lost track of not only what the party was meant to be, but also what it can be in the 21st century. B) which leads neatly onto my second, much shorter point. The right wing of politics in this country has always, always been much better organised. If it was the Tories Corbyn would've been gone already and they would be coalescing under a new leader. But Labour has itself set up so that infighting and disagreement is more public and affects the party more. Twas ever thus...the right looks after itself much better, and the left look like they couldn't run a tea party.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As somebody said in "best letters" > > Theresa May gets made favorite for PM due to her > keeping the referendum campaign at arms length. > > Jeremy Corbyn gets destroyed for the same. Theresa May wasn't the leader of the party though. Corbyn had more responsibility.

Jeremy Hunt is backing Theresa May.

Let me clarify - First Past The Post is a system which will never allow a hard-left party into power as it tends to give all power to one party, as witness the fact that we've only had one coalition outside of wartime. The losing side he to lick it's wounds and try again next time. Proportional Representation is the only way you get an accurate reflection of how the country really votes, but it brings its own troubles. So Labour is stuck being unable to function effectively as a hard left party because too many people disagree with them, enough in fact to keep them from power. Blair knew how to get elected, regardless of his faults. Corbyn feels that principle is more important. Well, fine. I have no argument with that, but I struggle to see how he thinks it will make him PM given the general feeling in the nation.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lordship 516 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > This is Bliar's legacy > > > > Yes, naughty Tony Blair. Bad man. Making the > party > > electable. > > > > Corbyn certainly can't be accused of that. > > Bliar mainly made Tony Bliar electable & has since > profited wildly along with the rest of his family > & cronies. > > History will show him as a charlatan & agent for > his paymasters. Well, yes, that's probably true. Bit consider this (not my original words, but something I read online which has resonated with me) "Perhaps if we accept that this is essentially a conservative country, we see why no party that moved to the hard left has had so much as a sniff of power. Tory dominance is guaranteed unless Labour is willing to occupy the centre ground, and recognise that under the current electoral system there is no way a true left wing government will ever hold power." There are many people who support Corbyns message, but they're never going to get a chance to enact it. Our electoral system prevents that.

Crabb won't get it, he knows it. I reckon he's doing it to get the experience of running, set himself up for further down the line. I agree, if we have to have Brexit, May is probably the best bet at this stage.

Enemy of my enemy is my fried and all that. Bring on May!

That's the thing, he's the worst of the three by a mile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36671336 That's that then...

Yeah, nice one Corbyn supporters. Great way to make the party look reasonable... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/revealed-labour-mps-go-to-police-over-death-threats-after-refusa/

Business as normal, isn't that what everyone says should happen? Or should they wait until...when?