Should remainers vote for the Libs?

[Funk]

crankedup said:

Seemingly intelligent people who are unable to accept the democratic vote, were out. Push, shove, shout or whisper we are out. All we can do is let our Government get on with the process of negotiating the best deal for the UK. This upcoming GE is simply to have our current Government elected to bolster our negotiating hand with the eu. It's eye opening to see so many ordinary people and politicians unable to accept a democratic vote. All this bull about what type of brexit we end up with is plain daft, hard, soft or sort of fluffy.

You've managed to succinctly make the point I managed to mangle!

[Mrr T]

Funk said:

A very good point. The EU must be deeply concerned that without having to adhere to their rules there's nothing to stop us setting up as a tax haven right on their doorstep. A bad deal could be one where we have to agree to onerous or detrimental terms that prevent us from seeking free trade deals elsewhere or dropping CT to attract businesses to HQ here for example.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 19th April 17:21

I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

So are you suggesting we set up a tax haven where money lauders and criminals can avoid international scrutiny? That would really make us popular across the world. If you mean we should become a low tax economy that’s a great idea so where do we make the spending cuts, since we are already running a massive budget deficit.

As for us agreeing not to make trade deals or lower CT the EU will never ask for these nor will they demand we kill our first born.

[andymadmak]

Mrr T said:

As for us agreeing not to make trade deals or lower CT the EU will never ask for these nor will they demand we kill our first born.

If you remain a member of the single market you cannot negotiate your own trade deals.
You seem to know an awful lot about what the EU will or will not ever demand from UK. Are you based in Brussels?

[Phil1]

Mrr T said:

Lichtenstein is in the SM but does not have FOML. According to the Ashcroft poll only 35% of leave voters had FOML as the number one issue. That means a majority of voters do not care about FOML so why should this matter?

Finally the CU has nothing to do with tariffs.

Blimey, that's nonsense logic. You think if an issue isn't your top concern it means you don't care about it at all! What if it was the second highest concern for all those? You can't just lump all those in a "don't care pot".

[andymadmak]

Phil1 said:

Mrr T said:

Lichtenstein is in the SM but does not have FOML. According to the Ashcroft poll only 35% of leave voters had FOML as the number one issue. That means a majority of voters do not care about FOML so why should this matter?

Finally the CU has nothing to do with tariffs.

Blimey, that's nonsense logic. You think if an issue isn't your top concern it means you don't care about it at all! What if it was the second highest concern for all those? You can't just lump all those in a "don't care pot".

You can if you are a passionate Remain voter who is looking to grasp at any straw that might thwart the leaving process.
You can see that people like Mrr T genuinely want to believe that the EU holds all the cards, and that somehow the UK is going to be completely stuffed by Brexit. They have to believe these things because to concede otherwise would be to accept that there is precious little reason for the UK to stay in the EU. The next step along is for them to WANT the UK to fail in the negotiations, to actually WANT the UK to suffer massive economic damage post Brexit, simply so that they can say "I told you so".

To this end, doing everything you can right now to undermine the UK negotiating position, to demand what you know to be undeliverable, but which you pretend represents the reasonable, to witter on about "hard Brexit" as if it has any meaning whatsoever, to declare that you know why people voted the way they did and more specifically what they voted for and did not vote for (thereby allowing you to interpret the vote against your position as somehow actually representing a vote FOR your position) - - - - all of this makes eminent sense to the passionate Remain voter.

[p1stonhead]

andymadmak said:

Phil1 said:

Mrr T said:

Lichtenstein is in the SM but does not have FOML. According to the Ashcroft poll only 35% of leave voters had FOML as the number one issue. That means a majority of voters do not care about FOML so why should this matter?

Finally the CU has nothing to do with tariffs.

Blimey, that's nonsense logic. You think if an issue isn't your top concern it means you don't care about it at all! What if it was the second highest concern for all those? You can't just lump all those in a "don't care pot".

You can if you are a passionate Remain voter who is looking to grasp at any straw that might thwart the leaving process.
You can see that people like Mrr T genuinely want to believe that the EU holds all the cards, and that somehow the UK is going to be completely stuffed by Brexit. They have to believe these things because to concede otherwise would be to accept that there is precious little reason for the UK to stay in the EU. The next step along is for them to WANT the UK to fail in the negotiations, to actually WANT the UK to suffer massive economic damage post Brexit, simply so that they can say "I told you so".

To this end, doing everything you can right now to undermine the UK negotiating position, to demand what you know to be undeliverable, but which you pretend represents the reasonable, to witter on about "hard Brexit" as if it has any meaning whatsoever, to declare that you know why people voted why they did and more specifically what they voted for and did not vote for (thereby allowing you to interpret the vote against your position as somehow actually representing a vote FOR your position) - - - - all of this makes eminent sense to the passionate Remain voter.

The exact opposite is true in every part for passionate Leave voters

"You can if you are a passionate Leave voter who is looking to grasp at any straw that might suggest Leaving was a good idea.
You can see that people like Andymadmak genuinely want to believe that the UK holds all the cards, and that somehow the EU is going to be completely stuffed by Brexit. They have to believe these things because to concede otherwise would be to accept that there is precious little reason for the UK to Leave the EU."



We shall all have to wait and see.

Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 19th April 17:56

[andymadmak]

p1stonhead said:

The exact opposite is true in every part for passionate Leave voters

We shall all have to wait and see.

Well, except that Leave won the vote, and so it is unlikely to be trying to sabotage itself now is it?

[jjlynn27]

andymadmak said:

You can if you are a passionate Remain voter who is looking to grasp at any straw that might thwart the leaving process.
You can see that people like Mrr T genuinely want to believe that the EU holds all the cards, and that somehow the UK is going to be completely stuffed by Brexit. They have to believe these things because to concede otherwise would be to accept that there is precious little reason for the UK to stay in the EU. The next step along is for them to WANT the UK to fail in the negotiations, to actually WANT the UK to suffer massive economic damage post Brexit, simply so that they can say "I told you so".

To this end, doing everything you can right now to undermine the UK negotiating position, to demand what you know to be undeliverable, but which you pretend represents the reasonable, to witter on about "hard Brexit" as if it has any meaning whatsoever, to declare that you know why people voted why they did and more specifically what they voted for and did not vote for (thereby allowing you to interpret the vote against your position as somehow actually representing a vote FOR your position) - - - - all of this makes eminent sense to the passionate Remain voter.

Yes, people want UK to suffer massive economic damage, just to say on random car forum 'I told you so'.

If you actually believe that you are an idiot. Even if you don't, and just post that to make some imaginary point, you are an idiot.

[jshell]

ATG said:

jshell said:

bobbo89 said:

Are those voting LD to avoid a hard Brexit not concerned that what could result is an absolute mess of a deal that's worse than the hard Brexit they voted to avoid?

No, they seem unconcerned that their 'protest vote' will actually cause far more damage to the UK in the Brexit negotiations. They're the type of people that plead with a murderer to 'be nice'. The EU is not nice, they don't play nice, they won't be nice to us, they will try to fk us. 'We' need to stand up to them now and get the best deal for the UK, whether or not people support Brexit, they better get behind it as the alternative is standing beside a plane with a piece of paper in the hand!

Paranoid bilge

BS. The EU show their hand at every turn. They punished Greece, they robbed the Cypriot banks and they're trying to print themselves out of crises. They are corrupt, and bullying. They are not nice people.

[andymadmak]

jjlynn27 said:

andymadmak said:

You can if you are a passionate Remain voter who is looking to grasp at any straw that might thwart the leaving process.
You can see that people like Mrr T genuinely want to believe that the EU holds all the cards, and that somehow the UK is going to be completely stuffed by Brexit. They have to believe these things because to concede otherwise would be to accept that there is precious little reason for the UK to stay in the EU. The next step along is for them to WANT the UK to fail in the negotiations, to actually WANT the UK to suffer massive economic damage post Brexit, simply so that they can say "I told you so".

To this end, doing everything you can right now to undermine the UK negotiating position, to demand what you know to be undeliverable, but which you pretend represents the reasonable, to witter on about "hard Brexit" as if it has any meaning whatsoever, to declare that you know why people voted why they did and more specifically what they voted for and did not vote for (thereby allowing you to interpret the vote against your position as somehow actually representing a vote FOR your position) - - - - all of this makes eminent sense to the passionate Remain voter.

Yes, people want UK to suffer massive economic damage, just to say on random car forum 'I told you so'.

If you actually believe that you are an idiot. Even if you don't, and just post that to make some imaginary point, you are an idiot.

You are so polite. Charm school was wasted on you.

Now, as it happens I do think that some Remain voters do want the UK to suffer for the reasons I have stated, and certainly some Remain voters have said that they want Brexit voters to suffer personally - on this very forum. They represent a tiny minority in my view, but they exist nevertheless. You do of course remember the lady on QT who wanted the children of Brexit voters to contract incurable illnesses so that they could see the consequences of their actions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJg1QRxU0Z8

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 19th April 18:13

[Deptford Draylons]

MrrT had a memory lapse and denied ever supporting a referendum until it was pointed out him exactly where he said he did, so he may be making it up as he goes along.

[jjlynn27]

andymadmak said:

You are so polite. Charm school was wasted on you.

Now, as it happens I do think that some Remain voters do want the UK to suffer for the reasons I have stated, and certainly some Remain voters have said that they want Brexit voters to suffer personally - on this very forum. They represent a tiny minority in my view, but they exist nevertheless. You do of course remember the lady on QT who wanted the children of Brexit voters to contract incurable illnesses so that they could see the consequences of their actions?

I do remember Lady on QT who misspoke and profusely apologised and explained what she meant. I do remember that some posters on PH thought that she would give inferior care to Brexiters, because of course, one of the questions during triage is 'how did your parents vote in referendum', 'Oh right, back of the queue'.

The level of tinfoilery displayed by some, and I do include you in that group, is astounding, but not surprising if you have dailymail headlines as your opinions.

[Funk]

Mrr T said:

I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

So are you suggesting we set up a tax haven where money lauders and criminals can avoid international scrutiny? That would really make us popular across the world. If you mean we should become a low tax economy that’s a great idea so where do we make the spending cuts, since we are already running a massive budget deficit.

As for us agreeing not to make trade deals or lower CT the EU will never ask for these nor will they demand we kill our first born.

Where on earth did I mention money laundering or attracting criminals? Are you one of those people who conflates tax evasion and avoidance?

And your pessimism shines through; you think that lowering CT will automatically decrease tax revenues?

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 19th April 21:06

[jonnyb]

jshell said:

ATG said:

jshell said:

bobbo89 said:

Are those voting LD to avoid a hard Brexit not concerned that what could result is an absolute mess of a deal that's worse than the hard Brexit they voted to avoid?

No, they seem unconcerned that their 'protest vote' will actually cause far more damage to the UK in the Brexit negotiations. They're the type of people that plead with a murderer to 'be nice'. The EU is not nice, they don't play nice, they won't be nice to us, they will try to fk us. 'We' need to stand up to them now and get the best deal for the UK, whether or not people support Brexit, they better get behind it as the alternative is standing beside a plane with a piece of paper in the hand!

Paranoid bilge

BS. The EU show their hand at every turn. They punished Greece, they robbed the Cypriot banks and they're trying to print themselves out of crises. They are corrupt, and bullying. They are not nice people.

Or the EU saved Greece from going bust by lending to them when no one else would, and when Cyprus was faced with the same problem THEY (Cyprus) elected to remove capital from peoples bank accounts, not the EU.

[footnote]

Funk said:

tomw2000 said:

Challo said:

footnote said:

What are the Brexit 'deals' in order of preference?

1. Best deal. (don't know what that is)

2. No deal (better than a bad deal)

3. Bad deal. (don't know what that is)

Are there others?

Do we add Soft or Hard to that mix?

'Semi'?

"Lazy lob™".

If we go in too soft, they'll just laugh at us.

Go in hard, we might get blown off.

The main thing is not to go in half-cocked and end up with egg on our face.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

Funk said:

A very good point. The EU must be deeply concerned that without having to adhere to their rules there's nothing to stop us setting up as a tax haven right on their doorstep. A bad deal could be one where we have to agree to onerous or detrimental terms that prevent us from seeking free trade deals elsewhere or dropping CT to attract businesses to HQ here for example.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 19th April 17:21

I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

So are you suggesting we set up a tax haven where money lauders and criminals can avoid international scrutiny? That would really make us popular across the world. If you mean we should become a low tax economy that’s a great idea so where do we make the spending cuts, since we are already running a massive budget deficit.

As for us agreeing not to make trade deals or lower CT the EU will never ask for these nor will they demand we kill our first born.

There's a big difference between being a low corporate tax nation, and a piratical money laundering haven...

Dropping Corp tax can increase overall take, as seen in Ireland...

A bad deal can easily mean 'minimum limit of Corp tax within 1% of EU average, £10Bn a year for mutual recognition of standards, and preferential immigration status in return for FTA covering goods only'. That for me would be worse than No Deal of 'settle balance of assets minus liabilities, move to WTO tariff regime with rEU'.

A good deal would be 'continuation of recognition of standards, with bilateral mechanism to ensure ongoing parity. FTA covering goods and services both ways. Agreement on current migrant status and tapered roadway to parity with similar nations in x year's. Balance of assets/liabilities agreed, possibly modified or payment approach deviating from that if there's a sound rationale.'

[anonymous-user]

jonnyb said:

Or the EU saved Greece from going bust by lending to them when no one else would, and when Cyprus was faced with the same problem THEY (Cyprus) elected to remove capital from peoples bank accounts, not the EU.

Greece is bust. It's on life support with no chance of recovery. Lending smokey to them that they'll never be able to repay isn't really saving them.

They're likely to be joined in the not too distant future by Italy and Spain to name but two.

Unless the EU keeps on printing money of course but, as the old saying goes, "you can fool some of the people all of the time.........". They'll be found out eventually.

[Rich_W]

rxe said:

I think the talk of hard brexit as an objective is overdone. I don't believe any one, even Farage, wants a "hard, burn 'em all and us" Brexit. What everyone wants is a sensible agreement that lets the Germans carry on selling BMWs to us, and for us to sell Financial Services to them. This is what in all likelihood we'll get.

However, in any negotiation, you want to be holding a big stick. May's stick is "I've been given a huge majority by my population to agree any damn deal I like. I'd prefer to have a good deal, but I'll invoke mutually assured destruction if you won't give me a good deal."

The way to get a good deal for the country is either to give her that majority, or give her nothing. The absolute worst outcome is a razor thin majority or similar that continues to whine and is on the other side in the negotiation.

If Farron was in charge, he'd crawl over to Brussels, roll on his back and appeal to their religious convictions to give us a good deal. They say "boo" and he'd be back here waving some bit of paper like Chamberlain.

Corbyn would miss his 'plane to Brussels and arrive after the negotiations have finished because he took his bicycle.

I like all that!

Mario149 said:

It is. We've been over this a million times. It's just not the kind of leaving that some pro-Brexit people want. Rather than hashing it to death again, you'll just have to accept that some people don't equate being in say the EEA as being in the EU.

The problem is that the EU Commission weren't offering that. Which is a shame, since it's what the vast majority of people want. But they INSIST on chucking on the little line about "free movement"

if they'd offered that when Dave went and had a chat pre Referendum. I think Remain would have won. If Buts and Maybes of course.

Likes Fast Cars said:

Atomic12C said:

How is that possible?
The type of brexit is in the hands of more than one party, namely the UK government AND the EU.

You can't specify the end result if there is such a thing as a negotiation process to be had..... otherwise that would be called a one-sided demand which you are expecting the other side to roll over and accept.

It is in the UK national interest to get the best result from the negotiations. I firmly believe that the conservative government lead by TM is in the best position to get that by starting out on a 'hard' approach.


Look at the whole thing from a "sliding-scale" point of view. Generally a negotiation involves agreements on compromise, if one party starts of in a 'soft' position then they can only compromise towards a 'softer' position which would see them closer to the 'other side'.
If both parties start off in a 'hard' position then compromise is near the middle for both parties.

And this is exactly what both sides have done so far. The EU have set out a hard position against the UK. And obviously the UK is setting out a hard position against the EU.
I wouldn't have expected it to be anything otherwise.

At last somebody who understands how negotiations are supposed to work!

p1stonhead said:

MYOB said:

p1stonhead said:

There are many red lines though arent there? To some people its being in the EEA above most other things.

Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.

But that's only because the EU has clearly stated this is not an option.

Did they? I dont recall that. If they did then fair enough but I dont see why they wouldnt offer it to us when others have it?

The EEA involves free movement. Again a non starter. EFTA is probably closer to whats likely. Lichenstein and Switzerland's deal is EFTA not EEA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_...

Jockman said:

Remember, 30% of Lib Dems voted FOR Brexit.

It's funny cause Tom Brakes constituency was one of the handful of London ones that voted to Leave. Yet He STILL campaigns on an anti-Brexit slant.

Man is a fking idiot!

p1stonhead said:

hyphen said:

Tim Farron (hardcore christian) has again evaded questions on his views on homosexuality.So to expand the thread title:


Should Remainers vote for Libs knowing that the leader considers homosexuality a sin?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/19/absolut...

Surely every Christian believes this? Doesnt mean they dont overlook it in general life, but its clearly a sin under Christianity.

They shouldn't vote for anyone that has a strong religious conviction IMO. Christianity, Islam, Tooth Fairy! They are all demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works!

jonby said:

Mario149 said:

I think you're over complicating this. If TM, during one of her Brexit announcements, had said: "Our goal is to Leave the EU, but remain part of the EEA with all its advantages and responsibilities (i.e. 4 freedoms etc) such that the UK enjoys a similar relationship to the EU as Norway/Iceland etc, with a broadly similar, but still to be exactly negotiated, per capita payment. " ....the EU would have jumped all over that. There would be no soft or hard positions, just a replication (as far as possible) of an existing arrangement already in place.

The only reason the concept of a hard or soft Brexit exists is because the UK wants to have its cake and eat it when the rules of the EU/EEA "club" are abundantly clear and have been so for years. The EU hasn't set out a hard position, it's just reiterated the one it's always had. We're perfectly entitled to our cake approach, but it creates a hard/soft Brexit problem all of our own making, no-one else's.

I find the idea that we can be seen to have in any way met the wishes of an electorate who voted to leave the EU, by having a new system that still means directly or indirectly, the 4 freedoms remain, more absurd than any other proposed solution. All that time, all that money, all that complication..............to be back where we were at the beginning.

So called 'soft Brexit' is a way of remainers getting their wish not to leave the EU, not a way of leavers (who won the referendum) having their wishes granted. Keeping the 4 freedoms, whether directly or indirectly, cannot reasonably be argued to mean we have left the EU in a meaningful way

jonby EXACTLY. Remoaners wanting basically the same as before but labelling it "soft brexit" are thick!

footnote said:

Sums it up perfectly.

Only if you have no idea of what the wining side wanted

pim said:

The best deal is part of the single market.And custom union.

And let's stop this nonsense about immigration.Indians and Pakistani's are not leaving so are East Europeans who earn a living here.

Theresa May knows this that is why she wants a endorsement from the public to shut a few people up in her party.This election is about how we leave the E.U and maybe not leave at all.

A few wkers aside, I don't think people want deportations.

What they do want is to limit/control numbers coming to the UK in the future though. I don't mind if we get 100 new Drs from Poland. Conversely, I don't want 10 more low iq, unskilled labourers undercutting our home grown low iq, unskilled residents.

Funk said:

jonnyb said:

andymadmak said:

pim said:

The best deal is part of the single market.And custom union.

No it isn't

Yes it is

It can't be. Unless I've misunderstood, we can't be in the Single Market without agreeing to the 4Fs.

A good outcome would, for example, be access to the SM (without the 4Fs) with a customs union that doesn't impose tariffs in either direction.

Justayellowbadge said:

Mrr T said:

I am not suggesting they produce a report showing how bad a “hard” brexit is. That’s already been done by others.

I am suggesting they stop making stupid statement like “No deal is better than a bad deal”.

Other than some totally mad deal involving the UK paying for no access, no deal is the worst deal.

I'm not wedded to a position on this, but wondet if no deal gives the potential for further negotiation whereas a bad deal may have binding stipulations for a number of years, in which circumstance I know which would be preferable for HMG.

A very good point. The EU must be deeply concerned that without having to adhere to their rules there's nothing to stop us setting up as a tax haven right on their doorstep. A bad deal could be one where we have to agree to onerous or detrimental terms that prevent us from seeking free trade deals elsewhere or dropping CT to attract businesses to HQ here for example.

All makes sense. it's funny that May has hinted to the low CorpTax thing. And of course Corby nearly self combusted as all business is bad and the only true way is nationalisation of everything!

Mrr T said:

Lichtenstein is in the SM but does not have FOML. According to the Ashcroft poll only 35% of leave voters had FOML as the number one issue. That means a majority of voters do not care about FOML so why should this matter?

Obviously, I realise from your posts you're a bit thick. But it's not a black n white thing.

Yes only 35% had FOM as no1. But it doesn't mean that it wasn't no2 or 3 on those voters who out other things first on their internal list

[markcoznottz]

crankedup said:

Funk said:

jonnyb said:

andymadmak said:

pim said:

The best deal is part of the single market.And custom union.

No it isn't

Yes it is

It can't be. Unless I've misunderstood, we can't be in the Single Market without agreeing to the 4Fs.

A good outcome would, for example, be access to the SM (without the 4Fs) with a customs union that doesn't impose tariffs in either direction.

Seemingly intelligent people who are unable to accept the democratic vote, were out. Push, shove, shout or whisper we are out. All we can do is let our Government get on with the process of negotiating the best deal for the UK. This upcoming GE is simply to have our current Government elected to bolster our negotiating hand with the eu. It's eye opening to see so many ordinary people and politicians unable to accept a democratic vote. All this bull about what type of brexit we end up with is plain daft, hard, soft or sort of fluffy.

But this government was elected, we elect parties not prime ministers as someone on here says ad infinitum. All May has shown is that she dithers, almost major style, and has lost the momentum since the referendum. She's also been in charge long enough to rubber stamp a budget, the increase in insurance tax and probate was lazy, it shows the cons are continuing the high tax, socialist command economy that Blair started. Where's the meat, the bonfire of the quangoes etc etc.

The danger is that if there is no difference between lib dems and cons, now we have seen that again we aren't really leaving, despite words to the contrary, then people will vote lib dem to poke the establishment in the eye again, I mean if a Tory majority government can't enact brexit, or more dangerously, have no intention of doing so, then we have dark times ahead, calling an election does not absolve the government of its responsibilities.

[frisbee]

crankedup said:

Seemingly intelligent people who are unable to accept the democratic vote, were out. Push, shove, shout or whisper we are out. All we can do is let our Government get on with the process of negotiating the best deal for the UK. This upcoming GE is simply to have our current Government elected to bolster our negotiating hand with the eu. It's eye opening to see so many ordinary people and politicians unable to accept a democratic vote. All this bull about what type of brexit we end up with is plain daft, hard, soft or sort of fluffy.

So basically democracy is good if it supports what you want, however if anyone chooses to use their democratic right to vote for the party that supports what they want, then its bad.