How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[NoNeed]

Fittster said:

Can those that bang on about the manifesto explain if by not imposing a “dementia tax” on the UK the conservative party are a bunch of traitors?

There was no Dementia tax" mentioned.

Besides minor budget tweaks are insignificant and changeable at the next election, major constitutional reform should not be done on a whim but on long held principles.

[Fittster]

Brooking10 said:

Fittster said:

Can those that bang on about the manifesto explain if by not imposing a “dementia tax” on the UK the conservative party are a bunch of traitors?

You’ll have to explain that one more clearly I’m afraid.

According to many posters a party must do what its committed to do in its manifesto. Now the manifesto wasn't just full of Brexit stuff the conservative government would do if elected. There was also a chunk on adult social care

"At the moment councils pay for all or part of a person’s social care if they have less than £23,250 in capital. The manifesto proposed raising this limit to £100,000.

At the moment the value of a person’s home is only counted in this limit if they are in residential care or nursing homes. The manifesto proposes including the value of anyone’s house, even if they are still living in it and needing care at home.

At the moment people in residential care or nursing homes can put off paying for their care—until after their death if they want to. The cost of their care is then taken from their estate after their death, or the value of their house once it is sold (or can be paid for by the individual or a relative). The Conservative manifesto proposed extending this to people who receive care at home too."

Now old people who tend to vote Tory got a little upset as it means that they would have to pay more towards there care (but apparently they aren't spongers, they are people how worked hard all their lives, so the state should pick up their costs). So a quick u-turn was done and that manifesto commitment was dumped.

Now for some reason Brexit manifesto commitments can't be ignored but other ones can.

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

https://fullfact.org/health/what-dementia-tax/

[GT119]

SunsetZed said:

GT119 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

GT119 said:

Tuna said:

Frankly, resigning at the prospect of having to do what your manifesto said you'd do pretty much sums up the idiocy of this government.

Are you saying that the manifesto clearly states that we will leave without a deal?

The manifesto clearly says we will leave.

It also says no deal is better than a bad deal.

Yes it does say that once, yet it also says “We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe” more than half a dozen times.

It seems to me that it is significantly more justifiable to resign over no deal than to just ignore the fact that what has been presented to the electorate both before and after the referendum was definitely the opposite and to me it’s quite clear there never has never been (and never will be) majority support for a no deal outcome.

There was enough support in the last election for the largest party to be elected on the preference of no deal over a bad deal and that's where we're at today.

We all have our own opinions on the quality of the present deal, but who has the final say as to whether it is a bad deal or not? The obvious answer is Parliament and yes you could say that Parliament has already decided that the existing deal is bad.
They must also now decide whether the no deal outcome is actually better, and no I don’t agree that they have already done that for anyone who feels that triggering A50 was part of that decision.
For Boris to threaten to make the final call all on his own is just about the least democratic path he could take, the subsequent resignations are entirely justified and I would argue that any no-deal supporters on here who have any principles should be strongly advocating a second referendum to be certain that no-deal is in fact a democratic outcome.

[crankedup]

Fittster said:

Brooking10 said:

Fittster said:

Can those that bang on about the manifesto explain if by not imposing a “dementia tax” on the UK the conservative party are a bunch of traitors?

You’ll have to explain that one more clearly I’m afraid.

According to many posters a party must do what its committed to do in its manifesto. Now the manifesto wasn't just full of Brexit stuff the conservative government would do if elected. There was also a chunk on adult social care

"At the moment councils pay for all or part of a person’s social care if they have less than £23,250 in capital. The manifesto proposed raising this limit to £100,000.

At the moment the value of a person’s home is only counted in this limit if they are in residential care or nursing homes. The manifesto proposes including the value of anyone’s house, even if they are still living in it and needing care at home.

At the moment people in residential care or nursing homes can put off paying for their care—until after their death if they want to. The cost of their care is then taken from their estate after their death, or the value of their house once it is sold (or can be paid for by the individual or a relative). The Conservative manifesto proposed extending this to people who receive care at home too."

Now old people who tend to vote Tory got a little upset as it means that they would have to pay more towards there care (but apparently they aren't spongers, they are people how worked hard all their lives, so the state should pick up their costs). So a quick u-turn was done and that manifesto commitment was dumped.

Now for some reason Brexit manifesto commitments can't be ignored but other ones can.

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

https://fullfact.org/health/what-dementia-tax/

Fortunately or unfortunately we cannot hold Governments to account if they do not meet their published manifesto announcements. Well they are held to account every five years of course but that’s as far as it goes. Changing circumstances and priorities are the excuses trotted out.

[SunsetZed]

GT119 said:

SunsetZed said:

There was enough support in the last election for the largest party to be elected on the preference of no deal over a bad deal and that's where we're at today.

We all have our own opinions on the quality of the present deal, but who has the final say as to whether it is a bad deal or not? The obvious answer is Parliament and yes you could say that Parliament has already decided that the existing deal is bad.
They must also now decide whether the no deal outcome is actually better, and no I don’t agree that they have already done that for anyone who feels that triggering A50 was part of that decision.
For Boris to threaten to make the final call all on his own is just about the least democratic path he could take, the subsequent resignations are entirely justified and I would argue that any no-deal supporters on here who have any principles should be strongly advocating a second referendum to be certain that no-deal is in fact a democratic outcome.

I think it's fairly unanimous amongst both leavers and remainers plus parliament that the current deal is a bad one.

[jakesmith]

gooner1 said:

jakesmith said:

I don’t know I didn’t read that at the time and I’d warrant that it wasn’t a remainer consensus view but a forecast made at one point in time by one person or group, just like how it isn’t a pro Brexit voter’s view that we urgently need to get foreigners out and bring back national service etc just because a few think of have said that

Correct, it was a forecast.

From one by the name of Gideon Osborne.

Chancellor of the Exchequer.

OK so we're agreed I am right then

[Sway]

jakesmith said:

gooner1 said:

jakesmith said:

I don’t know I didn’t read that at the time and I’d warrant that it wasn’t a remainer consensus view but a forecast made at one point in time by one person or group, just like how it isn’t a pro Brexit voter’s view that we urgently need to get foreigners out and bring back national service etc just because a few think of have said that

Correct, it was a forecast.

From one by the name of Gideon Osborne.

Chancellor of the Exchequer.

OK so we're agreed I am right then

So you are equating Her Majesty's Treasury with any other group for the credibility of their forecasts?

The voting rationale surveys show that forecasts had a very real effect in driving the remain vote, and that your mooted reasons for voting leave were rather smaller in their impact on the result.

[bitchstewie]

Jo Swinson elected Lib Dems leader.

That should breathe a little bit of energy into them.

Nothing against Vince Cable but I think he was long overdue standing down as party leader.

[Helicopter123]

bhstewie said:

Jo Swinson elected Lib Dems leader.

That should breathe a little bit of energy into them.

Nothing against Vince Cable but I think he was long overdue standing down as party leader.

I like Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems seem set to be the main beneficiary of the Brexit fiasco.

Both Labour and Tories face collapsing votes as each deserts the middle of British politics.

[jakesmith]

Sway said:

jakesmith said:

gooner1 said:

jakesmith said:

I don’t know I didn’t read that at the time and I’d warrant that it wasn’t a remainer consensus view but a forecast made at one point in time by one person or group, just like how it isn’t a pro Brexit voter’s view that we urgently need to get foreigners out and bring back national service etc just because a few think of have said that

Correct, it was a forecast.

From one by the name of Gideon Osborne.

Chancellor of the Exchequer.

OK so we're agreed I am right then

So you are equating Her Majesty's Treasury with any other group for the credibility of their forecasts?

The voting rationale surveys show that forecasts had a very real effect in driving the remain vote, and that your mooted reasons for voting leave were rather smaller in their impact on the result.

I thought Leave won?

[Fittster]

Helicopter123 said:

bhstewie said:

Jo Swinson elected Lib Dems leader.

That should breathe a little bit of energy into them.

Nothing against Vince Cable but I think he was long overdue standing down as party leader.

I like Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems seem set to be the main beneficiary of the Brexit fiasco.

Both Labour and Tories face collapsing votes as each deserts the middle of British politics.

Everyone is deserting the middle because after a 20 year run it became apparent it doesn't actually achieve anything.

[Sway]

jakesmith said:

Sway said:

jakesmith said:

gooner1 said:

jakesmith said:

I don’t know I didn’t read that at the time and I’d warrant that it wasn’t a remainer consensus view but a forecast made at one point in time by one person or group, just like how it isn’t a pro Brexit voter’s view that we urgently need to get foreigners out and bring back national service etc just because a few think of have said that

Correct, it was a forecast.

From one by the name of Gideon Osborne.

Chancellor of the Exchequer.

OK so we're agreed I am right then

So you are equating Her Majesty's Treasury with any other group for the credibility of their forecasts?

The voting rationale surveys show that forecasts had a very real effect in driving the remain vote, and that your mooted reasons for voting leave were rather smaller in their impact on the result.

I thought Leave won?

They did.

That does not change my point, at all. Nor my question.

[MDMetal]

I caught genius interview on LBC earlier today, some ex downing street adviser pointing out that in respect to the oft mentioned quietly fact that Ireland have said they wouldn't put up a hard border but deal with the problems caused by a no deal away from the border that it was fine fore Ireland to keep this hush hush and not comment to much as it would simply undermine it's negotiating position that no deal would be disastrous... AT which point the adviser then laid into the UK's position that No deal should be kept on the table.

You can't make it up Factions within our own country are defending the opposing sides negotiating POV and criticising ours for wanting to keep leverage on the table.

Very few people actually want No Deal but we have to be 100% prepared for it to have any chance of having a decent deal, if we public say No Deal is off the table (disregarding the legal fact it can't be off the table) and we'll only leave if we get what we want then what do you think the opposing side's play is going to be?

[MDMetal]

bhstewie said:

Jo Swinson elected Lib Dems leader.

That should breathe a little bit of energy into them.

Nothing against Vince Cable but I think he was long overdue standing down as party leader.

More of the same twaddle "Join us if you want change" except of course their main policy is to oppose the very change we voted for...

[bitchstewie]

MDMetal said:

bhstewie said:

Jo Swinson elected Lib Dems leader.

That should breathe a little bit of energy into them.

Nothing against Vince Cable but I think he was long overdue standing down as party leader.

More of the same twaddle "Join us if you want change" except of course their main policy is to oppose the very change we voted for...

There is a political landscape both during and beyond "Just get us out".

It doesn't stop once we're out, it starts.

Political choice is a good thing which people should welcome.

[DeepEnd]

UK proposed to team up with European allies to protect tankers in the gulf.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/22/uk-t...

Just don’t call it an EU army and it’ll be considered a good idea.

[Mrr T]

MDMetal said:

I caught genius interview on LBC earlier today, some ex downing street adviser pointing out that in respect to the oft mentioned quietly fact that Ireland have said they wouldn't put up a hard border but deal with the problems caused by a no deal away from the border that it was fine fore Ireland to keep this hush hush and not comment to much as it would simply undermine it's negotiating position that no deal would be disastrous... AT which point the adviser then laid into the UK's position that No deal should be kept on the table.

You can't make it up Factions within our own country are defending the opposing sides negotiating POV and criticising ours for wanting to keep leverage on the table.

Very few people actually want No Deal but we have to be 100% prepared for it to have any chance of having a decent deal, if we public say No Deal is off the table (disregarding the legal fact it can't be off the table) and we'll only leave if we get what we want then what do you think the opposing side's play is going to be?

You do understand people are allowed to have a different view to you. That's how it works in a democracy.

[bitchstewie]

DeepEnd said:

UK proposed to team up with European allies to protect tankers in the gulf.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/22/uk-t...

Just don’t call it an EU army and it’ll be considered a good idea.

Farage is on LBC now calling it an "EU Navy" asking what's wrong with a "Royal Navy".

[DeepEnd]

bhstewie said:

Farage is on LBC now calling it an "EU Navy" asking what's wrong with a "Royal Navy".

It’s actually a great example of how teaming up works and generates mass.

The Royal Navy in relative terms has only a handful of frigates and destroyers - we are about to have just two ships deployed to the region - if we team up with European Navies, the numbers able to support Gulf protection multiply up to much more effective numbers, sharing the burden that we cannot realistically do alone.

[MDMetal]

Mrr T said:

MDMetal said:

I caught genius interview on LBC earlier today, some ex downing street adviser pointing out that in respect to the oft mentioned quietly fact that Ireland have said they wouldn't put up a hard border but deal with the problems caused by a no deal away from the border that it was fine fore Ireland to keep this hush hush and not comment to much as it would simply undermine it's negotiating position that no deal would be disastrous... AT which point the adviser then laid into the UK's position that No deal should be kept on the table.

You can't make it up Factions within our own country are defending the opposing sides negotiating POV and criticising ours for wanting to keep leverage on the table.

Very few people actually want No Deal but we have to be 100% prepared for it to have any chance of having a decent deal, if we public say No Deal is off the table (disregarding the legal fact it can't be off the table) and we'll only leave if we get what we want then what do you think the opposing side's play is going to be?

You do understand people are allowed to have a different view to you. That's how it works in a democracy.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a time or a situation where the viewpoint of "let's properly f*CK this up so we get our own way" is really a valid political viewpoint?