Oh welcome back wear_yellow . Here are some sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946 Daily MIrror Press Association: Most members of the House of Commons are believed to have voted Remain in the EU referendum. According to a survey of all 650 MPs carried out by the Press Association ahead of the referendum on June 23: :: 480 MPs said they would be voting Remain, including 184 Conservatives :: 159 MPs said they would be voting Leave, including 139 Conservatives :: 11 MPs were undeclared, including four Conservatives This gives Remain a notional Commons majority of at least 310. Some 218 Labour MPs said they would vote Remain while just 11 backed Leave. All eight Liberal Democrat MPs intended to vote Remain, along with all 56 SNP MPs, all three Plaid Cymru MPs, all four Sinn Fein MPs and all three SDLP MPs. Green MP Caroline Lucas also said she would vote Remain, as did independent MP Sylvia Hermon and the two Ulster Unionist MPs. The eight DUP MPs said they would be voting to Leave, along with Ukip MP Douglas Carswell. It is in fact more than the 60% I indicated
Yes - more like the 75% I remembered. Not sure what importance it has though. In the referendum they were just citizens. In Parliament they voted overwhelmingly to back the referendum result and trigger Article 50. Party directives.
The referendum was so general in its wording that any sort of deal is possible if negotiable. Who introduced soft and hard in any case? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/explainer-what-is-hard-brexit-a3365896.html May introduced it, looks like, as a term to cover all she did in the negotiations... without seeking to consult with parliament
I remember that mind-numbing song It's not what you do it's the way that you do it But the is in the detail.... and that is what is so hard in all of this.
That is, even by your standards, the dumbest thing you've ever posted. By some considerable distance.
The problem is W_Y that we are in totally unprecedented territory and so we are using terms which have no shared general meaning. The hardest of all possible Brexits would be the UK. negotiating team storming out of the room saying 'we're not obliged to pay anything', leaving without any deal and setting itself up as some kind of tax haven before the shores of Europe. Relying on WTO agreements to regulate any trade with Europe (If there is any trade left). The softest of all Brexits would be a Norway type solution which, in effect, leaves everything as it is (but without voting rights in the EU.) - we would, technically, be outside. There are a number of alternatives which are between those polarities, and constructive negotiations are about finding those. Avoiding 'hard' Brexit simply means staying at the negotiating table and keeping the likes of Bojo as far away from it as possible. I would like to see at least one person define to me what a 'hard' border looks like - the British control all passports - can turn back all known criminals already. So what is meant by the expression 'gaining control over our own borders' - the only way they can get harder than they are already is to have a Visa requirement for EU. citizens, and is anyone really suggesting that when there are 20 tourists coming for every one real immigrant ? Or is it meant that controls would be placed on access to jobs etc. ?
You obviously know very little about politics. Gove is one of the smartest guys in parliament, he is now positioned to be one of the PMs main advisers.
I would be interested in your definition of 'smart'. That might help me and probably others understand your value base? He is certainly a very interesting individual who had had a varied career. His behaviour post BREXIT referendum strikes me as devious and untrustworthy. He also said of becoming PM a few years back: "I'm constitutionally incapable of it. There's a special extra quality you need that is indefinable, and I know I don't have it. There's an equanimity, an impermeability and a courage that you need. There are some things in life you know it's better not to try." Ahhh that means he will throw his hat in asap!!
My definition of 'smart' is intelligence and experience. He has been Secretary of state for Education, Chief Whip, Secretary of state for Justice and now Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. His colleagues hold his opinions in high esteem although they hide the knives whilst he is about.
I am not sure I would classify him as smart. I think I read somewhere he has a pretty high IQ but many boffin types lack common sense. He does seem a bit of an intellectual. But was it smart to rule himself out so totally of having Prime Ministerial abilities - and then to throw his hat in that ring? Was it smart to shaft BoJo and so destroy whatever credibility he had and friendships in the party? Who considered his times at Education, Treasury or Justice to be a success? Certainly nobody outside the Tory party and there are many Tories who have not rated him. Smart - no I don't think I would apply that term to him. Now - weaselly and slimey are both adjectives that spring to mind when thinking of him
I don't think he is perceived positively by many if any non-Tories. I think Tory values embodied in their political party seem to cover things such a competitiveness, ruthlessness, self-interest, efficiency. I would be interested to read more about Tory values. For me values such as inclusiveness and compassion are more meaningful
So it was a survey of how they intended to vote in the referendum as ordinary citizens, no one can say for sure how they actually voted. Glad I did not miss anything.
Various surveys both pre and post I think Well we never know with a politician but we hope they are truthful
Going on from that..... a Govt needs include people with a wide range of values so that they can best serve the population as a whole
If there is no trade left then the German car and white goods vendors and going to have a hard time, along with Champagne and Wine producers, Spanish salad goods etc etc. They are all going to be chasing a much smaller market. "Freedom of Movement" is a ridiculous term, it has no meaning. What is means is the freedom to live and work in any EU country and doing so under the laws and rules of that country - so access to benefits etc. There could be an agreement to restrict this whilst still allowing visa free access for visiting relatives, sightseeing etc. So if you want to come to the UK to work, you have to have a genuine job offer and you apply for a work visa in-country - very much the same as for non-EU countries. If you quit that job or get the sack, then the visa is no longer valid and you have to either leave or stay as a tourist i.e. no access to benefits. It's about time the UK introduced national identify cards and also recorded everyone leaving the country as well as entering it.
There will be trade -the only question is will any of it be tariff free and what the tariff rates will be for anything else. The lower the tariffs the greater the trade - nobody disputes that do they? Freedom of movement is a concept that in economics is one of the essentials for a free market place. If you can erect barriers to trade, services, people or capital then you distort the market. The EU want a free market. However many countries within the EU place subtle barriers - the UK naively has not done that much which has helped make the problem
What about the 100,000s of manual low-skilled type jobs often on varied hours that we need to have filled? Maybe like OZ we could have work visas for the under 25s or similar? The argument against identity cards IMO is lost. Bring them in..............
The problem with a hard, acrimonious Brexit is that it will effect British trade with Europe, with or without Tariffs. If faced with the direct choice between buying an EU. product or one from Britain, then EU. customers will probably choose the former. Will customers still want to buy British ? Germany would still prefer it if they could export cars to Britain tariff free, but this is not so very important - Britain, as a market, for German products is on around 4th place (less important than the Netherlands in terms of overall trade) - and less important than Poland and the Czech Republic when counted together - serious, but not a disaster.
DEFRA is usually (but not always) either for new ministers on their way up as a test of how far they will be able to go or a graveyard for experienced ministers and given how long Gove has been around, I think he falls into the latter.
