Should remainers vote for the Libs?
Discussion
turbobloke said:
And then accept the result with good grace when it goes against your personal viewpoint.
The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.
– Liberal Democrats 2010 manifesto
Sway said:
Bill said:
Sway said:
Because it's in their interests.
Here's hoping they agree with you. CETA has taken 7 years, isn't single market access (there are limitations, not least to financial services) and was nearly derailed at various stages. And the Canadians have had to make some visa concessions to Bulgaria and Romania.
Add to that the likely reluctance of the EU apparatchik to give us anything that could be considered a good deal and i think you're being more than a little over-optimistic.
The EU apparatchik have little say, it's down to the Council. Which means member states, not MEPs. Further, unlike CETA it doesn't require unanimity, but is under QMV.
The positions are demonstrably different, and only in the direction of making the outcome easier to achieve.
"Barnier has said that any free trade deal, to be struck after the UK leaves, would be a “mixed agreement” requiring ratification by the national parliaments of the 27 states, plus consent by the European parliament."
Snipped from an article on the EU negotiating position here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/f...
So, no, it isn't easier to achieve.
confused_buyer said:
turbobloke said:
And then accept the result with good grace when it goes against your personal viewpoint.
The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.
– Liberal Democrats 2010 manifesto
Sway said:
CETA wasn't starting from a point of mutual recognition of standards, nor a position where one party's FS sector drives the vast majority of business funding for the whole area. What's being asked for is not a deal, but the prevention of tearing up one that already exists..
It should be simpler, but the FS industry is already looking at how much it will have to move into the EU from London. It will inevitably follow the money. Hopefully a move won't be necessary, but that'll depend on the deal struck.We currently have a deal, but we've just voted to tear it up. The basics are still there I'll grant you, but it's not as straightforward as just rejecting the bits we don't like and keeping the rest.
Sway said:
The EU apparatchik have little say, it's down to the Council. Which means member states, not MEPs. Further, unlike CETA it doesn't require unanimity, but is under QMV.
The commission aren't irrelevant, unfortunately.Sway said:
The positions are demonstrably different, and only in the direction of making the outcome easier to achieve.
They are different, I agree, but I'm not convinced it will make things easier. Some aspects will be much simpler, but the remaining members will be looking out for themselves and trying to keep the EU on track.Simply put, they can't give us a good deal without admitting that the EU is pointless.
Rich_W said:
footnote said:
2. I think it's just as hypocritical and patronising to be told now what Brexit obviously meant when nobody knew what it meant (and still don't) at the time of the referendum.
So how could YOU possibly know what you were voting for with a Remain vote?ou sont les biscuits said:
Sway said:
Bill said:
Sway said:
Because it's in their interests.
Here's hoping they agree with you. CETA has taken 7 years, isn't single market access (there are limitations, not least to financial services) and was nearly derailed at various stages. And the Canadians have had to make some visa concessions to Bulgaria and Romania.
Add to that the likely reluctance of the EU apparatchik to give us anything that could be considered a good deal and i think you're being more than a little over-optimistic.
The EU apparatchik have little say, it's down to the Council. Which means member states, not MEPs. Further, unlike CETA it doesn't require unanimity, but is under QMV.
The positions are demonstrably different, and only in the direction of making the outcome easier to achieve.
"Barnier has said that any free trade deal, to be struck after the UK leaves, would be a “mixed agreement” requiring ratification by the national parliaments of the 27 states, plus consent by the European parliament."
Snipped from an article on the EU negotiating position here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/f...
So, no, it isn't easier to achieve.
Considering the Eurozone troubles, and ever increasing systematic risk being built up under Target2, can you really see the Council taking the risk of not having an agreement to protect the 80+% of business funding that comes through London? Or risking the multi billion Euro trade surplus with the UK?
Pooh said:
footnote said:
Pooh said:
ou sont les biscuits said:
I What I care about is having a Parliament that functions as a Parliament for the next two years as we negotiate Brexit. And I'll be casting my vote in a tactical way to ensure insofar as I can with my single vote, is that the show isn't being driven by the swivel eyed loon faction in the Conservative party.
Genuinely curious how you propose to do that? Voting Lib Dem won't reduce the influence of the people you call loons. I have already asked how the Lim Dems will have any significant influence over a majority Conservative government, which is the most likely outcome of the election but nobody has been able to tell me. If your local Conservative candidate is not a "swivel eyed loon" then surely voting Conservative would be the best way to dilute the influence of the loons?
The election result is not a foregone conclusion
The media and Conservatives and PH expect a stonking great Tory majority, but if the Conservatives don't get a stonking great majority it will obviously be seen as a lack of support for May's Brexit plans by the public.
So, a vote for a candidate of any opposition party is a vote against May's Brexit.
And you never know, if enough people do that, and 48% of those that could be bothered to vote were opposed to Brexit, there may not be a tory majority at all.
I think that's a fairly clear explanation of why people vote for parties other than the governing party but you'll probably maintain otherwise.
This is not just my opinion, Sky News had a guy from a major bank on today saying that they have upgraded their outlook for the pound because an increased Conservative majority reduces the chance of a hard Brexit for exactly the reasons I stated earlier.
A "Real World" that elected Trump.
The "Real World" is no longer as reliable as it used to be - the real world is very undpredictable indeed.
The voters decide who wins the election - not you, not my grandad's dog, not Betty Turpin, not a random banker on Sky News - although they all have just one vote, like me, like you - (except my grandad's dog) (and Betty Turpin)
chrispmartha said:
Politicians in U turn shocker, at least our current PM doesn't do this... oh hang on
Indeed, but the Libdems seem to have a particularity pious and hence odious "we're better than the rest" attitude where as in reality they are by far the worst. I wouldn't trust them with anything. They are great political opportunists who completely change their views by area to whatever they think suits which is fine but when they play the "we're the nice cuddly party" card it really sticks in the throat because they are political game players of the most extreme kind.
confused_buyer said:
chrispmartha said:
Politicians in U turn shocker, at least our current PM doesn't do this... oh hang on
Indeed, but the Libdems seem to have a particularity pious and hence odious "we're better than the rest" attitude where as in reality they are by far the worst. I wouldn't trust them with anything. They are great political opportunists who completely change their views by area to whatever they think suits which is fine but when they play the "we're the nice cuddly party" card it really sticks in the throat because they are political game players of the most extreme kind.
king with you. fk pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps.Sway said:
Notice the title - "first EU response". Now considering the wording of the Article 50 clause, that's easily challenged in court. How can the vote under QMV on the withdrawal agreement "taking into account the future relationship" if that future relationship hasn't been defined?
Considering the Eurozone troubles, and ever increasing systematic risk being built up under Target2, can you really see the Council taking the risk of not having an agreement to protect the 80+% of business funding that comes through London? Or risking the multi billion Euro trade surplus with the UK?
Look, forget what the title of the article in The Guardian says. The only point at issue is what a free trade deal is in terms of EU law. If it's a mixed deal - which it will have to be if Financial Services are included - it WILL need approval by all member states and the EU Parliament. There's lot's of information out there on the net about this.Considering the Eurozone troubles, and ever increasing systematic risk being built up under Target2, can you really see the Council taking the risk of not having an agreement to protect the 80+% of business funding that comes through London? Or risking the multi billion Euro trade surplus with the UK?
don'tbesilly said:
Mario149 said:
don'tbesilly said:
Mario149 said:
don'tbesilly said:
Mario149 said:
Burwood said:
Mario-how is 400 seats going to, in anyway, shape or form be dictated to by a few Lib Dems. You also fail to realise that only a tiny few will actually bring themselves to vote for a party they never have. God, bring on June 8th, like tomorrow. 7 weeks of hearing Tim Farron, Corbyn and Gina Miller prattle on about changing the incumbent. I'll take bets with anyone 5:1 the Tories get over 400 seats
By your logic no-one should have ever bothered to vote for any other party than Labour or Conservative.Small sample and anecdotal clearly, but as of yesterday I know about a dozen friends and colleagues who have previously voted Tory all their life and will vote LD in this election. Also know a few Labour voters who will be going LD too. And that's without even asking them.
We've heard your anecdotes before.
Of my friends there's a mixed bag really, probably more Leave voters, but certainly some very strong and opinionated Remain voters which makes for some interesting debates as you can imagine.
You might find it strange, but none of the remain voters have wished me ill or any type of misfortune as a result of my differing opinion and subsequent vote, and would not hold such against me should leaving the EU turn out to be the disaster you seem to think it will be.
One hopes that your friends and acquaintances that share your opinions/views, don't share the same spiteful and vindictive views and aims as you do and have expressed on this forum.
.
Bill said:
Sway said:
CETA wasn't starting from a point of mutual recognition of standards, nor a position where one party's FS sector drives the vast majority of business funding for the whole area. What's being asked for is not a deal, but the prevention of tearing up one that already exists..
It should be simpler, but the FS industry is already looking at how much it will have to move into the EU from London. It will inevitably follow the money. Hopefully a move won't be necessary, but that'll depend on the deal struck.We currently have a deal, but we've just voted to tear it up. The basics are still there I'll grant you, but it's not as straightforward as just rejecting the bits we don't like and keeping the rest.
Sway said:
The EU apparatchik have little say, it's down to the Council. Which means member states, not MEPs. Further, unlike CETA it doesn't require unanimity, but is under QMV.
The commission aren't irrelevant, unfortunately.Sway said:
The positions are demonstrably different, and only in the direction of making the outcome easier to achieve.
They are different, I agree, but I'm not convinced it will make things easier. Some aspects will be much simpler, but the remaining members will be looking out for themselves and trying to keep the EU on track.Simply put, they can't give us a good deal without admitting that the EU is pointless.
Even DB have just signed a new 25 year lease on their London office, what banks are doing is making understandable hedges for business continuity just in case. However, they are all working on the basis of the absolute minimum possible. MIFID3 supercedes EU passporting as well once it comes in.
The key here is the business funding. That's not necessarily banks, but when London is the FS powerhouse of the world (see recent league table where the next European city was in the 30s...) there's a level of risk that's simply unnecessary. As you say, they are very keen to keep the EU on track, and a major disruption caused by an intransigence over our leaving will not further the support for the EU within the electorate...
The Commission are pretty irrelevant, as they are not the ones that sign off the agreement. They will not overrule the Council, that's ridiculous.
Your last statement is an interesting one. It's clear that the EU talks about how it's there for trade, yet the overwhelming thrust is for 'peace in Europe through federalisation'. That's something the whole of the continent cam understand, there isn't a single nation on the continent that hasn't been invaded or ruled by someone else in the last century, Switzerland excepted (and that's because they still remember the last time it happened, hence the requirement for its entire citizenry to be armed!). That's absolutely fine, but it's not about trade.
There's already mass discontent over the EU on the continent. The one thing that'll destroy it even quicker than I believe is already happening is an apparatchik that puts it's political aims over the prosperity and living standards of it's people - which is what an intransigent approach to our leaving WILL create...
turbobloke said:
And then accept the result with good grace when it goes against your personal viewpoint.
a) The argument for leaving the EU has been made convincingly.
b) People understood the argument.
c) People didn't vote out on an emotional reaction to immigration.
Once you have a referendum about these things, you are governed by the response, and I understand that as a country we have voted out. Doesn't make it the right thing though.
And as I say, I hope that I will be proven to be 100% and comprehensively wrong, and I can even see the means that that might happen. So let's raise a glass to the idea that I might be. (I think I have been wrong before, but I can't quite remember when
)Sway said:
The key here is the business funding. That's not necessarily banks, but when London is the FS powerhouse of the world (see recent league table where the next European city was in the 30s...) there's a level of risk that's simply unnecessary.
So explain to me why you believe London is so important for business funding. bearman68 said:
turbobloke said:
And then accept the result with good grace when it goes against your personal viewpoint.
Jolly decent of you!
bearman68 said:
And I can even accept it the will of the majority, even if I don't like it. But I am yet to be convinced that
a) The argument for leaving the EU has been made convincingly.
b) People understood the argument.
c) People didn't vote out on an emotional reaction to immigration.
Once you have a referendum about these things, you are governed by the response, and I understand that as a country we have voted out. Doesn't make it the right thing though.
And as I say, I hope that I will be proven to be 100% and comprehensively wrong, and I can even see the means that that might happen. So let's raise a glass to the idea that I might be. (I think I have been wrong before, but I can't quite remember when)
It's the right thing because it's the result of the vote, the rest is irrelevant hence the need for some good grace a) The argument for leaving the EU has been made convincingly.
b) People understood the argument.
c) People didn't vote out on an emotional reaction to immigration.
Once you have a referendum about these things, you are governed by the response, and I understand that as a country we have voted out. Doesn't make it the right thing though.
And as I say, I hope that I will be proven to be 100% and comprehensively wrong, and I can even see the means that that might happen. So let's raise a glass to the idea that I might be. (I think I have been wrong before, but I can't quite remember when
) please accept some from me as a downpayment for July onwards - beyond the raised glass that I will now go and share with you (mine won't be metaphorical) and thanks for the idea Rich_W said:
Mario149 said:
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that there are many people out there (myself included) who are fine with the concept of leaving the EU but being part of the EEA and respecting the 4 freedoms. No matter how much it is repeated, being in the EEA does not mean you are in the EU, and that's the bit there's no point in re-hashing for a millionth time. I'd argue strongly that it's better to be in the EU than in the EEA, but that's a different point.
So what would be the point of leaving the EU if you remain in the EEA with the 4 "freedoms" (note the ironic use of quotations) That's just Remain but a different name. Or a so called "soft Brexit" so beloved of the losing sideThe irony of course being that as the realities of trying to implement Brexit have been sinking in to the gov over the last few months, it's looking more and more like that we're going to end up with an EEA-type transition arrangement in all but name. It's just that the gov won't call a spade a spade and are still pretending something much better is achievable. I'd rather they just called it a spade, then they could in theory have the transition arrangement done and dusted in short order and then look at the complex bit of any future EU trade deal.
Sway said:
Bill said:
Sway said:
Because it's in their interests.
Here's hoping they agree with you. CETA has taken 7 years, isn't single market access (there are limitations, not least to financial services) and was nearly derailed at various stages. And the Canadians have had to make some visa concessions to Bulgaria and Romania.
Add to that the likely reluctance of the EU apparatchik to give us anything that could be considered a good deal and i think you're being more than a little over-optimistic.
The EU apparatchik have little say, it's down to the Council. Which means member states, not MEPs. Further, unlike CETA it doesn't require unanimity, but is under QMV.
The positions are demonstrably different, and only in the direction of making the outcome easier to achieve.
Mario149 said:
I can only speak for myself, but the broad strokes are remaining in the EEA allows the dust to settle and guarantees minimum disruption to the economy. Then, at an appropriate time in the future (say another 2 years), if still being part of the EEA is not what the majority want, we can leave the EEA and go it on our own, or use the time to try and negotiate a bespoke deal for us. Or indeed decide that we may want to stay as is or rejoin, who knows. What I don't get is this desire to go charging headlong into the unknown when it's blindingly obvious that we are highly unlikely to be able to do it well in the timescales currently layed out.
The irony of course being that as the realities of trying to implement Brexit have been sinking in to the gov over the last few months, it's looking more and more like that we're going to end up with an EEA-type transition arrangement in all but name. It's just that the gov won't call a spade a spade and are still pretending something much better is achievable. I'd rather they just called it a spade, then they could in theory have the transition arrangement done and dusted in short order and then look at the complex bit of any future EU trade deal.
In other words you just want to Remain, and you want to employ every mechanism you can to secure your aim - including (in your mind) constructing delaying scenarios that give people time to come to their senses and agree with your position. The irony of course being that as the realities of trying to implement Brexit have been sinking in to the gov over the last few months, it's looking more and more like that we're going to end up with an EEA-type transition arrangement in all but name. It's just that the gov won't call a spade a spade and are still pretending something much better is achievable. I'd rather they just called it a spade, then they could in theory have the transition arrangement done and dusted in short order and then look at the complex bit of any future EU trade deal.
The fact that your tactics could conceivably damage the UKs ability to negotiate the best possible deal with the EU does not concern you - indeed I imagine that the more hamstrung the UK is in the negotiations, the worse the deal, the more likely that you are then able to say "hey, look, its such a crap deal we should decide to stay after all".
Obvious tactics are obvious
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff