-
Posts
-
Norfolk, this is not about scares, or even pointing to the problems which are now emerging.. It’s about the lack of a clear majority in the country for the way forward, when time is forcing us to have a clear majority. I don’t think that parliament, the cabinet or the country will be able to get a deal. If there’s no deal, that will probably be stopped too. We could well end up like Norway in the EEA. I agreed with Gerry’s view that we may not even exit, given the political circumstances. But that’s still up in the air. May’s failure at the election has thrown brexit up in the air, and where it all falls is still to be seen.
Why is time forcing us to have a clear majority? How will EU negotiations be affected having a majority government or not? Do you really think EU leaders who generally regard us with contempt anyway are suddenly going to say ” Well I had respect for the UK 2 years ago but now she has a reduced majority we have none” It’s just spin peddled out that makes no real sense… let’s get it right, the reason the election was called had nothing to do with EU negotiations despite that being given as the official reason but a poll conducted showing Labour in complete disarray with Corbyn being mocked by his own party. May thought she could make a killing and failed miserably.
It’s not a question of whether there should be an election or another referendum, though we all have our views on that. I’m raising the question of whether there is likely to be an election or another referendum. The answer is not likely about a referendum, but much more likely the collapse of this government and another election.
What will another election achieve other than a likely hung parliament/ slim labour majority ? How is that conducive to being better than what we have now and more united unless you are a labour supporter bitter about leaving the EU? Do you honestly believe another election is likely to give a more decisive majority to either party and even if it does what good will that be exactly dealing with the EU? People say it’s a stronger position to be in without actually giving details- just generic spin with no substance.
hat’s how Thatcher became PM – by default, because Labour broke down as a government.
Thatcher was a competant polititian though, even if you don’t agree with her.
Corbyn has appointed a Marxist who celebrated the 2008 recession as Shadow Chancellor, which should a decision that should be obviously bad to most people. Worse still is Dianne Abbot having any position in the cabinet, especially a position as important as Home Secretary.
Corbyn is a joke.
Norway is a member of the European Economic Area, which gives the country full access to the Single Market in return for free movement of capital and labour. I’d be happy with that to be going on with, and come March 2019 that could well be the outcome. There’s no majority for it, though.
They also have the power to negotiate foreign trade deals and are not subject to have their laws ‘reinterpreted’ by the ECJ.
Norfolk, this is not about scares, or even pointing to the problems which are now emerging.. It’s about the lack of a clear majority in the country for the way forward, when time is forcing us to have a clear majority. I don’t think that parliament, the cabinet or the country will be able to get a deal. If there’s no deal, that will probably be stopped too. We could well end up like Norway in the EEA. I agreed with Gerry’s view that we may not even exit, given the political circumstances. But that’s still up in the air. May’s failure at the election has thrown brexit up in the air, and where it all falls is still to be seen.
Why is time forcing us to have a clear majority? How will EU negotiations be affected having a majority government or not? Do you really think EU leaders who generally regard us with contempt anyway are suddenly going to say ” Well I had respect for the UK 2 years ago but now she has a reduced majority we have none” It’s just spin peddled out that makes no real sense… let’s get it right, the reason the election was called had nothing to do with EU negotiations despite that being given as the official reason but a poll conducted showing Labour in complete disarray with Corbyn being mocked by his own party. May thought she could make a killing and failed miserably.
I’m sorry. I should have put it more clearly.
Time is forcing a decision on us, and there is no majority at the moment for any clear decision.
I think the election was certainly called by may in the belief that Corbyn was a joke and she could make a killing. It was also meant to give her a firm majority in parliament to face the other EU leaders as someone with a clear mandate.
She failed on all counts. Now she faces the EU as a very weak leader with a fractious cabinet, no parliamentary majority for any way forward and a country where health and social services are moving into a humanitarian crisis. The main fight is not between teh EU and the UK, but within the UK itself. How can we go for a strong deal when we are so divided?
I cant see the future. She may be able to get out of it, just like that, as Tommy Cooper used to say.
But we do live in interesting times.
That’s right Milky, as a socialist I did vote to leave the neo-liberal EU cartel
Lol, the EU is a cartel, but a protectionist cartel.
That is the oposite of neo-liberalism.
hat’s how Thatcher became PM – by default, because Labour broke down as a government.
Thatcher was a competant polititian though, even if you don’t agree with her. Corbyn has appointed a Marxist who celebrated the 2008 recession as Shadow Chancellor, which should a decision that should be obviously bad to most people. Worse still is Dianne Abbot having any position in the cabinet, especially a position as important as Home Secretary. Corbyn is a joke.
May’s not a competent politician, either. It didn’t stop her becoming PM.
Thatcher was seen as an extremist at that time, and regarded dismissively, and then with horror in the same way that Corbyn has moved from ridicule to horror. I’m not interested in his competence in this thread.
Norway is a member of the European Economic Area, which gives the country full access to the Single Market in return for free movement of capital and labour. I’d be happy with that to be going on with, and come March 2019 that could well be the outcome. There’s no majority for it, though.
They also have the power to negotiate foreign trade deals and are not subject to have their laws ‘reinterpreted’ by the ECJ.
We’re in agreement over the EEA as a solution, then?
That’s right Milky, as a socialist I did vote to leave the neo-liberal EU cartel
Lol, the EU is a cartel, but a protectionist cartel. That is the oposite of neo-liberalism.
I have no idea what neo-liberalism is. It’s a very vague idea which sounds terribly clever – it was first used by semi-Stalinist French intellectuals to make them sound like Mandarins.
It can be used to mean whatever you want it to mean.
The EU is protectionist to the outside world, but free trade within its borders. leave the EU, you’re going to need a credible alternative but quick.
May’s not a competent politician, either.
She’s a competent politician, but not a competent leader. There is a slight difference that should be made there. But I generally agree.
We’re in agreement over the EEA as a solution, then?
I fudementally disagree with the core concepts of the EEA. It is not a solution to anything, it shouldn’t exist.
EFTA membership would be a possible solution if major reforms were made to it, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Although from what I understand Norway wants to make changes to it that are similar to what I would want, and I think we could work with them on this in the future.
I have no idea what neo-liberalism is. It’s a very vague idea which sounds terribly clever – it was first used by semi-Stalinist French intellectuals to make them sound like Mandarins.
It’s not a very well defined concept, but two constants of it are international free trade and corporatism.
The EU has a lot of corperate lobbying, but it is unwilling to negotiate trade seemingly at all. The only reason that CETA happened was because we pushed for it internally, and Canada has a small ecconomy that would affect internal trade within Europe very much.
The EU is protectionist to the outside world,
Which is precicely why it can’t be neo-liberal.
It’s not a very well defined concept, but two constants of it are international free trade and corporatism.
It also has a trend towards being post-nation state, where individual states have little power and are overruled by corperate courts. Which is why TTIP ws so bad.
You could try and make that argument about the EU, but they are not anti-state, they just want to be a nation state. See Guy Verhofstadt’s comments about the EU becomming ‘an Empire, but of good not of evil’ for an example of their delusions of nationhood. Also Marcon playing the EU’s anthem during his victory announcement, ect.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!