Who knows what machinations are going on within the Tory party? The only reason she might survive is that the rest of the Tory Brexiteers realise what a poisoned chalice it is. Hammond, Rudd or Davidson are possible leaders who might have a Brexit rethink.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Who knows what machinations are going on within the Tory party? The only reason she might survive is that the rest of the Tory Brexiteers realise what a poisoned chalice it is. Hammond, Rudd or Davidson are possible leaders who might have a Brexit rethink.
Mmm................even your poll example hardly backs up your assertion that: " A second referendum would undoubtedly reverse the original result ".
Wouldn't you think it reasonable to let the people have another say once it becomes clear exactly what we are getting into?
Well thank God we're coming out of the EU. As for NATO, have we grown a magic money tree because the Donald has already made it clear the Yanks aren't going to pay for the military war games you want. I find it hard to fathom your logic sometimes. You criticise Blair, quite rightly in my opinion, for being a warmonger and successive politicians before and since for interfering countries where there are dictatorships and lack of democracy but which functioned successfully but seem to be quite happy to repeat the fiasco when it comes to Russia. Tell me, when did you last find one hiding under your bed. Your paranoia is hilarious or rather it would be if the garbage wasn't peddled regularly by the independent press you approve of ranging from the Telegraph through to the Sun. Thank God for the BBC which at least provides some different points of view.
No. You know that. Not sure which part I got wrong or am completely making up as I go along. Tell you what. Point it out and then I dare you to post on plotical matters to show us that I've misunderstood your politics.
I doubt it. Why have you? Because if you haven't I'm not sure what qualifies you to tell us what it's like.
I knew exactly what I was voting for and I don't need another vote. It's done. Move on.
How do you get around the fact that, if the EU knows we're going to vote on the final deal, it will offer the very worse terms possible? This seems unarguable to me and would render the result of the second referendum worthless.
A couple of thoughts...
This is a poll from May 2017 - given the subsequent capitulation of Davis in the first day of the 'negotiation' and the emerging disquiet about the economic effects of a 'no-deal', I wonder how much people's attitudes will have changed since that poll was taken. Theresa May was 23 points ahead in the polls, and look what happened there - it's a very dynamic and fluid.
Interesting they didn't ask a more straightforward if you could vote today would you vote yes or no. Instead the questions were heavily laden with 'will of the people' nonsense - a 52:48 split wouldn't be enough to elect the Captain of a golf club, let alone justification for the momentous political and social upheaval that leaving the EU will effect.
YouGov are not a politically independent organisation, (as are many supposedly independent polling companies) and are well known for making significant donations to Conservative Party MPs - I wonder why?
Saying you would honour the referendum vote is not the same as saying you actively want the country to leave the EU
I just don't think these things are as black and white as people like to portray.
There is nothing to suggest they will offer anything other than a poor deal - the future of the EU depends on the UK being significantly worse off outside the Union - if the UK are better off what is to stop other countries following suit?
Obviously, the EU will act in its own self-interests. It will ensure any deal the UK gets is less advantageous than when the UK was a member and paying £8bn plus charges p.a. Which is fair, and the UK will then be free to trade unrestricted with the rest of the world and those growing markets. But the EU also wants to preserve an important export market in the UK, so will try to avoid tariffs, customs restrictions etc which help nobody.
However, if the EU think that by offering a really poor deal, they can overturn the slim 48/52 Leave split, they will do so, because it's in their self interests to keep the UK inside the EU, because the UK is deep pocket.
They are going to negotiate the best deal they can for the 27 member states irrespective of whether we hold a further referendum.
Public opinion is very much against a hard Brexit. Only 27% favour leaving the Customs Union according to this poll......
http://mailchi.mp/survation/post-election-poll-for-the-mail-on-sunday-1118637?e=c37db807f4
......and a majority are now in favour of a second referendum on the terms of the deal.
It's the will of the people, Goldie.
The Mail on Sunday is not impartial. It was intensely Remain (unlike the Daily Mail) ... and anyway, one poll does not represent the will of the people, Strolls. Nice try!
I'm not suggesting they are trying to do anything, and it's clear they would rather have the UK in rather than outside the EU so it wouldn't be too much of a strict to imagine that the pressure of a poor deal might have some effect on the 'will of the British people'.
However any deal on the table (from the EU's perspective) has, by definition, to put us in a worse position to the one we are in now.
As I read you post, seagull, I think we're agreed. A second referendum could (I say, would) encourage the EU to offer us a worse deal to influence this second vote. And the EU must anyway, offer us a worse deal than we have at present - but the advantages for the UK are saving of EU fees and freedom to trade worldwide without restriction (as well as control of borders, being removed from the auspices of the ECJ etc...)
I think the biggest concern for people at the moment is that prices are going up and wages have stagnated.
The economy is poorly performing compared to every other country in Europe as confidence is low. Inflation is at its highest rate in four years, retail and the housing market are equally lagging.
We have a government that is hanging on to power by doing secret, back room deals with a party that at any other time would be considered to be on the fringes of the political spectrum, and we are told that we are unpatriotic for being dubious about the ability of the negotiators to achieve a beneficial result.
These charts make gloomy reading:
https://www.ft.com/content/aeabc2bc-573b-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e3
The economy is poorly performing compared to every other country in Europe as confidence is low. Inflation is at its highest rate in four years, retail and the housing market are equally lagging.
We have a government that is hanging on to power by doing secret, back room deals with a party that at any other time would be considered to be on the fringes of the political spectrum, and we are told that we are unpatriotic for being dubious about the ability of the negotiators to achieve a beneficial result.
These charts make gloomy reading:
https://www.ft.com/content/aeabc2bc-573b-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e3
In response to John MacDonell's inflammatory and politically motivated comments that authorities were guilty of murder in respect of the Grenfell deaths, I have taken a look the definition of the intent (mens rea) needed for a murder conviction. Wiki provides the best, as follows:
"The mens rea of murder is either an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (R v Moloney,[26] R v Hancock & Shankland,[27] and R v Woollin[28]). In Moloney, Lord Bridge was clear that, for the defendant to have the mens rea of murder, there must be something more than mere foresight or knowledge that death or serious injury is a "natural" consequence of the current activities: there must be clear evidence of an intention. This intention is proved not only when the defendant's motive or purpose is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (direct intent), but when death or grievous bodily harm is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act (indirect or 'oblique' intent)."
It is clear from this that those local authority officials responsible for construction, building regulations, fire prevention etc cannot be guilty of murder unless they intended to kill or cause gbh. I assume MacDonnell has no evidence of this, and thus he is trying to whip up public opinion for his own political purposes, which in my view is cheap and despicable, but no more than I would expect from him.
The charge of involuntary manslaughter or corporate manslaughter may well be appropriate. Hopefully, the forthcoming report into the tragedy will tell us.
"The mens rea of murder is either an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (R v Moloney,[26] R v Hancock & Shankland,[27] and R v Woollin[28]). In Moloney, Lord Bridge was clear that, for the defendant to have the mens rea of murder, there must be something more than mere foresight or knowledge that death or serious injury is a "natural" consequence of the current activities: there must be clear evidence of an intention. This intention is proved not only when the defendant's motive or purpose is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (direct intent), but when death or grievous bodily harm is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act (indirect or 'oblique' intent)."
It is clear from this that those local authority officials responsible for construction, building regulations, fire prevention etc cannot be guilty of murder unless they intended to kill or cause gbh. I assume MacDonnell has no evidence of this, and thus he is trying to whip up public opinion for his own political purposes, which in my view is cheap and despicable, but no more than I would expect from him.
The charge of involuntary manslaughter or corporate manslaughter may well be appropriate. Hopefully, the forthcoming report into the tragedy will tell us.
Not quite. I'm saying I don't see a second referendum would have a significant effect on the deal offered - and yes, it's going to be a less attractive proposition irrespective.
WRT freedom to trade, if under WTO rules, relies on the agreement of all the 162 other member countries - some people are talking as if the WTO is an automatic entry.
This explains it well: http://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing-simple-about-uk-regaining-wto-status-post-brexit