Richmond Park by-election.

[Justin Case]

Wasn't leaving the common market regarded as a good thing by the Brexiteers as it would free us to make more advantageous trade deals with other countries such as the BRIC economies? If so, what are we worrying about (other than about 2/3 of our trade being with the EU and the costs of trade with the EU being lower )

[jjlynn27]

brenflys777 said:

jjlynn27 said:

Nothing like kipperati giving each other helping hand. Did you manage to find interview, to which links were posted numerous times, or do you still 'think' that I made it up? After which I planted stories in every single newspaper.


Farage, and in turn devoted kippers, provide hours of cheap entertainment.

As for Olney, yep she got rattled by JHB. Hopefully she'll learn from that and get better with media. If she doesn't don't think that anyone will care.

Other people posted links to an interview with Farage - surprised you were incapable of it yourself, it might not be the interview you talked about though - it didn't seem to match your description!

It didn't seem that way to you, the self-proclaimed slow captain, and presumably most of the kippers whose unbiased source of news is breitbart. I've listed few headlines from the papers the day after the interview, short of order-order, almost everyone else, regardless of where they stand on political issues, describes it as a car crash. Telegraph, NewStatesman, Spectator, DailyMail, Independent, the list goes on, have the same take on the interview. Even ukip press secretary, and imo one of the brighter kippers, O'Flynn, tried to stop the carnage.

Only two options; conspiracy across the board to paint NF in a bad light, or your blinkers are too tight.

brenflys777 said:

Flat earthers, conspiracy theories, now kipperati.. I'm not sure if you made up the interview but its quite possible you're actually a UKIPer with a false flag - showing how irrational anti-ukip fanatics can be! To go for gold you could try and link chemtrails with UKIP too

This from someone who parrots 'remoaners'?

You are taking my interest in UKIP way too seriously. As I posted in UKIP the future thread, I'd be actually sad to see them disappear. They provided hours of cheap, disposable entertainment. How can one forget Helmer and curing the gays fiasco. Or gay caused floods. Nutall, and his crusade against same-sex marriage, promises to be equally entertaining.

[AW111]

s2art said:

Except they are not full members. They do not have the voting rights of full members.

The single market is the EFTA membership. There is no such thing as "partial members". Voting rights are an EU issue, not a single-market issue.

the efta said:

The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market".

Why is it so hard to admit that it is possible to be part of the single market but not the EU?
That is a different question than whether it is desirable to be part of the single market and not the EU - and lack of EU voting rights is a big issue for non-EU single market members.

I am not advocating any particular position, and have not done so previously. I am arguing for getting the facts right, so people can then make an informed decusion based on those facts.

[brenflys777]

jjlynn27 said:

This from someone who parrots 'remoaners'?

You are taking my interest in UKIP way too seriously.

,,

' Remoaners' isn't a term I remember using, or repeating, despite it being appropriate.

Whinging losers, yes, I've probably said that.

I have to say that I find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest I'd take your obsessive postings about UKIP seriously.

[Murph7355]

Justin Case said:

Wasn't leaving the common market regarded as a good thing by the Brexiteers as it would free us to make more advantageous trade deals with other countries such as the BRIC economies? If so, what are we worrying about (other than about 2/3 of our trade being with the EU and the costs of trade with the EU being lower )

It's the additional strings the EU place on membership of the single market that prevent us making our own deals outside of it. As a common market it was a good idea. It was arguably never only a common market, but sold as such for many years.

Only 30% of our GDP is exports. And of that only around 45% goes to the EU (and declining). So of the stuff that directly benefits our GDP the EU is somewhat less than "2/3"s.

Until the exit arrangements are concluded it's impossible to state that the costs of trade with the EU are currently cheaper than they will be with any certainty.

[s2art]

AW111 said:

s2art said:

Except they are not full members. They do not have the voting rights of full members.

The single market is the EFTA membership. There is no such thing as "partial members". Voting rights are an EU issue, not a single-market issue.

the efta said:

The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market".

Why is it so hard to admit that it is possible to be part of the single market but not the EU?
That is a different question than whether it is desirable to be part of the single market and not the EU - and lack of EU voting rights is a big issue for non-EU single market members.

I am not advocating any particular position, and have not done so previously. I am arguing for getting the facts right, so people can then make an informed decusion based on those facts.

So get them right. Norway does not have the right to vote on SM rules, but must implement all the the rules.

'What does membership of the European Economic Area provide?
EEA membership gives Norway full access to the EU’s internal market, allowing it to trade goods with EU states without customs fees, except food and drinks which are subsidised by the EU. Iceland and Liechtenstein are also members of the EEA.

In return for that access Norway is obliged to implement all the EU’s laws relating to the internal market. As a result, Norway has had to implement about three-quarters of all EU legislation, including the working time directive.

What say does Norway have over EU rules?
None. Norway has representatives in EU institutions, but they have no decision-making power in how EU rules are drafted.

The country has been granted participation rights, but no voting rights, in several of the union’s programmes, bodies and initiatives, including the European Defence Agency, Frontex, Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.'

So access, but no voting rights and subject to the ECJ. Compare with Canada FTA.

[Mario149]

Murph7355 said:

Mario149 said:

See my reply to Sidicks above. Both campaigns will have said what they thought would appeal to the sections of voters they wanted to appeal to. The fact they were saying the same thing at points means nothing. Saying the same thing to 2 people may result in different results.

2 people, on opposing sides of the coin, saying the same thing is a different premise.

It's no guarantee of anything of course. But far more likely to be on the money.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're making, but look at it another way. If Remain had said: don't worry, if we vote to leave, we'll def stay in the single market, that would have likely encouraged quite a few more people to vote Leave who might otherwise vote Remain as they might value the SM but don't like Brussels "interfering". Equally, if Leave had said: don't worry, if we vote to leave, we'll def stay in the single market (i.e. the same thing) that would have likely encouraged quite a few more people to vote Remain who might otherwise vote Leave as they'd rather have the added influence if they're still going to paying in.

Whichever way you cut it, the narrative around leaving the EU = def leaving the SM was purely designed to polarise people into def voting either way. Each side primarily said if to attract votes they thought would give them enough to win. The reality or whether they believed in what they were saying is irrelevant. Or are we now trusting politicians trying to win a vote to say what they mean and do what they say all of a sudden?

[Mario149]

MrNoisy said:

The recent argument by camp remain was that it wasn't said at all, not whether one side or both sides said it. Your argument that people say things just to win is a little disingenuous. The recent brouhaha is whether people knew they were voting for an end to the single market as allegedly that was never made clear; despite the numerous and varied examples presented by all parties on both sides that it clearly was.

FWIW, I totally agree things are said that are not meant by all. The worrying thing for me now is that some very high profile figures like Clegg are walking around contradicting themselves in the same sentence. The case for leaving the SM was clearly made, until people accept that the debate will continue to stagnate.

See my answer to Murph

[Mario149]

don'tbesilly said:

The UK is a member of the single market by dint of EU Membership.
When the UK leaves the EU one disappears with the other,both were intrinsically linked, it's inarguable, it's written in the UK's 'Rights and Obligations of EU membership', read it.

That may not be strictly true given the whole Article 127 thing that came out the other day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38126899

[CaptainSlow]

jjlynn27 said:

[

It didn't seem that way to you, the self-proclaimed slow captain, and presumably most of the kippers whose unbiased source of news is breitbart. I've listed few headlines from the papers the day after the interview, short of order-order, almost everyone else, regardless of where they stand on political issues, describes it as a car crash. Telegraph, NewStatesman, Spectator, DailyMail, Independent, the list goes on, have the same take on the interview. Even ukip press secretary, and imo one of the brighter kippers, O'Flynn, tried to stop the carnage.

Only two options; conspiracy across the board to paint NF in a bad light, or your blinkers are too tight.

Show a bit of ability of independent thought rather than throwing insults around and you may be taken seriously. That NF interview was nowhere near a disaster despite what some hyperbole headlines may have said, use your own brain.

And for clarification, there is no WW2 Bomber on the moon.

Pillock.

[CaptainSlow]

brenflys777 said:

,

' Remoaners' isn't a term I remember using, or repeating, despite it being appropriate.

Whinging losers, yes, I've probably said that.

I have to say that I find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest I'd take your obsessive postings about UKIP seriously.

I suspect we've found the Diane Abbott fan club founder member.

[hyphen]

Leaked report written by Kingston Green Party chaiman alleges Greens were offered a £250k donation at the national level in return for not standing in the by-election. The local party didn't agree with this.
http://order-order.com/2016/12/06/read-bombshell-g...

Greens have failed to prevent it being available online despite them threatening it breaches copyright laws...

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 7th December 09:19

[CaptainSlow]

hyphen said:

Leaked report written by Kingston Green Party chaiman alleges Greens were offered a £250k donation at the national level in return for not standing in the by-election. The local party didn't agree with this.
http://order-order.com/2016/12/06/read-bombshell-g...

Greens have failed to prevent it being available online despite them threatening it breaches copyright laws...

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 7th December 09:19

Apparently, we're not to read order-order and as this isn't on the BBC website it can't be true.

[MarshPhantom]

CaptainSlow said:

hyphen said:

Leaked report written by Kingston Green Party chaiman alleges Greens were offered a £250k donation at the national level in return for not standing in the by-election. The local party didn't agree with this.
http://order-order.com/2016/12/06/read-bombshell-g...

Greens have failed to prevent it being available online despite them threatening it breaches copyright laws...

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 7th December 09:19

Apparently, we're not to read order-order and as this isn't on the BBC website it can't be true.

It was headline news on Radio 4 this morning.

This is also something the Tories and UKIP have been busted for, that certainly wasn't such big news.

[CaptainSlow]

MarshPhantom said:

It was headline news on Radio 4 this morning.

This is also something the Tories and UKIP have been busted for, that certainly wasn't such big news.

What, not fielding a candidate or alleged bribes?

[BlackLabel]

I see Goldsmith is running again in Richmond Park despite no change to the policy he resigned over in October.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-397214...

[FN2TypeR]

He was the Tory candidate in all but name at the by election despite his paper thin ruse so I'm not surprised at all.

[MarshPhantom]

I hope he suffers his third embarrassing defeat in a year.

[FN2TypeR]

MarshPhantom said:

I hope he suffers his third embarrassing defeat in a year.

I don't like Goldsmith, he appears to be a bit of an arse, and I don't really like the Tories either - they're useless.

BUT, seeing the Lib Dems lose a seat they were crowing about winning, claiming it was a "clear message against hard Brexit" would also be pretty superb to me.

So basically, go Monster Raving Loony Party and/or local independent candidate.

[kev1974]

The trouble is, as a resident in Richmond Park, that the lib dem woman has been worse than useless in the few months she's been elected; all she does is appear in photos at tree planting ceremonies and stuff like that; and her appearance on LBC radio is best not mentioned. I live in the street where both her office and "campaign garage" are, never seen her there, just her disciples and their vast collection of orange lollipop signs.

Think Zac's lot are taking it more seriously this time, we've had leaflets from them already, nothing from the lib dems yet.

I am going to a hustings event next week I think with her and Zac due to speak, I will see what they are both like at that.