Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
@dandelion, Royal Prerogative for the UK is exercised for the whole UK comprising the three kingdoms, England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. It is not different for each home nation. In the end this is why they are home nations. The contrast is with the Commonwealth Realms, where Royal Prerogative is something different in each.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
gosh people have adopted my style in my absence.

Today Radio 4 listening project had a couple of leave voters talking about Brexit. One of them is in the catering trade, and said he was confident he had made the right decision because he was sure the government would grant visas to the EU citizens he currently employs in catering. presumably waiters, cleaners, cooks? Those are the sort of people the government said today it would give Visas to? Skilled professionals, I think they said, like doctors, bankers or computer programmers?

The second man said he was confident he had made the right decision because he could see there was nothing wrong with the Uk economy now some time after the vote, so obviously the remain doomsayers were wrong.

I do not wish to criticise either of these two people, who sounded very sincere and it was most interesting to hear them explain their reasons. But I think both of them are about to hear that their reasoning and confidence in voting leave was wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think it would be possible to be a member of the EU and not also a member of the ECHR. However certainly after Brexit it would be possible for the UK to leave the ECHR.
Except that the EHCR is a United nations institution. Will we now be leaving the UN too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The UK political situation impacts the Brexit process and therefore the EU. What if there was a General Election tomorrow? Well there's a poll just out. Now I know we're getting polls wrong in the UK, and this one is still on the "old" methodology which in 2015 understated the support for Conservative. However:

Conservative: 47%
Labour: 29%
LibDem: 7%
UKIP: 6%
Green: 4%

Clearly Theresa May cannot possibly hold a General Election as there wouldn't be space on the government benches for all the Conservative MPs.

The margin of error is +/- 3% so this poll is actually saying Conservative support could be 50%. Conservatives are ahead in every region of England except London. In Scotland, Conservatives are beating Labour.

Conservatives dare to dream of a 2020 General Election where the party gets more than 50% of the vote - a result which would give an overwhelming moral mandate along with a parliamentary majority that could get legislation through quickly and easily. The direction of movement post-Brexit is that of a sovereign state which is overwhelmingly Conservative.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
and Germany wants an even bigger EU
Actually it was the Uk which wanted a bigger EU. Germany probably wanted a more integrated one. We stopped them having that.

The point being missed is that little UK doesn't want to be ruled by a federation or rules and laws made by 27 other countries all with differing priorities, the UK would like the UK to work according to its own remit.
Almost all EU laws, certainly the main ones, were made with Uk agrement. The reason the EU is so unwieldy is because of the national vetos which mean everyone has to agree on major changes, and in the past on all changes. The UK was instrumental in insisting on one set of laws for all the countries. This is because it makes trade easier, and we like trade.

France has never forgiven the UK because of Waterloo,
They got over it when we sided with them against Germany, rather than at waterloo where we sided with germany against them. You are right though that the EU is european war for dominance by trade federation instead of arms. So unfortunate we have decided to run away and forfeit the victory this time.

therefore has allowed a dreadful situation with immigrants at Calais to embarrass the UK about letting in migrants while having failed to offer , acceding to international Law, refugee status to all those in the so called "jungle".
refugee status is available to anyone who asks for it, according to the UN which we belong to. These people do not want refugee status in France, but in Britain. What the French are doing is holding them captive on behalf of the Uk government so they cannot arrive here and claim refugee status from us.

Germany will always have to face up to its past and regrettably the UK reminds it that it lost 2 major wars, but fails to remember the money the world poured into German in 1945 to rebuild a shattered nation even though they were the aggressors.
after WW1 the world tried being nasty to the losers but it did not work very well. Second time we tried to be nicer, and Germany has been grateful. Germany does not want to rule the EU, but since the Uk is refusing to do so, it will probably have to. That is what we are throwing away.

the Euro will only succeed if its run on central fiscal lines,..
But we do not belong to the euro!

Currently the pounds sterling is low brought about by scare mongering words for the EU President among others, all of whom are posturing and posing trying to look strong
How strong the EU might be is a different question. Significantly stronger because all the memebrs are looking in horror at the collapse of the UK after just stating an intention to leave. It is international bankers who have no confidence in the Uk economy now. because we have not a clue how to replace our trading relations with the EU with others.

If the EU were to approach the coming talks with a fair amount of decency they are afraid they would look weak and other countries within the EU might try and either follow the UK lead or ask for favourable adjustments
read this thread from a year or two ago, where we discussed all this. The EU is a members club with rules and there is no reason for it to change those rules just because we want to leave. The plain truth is what Leave have promised is unachievable. you can be in the club and accept its rules, or be out.

So, rather than blandly say that just because the UK isn't top of the class therefore its going to leave shows little understanding of how those living in the UK feel about the EU and how it treats us -
you said it yourself in an earlier post. it is not how the EU treats us, but how the Uk government treats us, and then blames the EU for what it wanted to do anyway. A case in point is immigration, which is at the level Uk governments of both sides have agreed is correct for 40 years. Moreover the Currnt Uk government has no intention of changing this if we leave the eu. Westminster might have th final say, but it intends to say as many people can come as now. leaving the EU will not change immigration.

There are to many laws,
And the Uk government is planning to convert every one of them into Uk law. And will keep every one. do you not undertand tht parliaments are paid to make laws? if they stop making new laws voters might question what we are paying for.

closer to home the Russian Bear is looking on and enjoying the disconnected nations of Europe quarrelling
It would not surprise me if Russia finaced UKIP so as to cause more division within the EU. It is our loss and the EUs loss if we leave. Russia wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
52% voted for Brexit. Many who voted to Remain did so because they were frightened to vote for Brexit.
Recent UKIP Poll I mentioned, records that just 3% of Remain voters think we would be economically better off if we leave the EU, and 80% think we will be worse off. Just 7% of Leave voters think we will be worse off if we leave the EU, and 56% better off.

This is a massive dichotomy and it is not possible it is a coincidence. Virtually every person in the country who thinks we would be economically worse off after Brexit voted to remain, and every person who thinks we would be economically better off leaving voted to leave. This was a vote about the economy, not sovereignty. The economy was the biggest single issue. The undecideds then went on to consider other things.

Well there's a poll just out....
Did you read it? you mean this one by ipsos mori? https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...all-in-economic-optimism-over-last-month.aspx

It says,
"The public also express pessimism over the recent devaluation of the pound. More than half (55%) say they believe the decline in the pound’s value to be a bad thing for Britain – just 14% say it is a good thing and another 26% say it will make no difference."

"Concerns over the economy are accompanied by rising public worry over what Brexit means for their standard of living. The new poll also reveals that half (49%) believe their own standard of living will be worse as a result of Britain voting to leave the EU in last June’s referendum – a sharp increase from July when just over a third (36%) said things would get worse."

What the poll says is that the Uk people are getting worried about the economy because it is deteriorating merely on the news of brexit, which has not happened yet. Recall that everyone who believed brexit was bad for the economy voted to remain. So what do you think they will want went they all come to believe brexit is bad for the economy?

You are quite correct that people are frightened of brexit. Because they know it will cost them money. They are right to be frightened, it is frightening.

Conservative: 47%...Clearly Theresa May cannot possibly hold a General Election as there wouldn't be space on the government benches for all the Conservative MPs.
Wrong. I think the reason May will not hold an election is because she is afraid the poll might be right and she might win. Because Brexit will take 2 years. Because in 2 years time the Uk economy will be in an awful state. Because at the moment she is leading a conservative government with a massive majority into brexit, the entire country will have switched against it. An utter nightmare for conservatives.

Tactically she is far better off leading a party with a narrow majority which is plainly split and undecided. that way she can hope to show she was evenhanded and did not go hell for leather into a disaster. What she knows for sure is that she does not know what the view of the nation will be on the day chosen for Brexit. She does not know if on that day the country will want Brexit, and even if it does, whether it will want the sort of brexit she is providing. It is a horrible place for a politician.
 
7

798686

Guest
Virtually every person in the country who thinks we would be economically worse off after Brexit voted to remain, and every person who thinks we would be economically better off leaving voted to leave.
This seems untrue. Many Brexiteers chose independence ahead of economics - as May seems to be doing. 56% of Leave voters thinking it will improve things, kinda indicates 44% do not.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I have posted the poll figures several times joll. Yougov october 2016, bottom of page 5. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...vzlss3c/TimesResults_161012_VI_Trackers_W.pdf

People did not choose independence ahead of economics. Nearly all the people who were worried about the economic effects voted to remain. Nearly all the people who thought we would be better off economically voted to leave. A big lump of those who felt it would make no difference voted to leave. People who believed the country would be worse off voted 11:1 to stay.

Economics trumped other considerations.

56% of Leave voters thinking it will improve things, kinda indicates 44% do not.
56% better off, 29% no difference, 8% dont know, only 7% of those voting leave thought they would be financially worse off. It seems to me that only people already convinced they would be at least no worse off, then decided to vote leave for whatever reason.

The corollary of this is that if the people who thought they would be better off/no worse if we left, now change their minds and believe we will be worse off, will they then behave as the rest of the people with this view did, and change their vote to remain?

Because if so, then on the the day a conservative government is shaking hands over the brexit deal, the big majority of the Uk could be wanting to do the opposite. And May knows this already, she must.

~~~~~
I posted this one before, and jason pooh poohed it. Telegraph article about loss of confidence by markets in gilts. It says foreign markets have made a deliberate decision to stop buying, because they should have been buying automatically when the pound fell. They didnt. If true, it means there is about to be one enormous government funding crisis. Thats not funny. It means the government has managed to destroy international confidence in the Uk economy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...s-on-hard-brexit-talk-as-halloween-verdict-a/
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Here is another link to an article by John Curtis analysing a different data set, coming to the same conclusions. He observes that more people believed leaving the EU would reduce immigration than believed it would cause economic harm, but this did not decisively alter their voting. It was the economic belief which is massively correlated with how they voted. He says 90% voted in the direction they thought would be their financial interest. http://whatukthinks.org/eu/what-mandate-did-voters-give-on-june-23rd/

I would not be surprised if the governments proposals for curbing immigration today were announced to see precisely how much backlash there is against them. There is a comment on the Curtis page noting that although people may have believed leaving the EU would cut immigration, this does not mean they thought cutting immigration was necessarily good.

Right now the government probably does not mean anything it says. It is probably just throwing out ideas to see if they get attacked.
 
Last edited:

chrisrobin

Mythical Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2016
Posts
10,304
Media
0
Likes
26,631
Points
183
Location
Bournemouth (England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Here is another link to an article by John Curtis analysing a different data set, coming to the same conclusions. He observes that more people believed leaving the EU would reduce immigration than believed it would cause economic harm, but this did not decisively alter their voting. It was the economic belief which is massively correlated with how they voted. He says 90% voted in the direction they thought would be their financial interest. http://whatukthinks.org/eu/what-mandate-did-voters-give-on-june-23rd/

I would not be surprised if the governments proposals for curbing immigration today were announced to see precisely how much backlash there is against them. There is a comment on the Curtis page noting that although people may have believed leaving the EU would cut immigration, this does not mean they thought cutting immigration was necessarily good.

Right now the government probably does not mean anything it says. It is probably just throwing out ideas to see if they get attacked.
Immigration - most in the UK would like to see the UK have the power to control its borders. the fears about immigration come from stories about large families using human rights laws in order to keep convicted criminals in the country - and pay cash in benefits to keep their families, pay their legal costs and then for the convicted once to do the same again and use the same sad stories, ah to be a bleeding heart liberal! The other worry is seeing hoards of young men trying to get to the UK from Calais, young men who have arrived unchecked by the French who the French would love to see on a lorry, knowing that if and when they arrive they'll get pushed to the head of the queue for accommodation - the UK has something like 13,000 sleeping rough every night because there isn't enough accommodation and yet, turn up claiming you have suffered and hey bingo, the doors open. The UK also noted the unpleasant occurrence in Cologne earlier this year, and has seen how the immigrants when they arrive congregate in large numbers and moving en-masse, it can be very frightening and intimidating. Immigration, the large extended families that qualify for entrance to the UK, that turn out to be no existent once a visa is given, the number who vanish from the radar, these are the reasons we want control of our borders. One local council in Kent said that 60% of the "children" investigated on suspicion of being older than 18 (the top "child" age) turned out to be well over 18, but the bleeding hearts brigade say this is ok - and so more gangs of prowling immigrants are let onto the streets.
If we control our borders and are allowed to admit only those who meet the criteria we set down that's going to be fine. However the rest of the EU must also do its bit and return to country of origin migrants without papers, check thoroughly they are applying for asylum otherwise the events of France and Germany will be repeated.
That said its also time to make sure that our checks are thorough and not haphazard - like those this week - and proper checks made by qualified examiners and not representatives of the Politically Correct. Not only that but the decision of the judges is final and appeals will not be allowed - they can drag on for years this showing the UK is getting a grip on who it lest in, those that get returned to France, as being the origin of journey, will be the responsibility of the French.
 
1

185248

Guest
Put it this way. A Democratic vote placed the UK in a good or bad posi.

That is the hugest positive. It was not dictated, it was not forced. Ok, media splurge did some damage. But people need to rise above this.

This is the positive the UK need to build on. The decision was made on emotion. Ok, so it was. Make the best of it.

But do not trust a country which kidnaps it's political opposition in the wee hours of the morning as a trusted trade partner.

China will kill your so called "Free Trade" ambitions. You need to witness Chinas ambassador in answer to questions relating to the British agreement with regard to Hong Kong/ Shanghai.

Then trust who you do trade with.

They are horribly corrupt.

Opposition politicians to the Chinese government are kidnapped by Chinese secret police...... Yet, our so called democratic governments wish to "Free Trade" with these governments............Absolutely Fucking Ludicrous.

How about we kidnap the leader of the opposition in the US, UK, Canada or anywhere? How would that go down?

Yet we have our politicians backing sales to this country which kidnaps it's opposition leaders or free speakers.

Yet send our young men and women to foreign lands to die to stop this kind of business......WTF.

I am nearly 60, yet I have seen the same shit over, and over and over since I was 16.. Greed. Stop the greed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: chrisrobin
1

185248

Guest
@dandelion, Royal Prerogative for the UK is exercised for the whole UK comprising the three kingdoms, England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. It is not different for each home nation. In the end this is why they are home nations. The contrast is with the Commonwealth Realms, where Royal Prerogative is something different in each.

I highlighted this because I, most of us in the Colonies dislike the word Realm. We are no longer in your Realm. We can help you explore markets.

You need to get over being the teacher, and move on to be the learner. Arrogance is a big problem everywhere.

It's degrading. Yes, once we were a colony. But if we decided to do otherwise, not be part of the Commonwealth. You the UK, we become the second smallest Monarchy beside Denmark.

Who, Denmark by the way. Has a sexy, slim Tasmanian as their future Queen.

Yup...Tassie women. :) :)

They grow great Lavender there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chrisrobin

Mythical Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2016
Posts
10,304
Media
0
Likes
26,631
Points
183
Location
Bournemouth (England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Put it this way. A Democratic vote placed the UK in a good or bad posi.

That is the hugest positive. It was not dictated, it was not forced. Ok, media splurge did some damage. But people need to rise above this.

This is the positive the UK need to build on. The decision was made on emotion. Ok, so it was. Make the best of it.

But do not trust a country which kidnaps it's political opposition in the wee hours of the morning as a trusted trade partner.

China will kill your so called "Free Trade" ambitions. You need to witness Chinas ambassador in answer to questions relating to the British agreement with regard to Hong Kong/ Shanghai.

Then trust who you do trade with.

They are horribly corrupt.

Opposition politicians to the Chinese government are kidnapped by Chinese secret police...... Yet, our so called democratic governments wish to "Free Trade" with these governments............Absolutely Fucking Ludicrous.

How about we kidnap the leader of the opposition in the US, UK, Canada or anywhere? How would that go down?

Yet we have our politicians backing sales to this country which kidnaps it's opposition leaders or free speakers.

Yet send our young men and women to foreign lands to die to stop this kind of business......WTF.

I am nearly 60, yet I have seen the same shit over, and over and over since I was 16.. Greed. Stop the greed.
Corruption is so varied that where do you stop, or where do you start. I agree that giving credence to those countries that don't have a good record on humans rights should be par for the course but alas our politicians don't have the same idea. They think there are cases where a blind eye should be turned in order to help their own agenda, while saying publicly that they support all human rights.
Firstly, China, North Korea, Russia, the Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Egypt and so the list goes on, hardly anywhere in the world don't have a bad record. Then there are other corruptions, money, cash for questions and favoured contracts, its hard to know where the honesty starts if in fact there is any left, as for integrity....
Having lived through world war I see how history repeats itself and yes our "masters" never seem to see it, as you say its all greed, but not just greed to Politian's but to the population of the world a whole, we have all become part of the excess want now pay later brigade, we want to get more cheaper, this means sweat shops, cheap products and dubious methods of manufacture. At the end of the day you get what you pay for. A 50p T shirt will last a day, if that's what you want then don't complain... Farmers pushed to the wall as supermarkets cut the margins, oil producers producing less oil to boost the price and then the arms race, sell to one country, turn a blind eye when you find they are being used in a conflict you don't support. Send out men and women to war, let them fight for the financiers and money men (who never get dirty hands) then prosecute those same men and women you've sent to war to fight for an impossible peace with war crimes discovered by some bleeding hearted liberals who march for peace, give for peace yet wont support those who try to get it.
So, back to the beginning, how do we persuade our Politian's and world leaders not to do business with those countries like China which are totally suppressive, murderous and face the consequences on not being able to supply that 50p T shirt
 
1

185248

Guest
Read your first line....then read your last. :) You said it it in 2 sentences.

Free Trade with what is the largest world (corrupt) economy? Ok, Yup.

I do not swallow the crap.

You do know the Chinese on purpose exploded one of their own satellites in low earth orbit to disable US surveillance?

The Chinese government, those in power are extremely corrupt. They support North Korea.

No more needs to be said. Yet our governments, and multi-nationals crawl to them.

We in the West go to War for much less. We go to war on lies, not fact. Go figure. While China abstains, yet takes over an ocean and builds up military might.

Yeah, ok. Greed.

Too late.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So, back to the beginning, how do we persuade our Politian's and world leaders not to do business with those countries like China which are totally suppressive, murderous and face the consequences on not being able to supply that 50p T shirt
Easy. Tell the politicians to work with someone else, such as the EU. Leaving the EU, out of the frying pan into the fire?

I highlighted this because I, most of us in the Colonies dislike the word Realm. We are no longer in your Realm.
Actually, you are. Australia is a monarchy. Also, incidentally, a continent spanning federation of separate states.

Do you perhaps detect something in the tone of our anti-EU friend which seems to have imperial ambitions?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I highlighted this because I, most of us in the Colonies dislike the word Realm. We are no longer in your Realm. We can help you explore markets.

You need to get over being the teacher, and move on to be the learner. Arrogance is a big problem everywhere.

It's degrading. Yes, once we were a colony. But if we decided to do otherwise, not be part of the Commonwealth. You the UK, we become the second smallest Monarchy beside Denmark.

Who, Denmark by the way. Has a sexy, slim Tasmanian as their future Queen.

Yup...Tassie women. :) :)

They grow great Lavender there.

We need to explore alternative terms.

As far as I know "Commonwealth Realm" is the term in law, established by the Statute of Westminster and with this term adopted by every one of the Commonwealth Realms. If Australia wants a different name then it has to be changed by Australians. I cannot imagine the UK or any other nation opposing such a change.

I think therefore - unless you can correct me - that Australia is called a Commonwealth Realm because Australia has this term in Australian law. I cannot call it anything else. Indeed the official name of the nation is not Australia but "Commonwealth of Australia". Furthermore Australia is part of the Commonwealth, one of the 52 present members.

Perhaps a parallel issue is the use of British Isles to refer to ... well the the British Isles. This is a geographic term which goes back to antiquity. The bigger of the two British Isles is called Britain, the smaller is Ireland. Recently the nation of Ireland has put forward the view that the name seems to stress the nation state that is the UK. The proposed alternative is "The Isles". Some use of this was made in the London Olympics. There's a lot of willingness to find solutions. We already have a political body called The Council of the Isles.

The Royal Prerogative in Australia is exercised through the Governor General, and is the Royal Prerogative of the Queen of Australia. It differs from Royal Prerogative in the UK (in effect as Queen of the UK though we don't actually use that term). Curiously the powers in Australia are explicitly set out.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
May seemed to do well today. Only major obstacle was Hollande, who will be leaving before the end of next year anyway. :) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37710786

It would seem she is taking my advice that the UK's leverage over the EU is its votes and vetos and making use of them. This was signalled at the last meeting when we opposed a european army, which would be quite a pointless thing to do if we are not a member. Its the get tough option for negotiating then. Last night on question time at least one of the panelists observed that the only thing the Uk had definitely voted to give up was its membership of the EU councils, parliament and its veto/voting rights.

No one stayed up for the Witney by election then. It seems voters are not amused over Brexit. Conservative vote fell from an outright majority of 60% under Cameron to 45% for the new man. Lib dem vote went from 7% to 30%. Labour lost 2% share to 15%, UKIP lost 6% to 3.5%

The difficulty in interpreting the results is that the conservatives lost a popular candidate, so would have lost some personal suport form their vote share. However the direction of swings is interesting. Voters could have chosen pro Brexit UKIP as a protest, or labour as official opposition, but they in fact chose pro-EU liberals.

In Jo Cox' old seat the other major parties declined to stand, which is a shame. The labour candidate got 85% of the vote against a selection of minor parties. Had others stood against a candidate similar in view to Jo, it could have demontrated how the public viewed a labour pro-EU candidate in a labour seat. The labour challenger in Witney was anti-Corbyn and accepting of Brexit, which is apparently not a popular combination.

So the result seems to be that the referendum vote has rehabilitated the liberals in British politics. This is perhaps not so strange since they had tended to do better as an alternative vote in massively tory areas which could not stand labour. They are also traditionally pro-EU. On the other hand, the tories objective of destroying UKIP seems to be working as their vote shrank. One might assume their vote went to the conservatives as the supporters now of Brexit, unless they switched directly to the liberals in remorse. More likely pro EU tories abandoned the conservative party and went lib.

A classic vote of no confidence by the public in the tories. It strongly suggests the tories would not wish to hold a general election. They might increase their majority against labour if it cannot get its act together, but they might then have the problem of winning a massive majority, with a sizeable chunk of liberals on a mandate of opposing Brexit. They would then have the publicity of a party clearly opposing Brexit against them in the commons and would be forced ever more into the pro Brexit corner, just as the public were moving against Brexit.

A week or so ago Matthew Paris (ex conservative MP) wrote an article in the TImes saying he and some politial mates had gamed all the possible political outcomes from now on, and they could see no good outcome from the Brexit vote. None. I asume he is still essentially pro-tory and would consider their being in government a positive, labour negative. But he could well have reached this point also, that an election could be a disaster for the conservatives as it would simply show a massive shift of voter sentiment to pro EU parties, even if the conservatives won well on a brexit ticket.

No, May did not do well today.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
BBC has a writeup now of the interview with Brian Unwin where he says David Davis is in cloud cuckoo land if he belives the Uk has a strong hand in negotiations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37719163

Yanis Varoufakis was also on question time last night, and similarly described the government's Brexit team as idiots. I wonder if any of them really believe in Brexit, or if they do what they estimate the real economic cost will be. Is their estimate higher than they believe voters would be willing to pay?