Should remainers vote for the Libs?
Discussion
cookie118 said:
That's ok to say-but who should bear the brunt of the pain?
The government seems to be putting getting rid of free movement above tarriff free access to the single market because it was one of the main reasons that people voted for leave. So it's putting all of the country at risk of job losses etc for the reasons that a proportion of the 52% voted to leave. Is that fair? Is that the best form of Brexit for the whole country?
I posted a few months ago that when asked to "Get involved and help shape brexit" that there was no avenue for me to do so-the government was not giving parliament a say in the negotiating strategy and was basically doing what it felt like. Well now I do have a chance to have my say, and I'll be voting for the Lib Dems (I actually think a Cons/LD coalition would be the best form of government atm for the country). So in a roundabout way my answer to the OP's question is yes.
I think a fair number of people who voted leave are going to be fairly hacked off when attempts to control the numbers of immigrants fall short of expectations. A quick google would suggest that there are maybe 5 million people here with foreign passports, of which maybe a bit over 3 million are from the EU. Unemployment is historically low, and things I've read suggest that the economy is operating pretty close to full employment. So you could argue that the unemployment we have is mainly frictional. We depend on migration to fill holes in key areas that we can't fill ourselves because the supply of domestic workers just isn't there. Any thought that the government can somehow determine what the supply of labour from overseas should be fills me full of horror. They'll just cock it up and create shortages. I'd far rather let the market decide what labour they need, and hire it from wherever they want. Add to this the fact that the population is ageing........ more overseas labour will be required to maintain the status quo.The government seems to be putting getting rid of free movement above tarriff free access to the single market because it was one of the main reasons that people voted for leave. So it's putting all of the country at risk of job losses etc for the reasons that a proportion of the 52% voted to leave. Is that fair? Is that the best form of Brexit for the whole country?
I posted a few months ago that when asked to "Get involved and help shape brexit" that there was no avenue for me to do so-the government was not giving parliament a say in the negotiating strategy and was basically doing what it felt like. Well now I do have a chance to have my say, and I'll be voting for the Lib Dems (I actually think a Cons/LD coalition would be the best form of government atm for the country). So in a roundabout way my answer to the OP's question is yes.
In short free movement of labour within the EU is something I don't have a problem with. I think that it's something our economy currently depends on, and I can't see that changing in the short to medium term. I just wish the government had the balls to be up front about it.
dandarez said:
///ajd said:
ou sont les biscuits said:
Well, if you knew anything about anything, you'd know that the four freedoms come from the Treaty of Rome (1957) establishing the EEC. And we had a vote on that in 1975 after we joined. A vote in favour.
As for your claim that you know what's coming....... Words fail me. No-one knows what's coming, except that we'll have a worse deal in terms of trading with the EU than we have now. As for trading with anyone else, who knows either.
As for the European army - it wasn't going to happen whilst we were fully fledged members of the EU. Now that we're on the way out, the remaining 27 will do what they think is in their best interests. No-one here in the UK can have any beef about that.
Indeed. So many misconceptions. As for your claim that you know what's coming....... Words fail me. No-one knows what's coming, except that we'll have a worse deal in terms of trading with the EU than we have now. As for trading with anyone else, who knows either.
As for the European army - it wasn't going to happen whilst we were fully fledged members of the EU. Now that we're on the way out, the remaining 27 will do what they think is in their best interests. No-one here in the UK can have any beef about that.
One the consequences of Brexit is that an EU army is now much more likely. It is interesting to see that even when we leave, it seems that will wind some up. We spend years successfully ensuring it never really got off the ground in the EU, now that UK influence has gone - influence some would it seems have supported and will now miss, but it was either not understood or taken for granted.
What? The UK, the (ex) EU country with the CMD influence of zilch.
Previously, on Slasher Channel ///ajd, the EU Army was (you TOLD us) a non-starter!
Slasher you'd better change your username to MrMakeItUpAsIGoAlongToSuitMyAgenda
Pathetic.
It's the weekend. Do something normal folk do. Are you going shopping? Wash the car?
I'm (off) out.
What I've said is that the UK was never going to be forced to join an EU army - indeed the UK has done much to stall it happening, and even when it did we would have kept it in check by stressing the importance of other ways to co-operate militarily.
I also stated that I didn't see the big nations, or any nation, really giving up on sovereignty of their military; we'll see if that now changes as we leave.
andymadmak said:
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
But in the absence of that, I'd rather take it slowly and not plough headlong into a car crash if at all possible. You see my actions as undermining Britain's strong negotiating position, but what you appear to fail to see is that I and manyothers don't think Britain has a strong negotiating position to undermine (at least not compared to the EU), and/or you don't think yourself that we have a particularly strong hand to play yourself but won't admit it. Obvious blinkered view is obvious. The gov is already being forced into U turns on payments to Brussels, free movement etc etc. and we haven't even started yet. God knows what's going to happen when actually lock horns in negotiations for real.
Why are some Leavers so averse to spending a couple of years in the EEA to see how things go and let the dust settle. If support for a total break with the EU is so strong, then a couple of years isn't going to make much difference and it'll give the country longer to adjust to potential outcomes. The only reason that they should be so vehemently opposed to it is if they're worried they might be in the minority when the time comes but still want it forced through at all costs even if it's no longer the popular choice. Which ironically strikes me as fairly undemocratic.
andymadmak said:
Mario149 said:
And yet as far as I can tell, anyone who's ever worked in trade in the EU is saying it's still going to take years (7+) to finalize and get anything in place and even then it won't be nearly as good. I'll happily take everything with a pinch of salt, but when you have those that have worked in the area saying one thing, and a few politicians who haven't saying another, I'm going to go with the people who have experience in the area.
Really? I've done heaps of trade in the EU and I don't subscribe to that view. turbobloke said:
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.
May I respecfully ask if that "disruption to the economy" refers to any of the following negative predictions previously served up so ending the post-Brexit (vote) boom:- the chance of another, sorry a first, emergency budget with tens of £billions in cuts and taxes
- employment falling to a ten year low, rather than the ten year high we got in the face of Osborn telling us there would be half a million jobs lost if we voted Leave
- another, no make that a first, year-long post-referendum recession (CMD and TBG)
- more expensive mortgages rather than less expensive mortgages as happened
- a record low in the FTSE 100 rather than the record high we've seen
- house prices tumbling as opposed to growing as now (whether FTBs like it or not)
- Nissan moving out as opposed to building their new car plant in Sunderland as now
- the end of western politican civilisation as we know it
Or, perhaps, is stronger growth being referred to as a 'disruption'?
"...remaining in the EEA allows the dust to settle" which implicitly means letting the dust settle after we've left the EU, which we haven't yet. Suggest we revisit your question in about 3 years time when we've started to see the results of whatever flavour Brexit we may have.
cookie118 said:
The government seems to be putting getting rid of free movement above tarriff free access to the single market because it was one of the main reasons that people voted for leave. So it's putting all of the country at risk of job losses etc for the reasons that a proportion of the 52% voted to leave. Is that fair? Is that the best form of Brexit for the whole country?
There are of course lots of reasons people voted (both leave & remain) but at it's heart, being a member of the EU means you have the 4 freedoms and it's been made pretty clear if it wasn't obvious already, that you can't have 1 freedom without adopting the other 3If I understand you correctly, you think we should accept free movement of people must stay in force, in order to then have free access to the single market ? I assume you accept that in turn, all 4 freedoms must stay in place ?
You aren't alone in suggesting this, although it is of course only remainers that put forward the argument
So perhaps you can explain how, if we retain the 4 freedoms, we are able to leave the EU in a way which meaningfully changes our relationship with the EU ?
As I see it, if we retain the 4 freedoms (given we can't retain one without retaining all four), it means a lot of wasted time, a lot of wasted money and a lot of unnecessary uncertainty for an end result that is barely any different to our current membership. Do you seriously believe that in any way is going to be satisfactory to those that voted Leave ? I certainly don't. So what you are actually suggesting is a Brexit strategy that satisfies the minority, the Remainers, who lost the vote, rather than one that satisfies the majority, the Leavers, who won the vote.
To answer your question, I believe that 'what is fair', is a Brexit deal that sees us actually leave the EU in a way that results in our relationship changing compared to the current relationship with the EU, given that's what the country voted for
Edited by jonby on Monday 24th April 09:23
Personally I have no particular objection to a useful and realistic transition period, tailored to the needs of individual aspects and also for both sides of the negotiation. Ie, I'm happy to smooth the road for a few years and to smooth the road for the EU too by tapering payments etc. The money isn't a huge deal and it would be helpful for the EU not to face a cliff-edge that will be a big deal politically in the remaining net contributory countries.
My only objection, and I suspect when you tease out the issue for most they would agree, is that there's a huge issue over trust. People don't trust the establishment to take us out of the EU and want a quick final settlement so that it's definitely done, not dragged on for years, watered down and then transitioned into some sort of other membership under a different name.
Then of course you have squawkings from all sorts that are purely political, holding the Government to account rather than talking straight about the options and process, it's hard to know which complaints to ignore and which to take as opinion honestly held.
The nature and need for transition arrangements depends entirely on the nature of the exit deal, so I don't think anyone should rule anything in or out at the moment. Fortunately for all of us, that will be the approach of Government and the Civil Service behind closed doors.
On EEA specifically, the difficulty there might be that the EU view this as a transitionary step into the EU, not an easy way out. But I agree that it could form part of a credible exit process in theory.
My only objection, and I suspect when you tease out the issue for most they would agree, is that there's a huge issue over trust. People don't trust the establishment to take us out of the EU and want a quick final settlement so that it's definitely done, not dragged on for years, watered down and then transitioned into some sort of other membership under a different name.
Then of course you have squawkings from all sorts that are purely political, holding the Government to account rather than talking straight about the options and process, it's hard to know which complaints to ignore and which to take as opinion honestly held.
The nature and need for transition arrangements depends entirely on the nature of the exit deal, so I don't think anyone should rule anything in or out at the moment. Fortunately for all of us, that will be the approach of Government and the Civil Service behind closed doors.
On EEA specifically, the difficulty there might be that the EU view this as a transitionary step into the EU, not an easy way out. But I agree that it could form part of a credible exit process in theory.
paulrockliffe said:
Personally I have no particular objection to a useful and realistic transition period, tailored to the needs of individual aspects and also for both sides of the negotiation. Ie, I'm happy to smooth the road for a few years and to smooth the road for the EU too by tapering payments etc. The money isn't a huge deal and it would be helpful for the EU not to face a cliff-edge that will be a big deal politically in the remaining net contributory countries.
My only objection, and I suspect when you tease out the issue for most they would agree, is that there's a huge issue over trust. People don't trust the establishment to take us out of the EU and want a quick final settlement so that it's definitely done, not dragged on for years, watered down and then transitioned into some sort of other membership under a different name.
Then of course you have squawkings from all sorts that are purely political, holding the Government to account rather than talking straight about the options and process, it's hard to know which complaints to ignore and which to take as opinion honestly held.
The nature and need for transition arrangements depends entirely on the nature of the exit deal, so I don't think anyone should rule anything in or out at the moment. Fortunately for all of us, that will be the approach of Government and the Civil Service behind closed doors.
On EEA specifically, the difficulty there might be that the EU view this as a transitionary step into the EU, not an easy way out. But I agree that it could form part of a credible exit process in theory.
Crazy talk. If you keep this up, we might end up finding some common ground between Remain and Leave, and that would never do! My only objection, and I suspect when you tease out the issue for most they would agree, is that there's a huge issue over trust. People don't trust the establishment to take us out of the EU and want a quick final settlement so that it's definitely done, not dragged on for years, watered down and then transitioned into some sort of other membership under a different name.
Then of course you have squawkings from all sorts that are purely political, holding the Government to account rather than talking straight about the options and process, it's hard to know which complaints to ignore and which to take as opinion honestly held.
The nature and need for transition arrangements depends entirely on the nature of the exit deal, so I don't think anyone should rule anything in or out at the moment. Fortunately for all of us, that will be the approach of Government and the Civil Service behind closed doors.
On EEA specifically, the difficulty there might be that the EU view this as a transitionary step into the EU, not an easy way out. But I agree that it could form part of a credible exit process in theory.
'Remainers' need to realise that the best they're going to get is a 'soft' Brexit. But 'soft' Brexit isn't necessarily a bad thing as really it's the "renegotiate terms with the EU" option that we were never offered in the referendum. What needs to happen to get rid of the Tories is for LibDem and Green to form a coalition with Labour. Get the Tories out first, then worry about which flavour of 'left' is the better one.
vsonix said:
'Remainers' need to realise that the best they're going to get is a 'soft' Brexit. But 'soft' Brexit isn't necessarily a bad thing as really it's the "renegotiate terms with the EU" option that we were never offered in the referendum. What needs to happen to get rid of the Tories is for LibDem and Green to form a coalition with Labour. Get the Tories out first, then worry about which flavour of 'left' is the better one.
No. I think you are forgetting that CMD had a go at renegotiating with the EU specifically so as to avoid having an empty hand with the public for the Referendum. He was sent away with a flea in his ear by Brussels. If you elect a Green/Lib/Lab Government then the next 5 years are going to be an utter economic disaster, no matter if its soft Brexit, hard Brexit, no Brexit or weetabix for Brexit. The left simply cannot help but spend money like water.
Back the PM, and lets get this thing over with as quickly and efficiently as possible.
crankedup said:
It's almost laughable, a few years ago the Lib-Dems were castigated in here for being the Lib-Dems. Since those days they have lost credibility along with thier membership, and yet here we have hairy chested PHers talking about a vote for them!
It's "the ends justify the means" time. Unprincipled, perhaps, but we've all got a bit of that in us. Brexit is a drastic enough proposition that voting Lib is the rational choice for pro-Remain democrats.EU-oriented company-directing PHers, city types, etc may not really want a Lib government, but it wouldn't be that bad. (Given that 90% of political opinions lie in the centre of the spectrum anyway. They're not exactly Communists.)
If the LibDems policy of "vote for us to Remain" is a big vote winner then the polls need to change a lot.
OK, so polls are polls and we all know how good they are but nonetheless they are showing the LibDems vote actually down in Wales and Scotland compared with 2015 GE and only up 3-4% at most nationally. If this policy is such a vote winner then why do they seem to be floundering?
Obviously things may change, and I suspect they might, plus they've been doing OK on (very low turnout) local by-elections but they have a way to go.
OK, so polls are polls and we all know how good they are but nonetheless they are showing the LibDems vote actually down in Wales and Scotland compared with 2015 GE and only up 3-4% at most nationally. If this policy is such a vote winner then why do they seem to be floundering?
Obviously things may change, and I suspect they might, plus they've been doing OK on (very low turnout) local by-elections but they have a way to go.
Escapegoat said:
crankedup said:
It's almost laughable, a few years ago the Lib-Dems were castigated in here for being the Lib-Dems. Since those days they have lost credibility along with thier membership, and yet here we have hairy chested PHers talking about a vote for them!
It's "the ends justify the means" time. Unprincipled, perhaps, but we've all got a bit of that in us. Brexit is a drastic enough proposition that voting Lib is the rational choice for pro-Remain democrats.EU-oriented company-directing PHers, city types, etc may not really want a Lib government, but it wouldn't be that bad. (Given that 90% of political opinions lie in the centre of the spectrum anyway. They're not exactly Communists.)
It's academic in reality, they are never going to muster enough of the disenchanted to make the difference required. But for PH to even consider abandoning the Tories demonstrates the breach caused by Brexit.
andymadmak said:
vsonix said:
'Remainers' need to realise that the best they're going to get is a 'soft' Brexit. But 'soft' Brexit isn't necessarily a bad thing as really it's the "renegotiate terms with the EU" option that we were never offered in the referendum. What needs to happen to get rid of the Tories is for LibDem and Green to form a coalition with Labour. Get the Tories out first, then worry about which flavour of 'left' is the better one.
[...]Back the PM, and lets get this thing over with as quickly and efficiently as possible.
crankedup said:
Escapegoat said:
crankedup said:
It's almost laughable, a few years ago the Lib-Dems were castigated in here for being the Lib-Dems. Since those days they have lost credibility along with thier membership, and yet here we have hairy chested PHers talking about a vote for them!
It's "the ends justify the means" time. Unprincipled, perhaps, but we've all got a bit of that in us. Brexit is a drastic enough proposition that voting Lib is the rational choice for pro-Remain democrats.EU-oriented company-directing PHers, city types, etc may not really want a Lib government, but it wouldn't be that bad. (Given that 90% of political opinions lie in the centre of the spectrum anyway. They're not exactly Communists.)
It's academic in reality, they are never going to muster enough of the disenchanted to make the difference required. But for PH to even consider abandoning the Tories demonstrates the breach caused by Brexit.
The breach caused by Brexit is maybe 10 % 80% 10%
The 80% being those who whichever way they voted just want the process resolved
The other 20% are represented on here by the fervent remainers and the hard line leavers
vsonix said:
andymadmak said:
vsonix said:
'Remainers' need to realise that the best they're going to get is a 'soft' Brexit. But 'soft' Brexit isn't necessarily a bad thing as really it's the "renegotiate terms with the EU" option that we were never offered in the referendum. What needs to happen to get rid of the Tories is for LibDem and Green to form a coalition with Labour. Get the Tories out first, then worry about which flavour of 'left' is the better one.
[...]Back the PM, and lets get this thing over with as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The best option to get us through brexit, be it soft, hard, etc etc is the tories. Labour would royally screw up anything they're asked to do. Your idea of just wanting to get May and her team out would leave the country in an even bigger mess than its already in.
frisbee said:
I'm voting LD, they are very likely to regain the seat where I live. The local conservative who won the last election is very good but I don't support Brexit.
Its a shame that there is no credible opposition in this country.
You can't do anything about Brexit and neither would the Lib Dem you vote for. If the Conservative MP is very good, vote for them and not throw away a vote on someone who might not be a good local MP.Its a shame that there is no credible opposition in this country.
B'stard Child said:
crankedup said:
Escapegoat said:
crankedup said:
It's almost laughable, a few years ago the Lib-Dems were castigated in here for being the Lib-Dems. Since those days they have lost credibility along with thier membership, and yet here we have hairy chested PHers talking about a vote for them!
It's "the ends justify the means" time. Unprincipled, perhaps, but we've all got a bit of that in us. Brexit is a drastic enough proposition that voting Lib is the rational choice for pro-Remain democrats.EU-oriented company-directing PHers, city types, etc may not really want a Lib government, but it wouldn't be that bad. (Given that 90% of political opinions lie in the centre of the spectrum anyway. They're not exactly Communists.)
It's academic in reality, they are never going to muster enough of the disenchanted to make the difference required. But for PH to even consider abandoning the Tories demonstrates the breach caused by Brexit.
The breach caused by Brexit is maybe 10 % 80% 10%
The 80% being those who whichever way they voted just want the process resolved
The other 20% are represented on here by the fervent remainers and the hard line leavers
Where did you find those percentages that you use? May I suggest that you are making them up perhaps and have no substance at all. Hairy chested ph directors change the record shock.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff