General Election 2017 Poll.

[directhex]

Considering that the EU has a track record of not "negotiating", having someone strong enough to just walk away rather than be railroaded is a good thing. Mind you being smart enough to put systems in place to cope with that eventuality is a different matter...

"just walk away" means 40% levies on UK farmers exporting their goods to Europe (which is e.g. what happens to 90+% of Welsh meat).

"just walk away" means 10% levies on cars made in the UK & sold into Europe.

Hell, "just walk away" means we can't legally fly planes into EU airspace.

What do we gain from "just walk away" which is an improvement over being railroaded into a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishty deal (which is what happens in trade negotiations between a tiny participant and a large one)?

[SeriousSam]

Not being in the unworkable situation whereby EU citizens in the UK are bound by EU not UK law...

[directhex]

Not being in the unworkable situation whereby EU citizens in the UK are bound by EU not UK law...

That's... not a thing. Unless you're a diplomat.

[OilSheikh]

Voting for Tess aka Conservatives.

Labour wants to guarantee the rights of all EU citizens... .. the same labour who caused immigration surges from 1997. Have some pride in your country FFS. EU have shafted us big time and are turning us into a 3rd world country. Our jobs have moved to East Europe and the remaining jobs are being taken by East Europeans moving here. Then, we give them free money, free houses , free English schooling, free healthcare....

[wazzickle]

Have some pride in your country FFS.

Have you been outside your country before

[Saracen]

"just walk away" means 40% levies on UK farmers exporting their goods to Europe (which is e.g. what happens to 90+% of Welsh meat).

"just walk away" means 10% levies on cars made in the UK & sold into Europe.

Hell, "just walk away" means we can't legally fly planes into EU airspace.

What do we gain from "just walk away" which is an improvement over being railroaded into a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishty deal (which is what happens in trade negotiations between a tiny participant and a large one)?

And that's why being prepared to walk away is utterly essential. It is, of course, option of last-resort with the singular advantage of not being stuffed with an even worse "deal" .... such as still being bound by EU courts, not getting a trade deal worth having and being stuck with a monumental bill just because the EU has budget eyes bigger than it's bank balance.

But if 10% levy on UK cars sold into Europe will hurt us, what will 10% levy on EU cars sold into the UK do? I might point out .... BMW, Audi, Mercedes, VW, Porsche, Ferrari, Skoda, Volvo, Seat, Alfa, and do on. Oh, and then there's France .... Renault, Citroen, Peugeot, etc.

Personally, I've been driving German cars for about 3 decades, from Polo to M-series Beemers, and right back to my 70's Opel Manta. But .... if Brexit talks fail, I won't be paying extra for German cars. I'll switch to Toyota, or Lexus, or ... well, you get the point. Once outside EU Customs Union CET (Common External Tariff) we won't be paying EU charges on 3rd party goods coming from non-EU countries. And I'm similarly prepared to switch to US, South America, Australia, etc for wine, and so on.

"Walking away" does NEITHER side any good, but if the EU thinks they can dictate terms and we simply have to meekly accept whatever crumbs they offer, they're the ones living in a fantasy.

And THAT is the fundamental difference between pro-Brexit and Remainers - whether you see the UK doing just fine outside the protectionist trappings of the EU, making our own way in the rest of the big, wide world, or not.

I want to see a deal that benefits BOTH sides, but all the noises coming from the EU at the moment are aggressive. €100bn bill, indeed. Nuts to that. So I'm currently assuming that that, and much of the JCY bilge, is pre-negotiation posturing. Well, so is "walking away". Nohody sensible wants that. But, you DO NOT succeed in negotiations by signalling either weakness, or policy redlines, to the other side before you even start.

If the EU can "signal" that they're going to be brutal, like a preposterous €1bn bill, then we can "signal" that no deal is better than a really bad deal, for the simple reason that it is.

Don't forget, we're a net importer from the EU. They sell us more than we sell them, by quite a margin. And, post-Brexit, we can go elsewhere for much of it. Those tariffs cut both ways.

[eltel]

what Saracen said is how I feel at the moment. the EU member countries need us far more than we need them if I had been old enough to vote when we joined the common market I would have voted no back then as well as now,
There are plenty of other countries and continents that we can do business with, Europe may be our main market at the moment but does it need to be?

as for voting in the election I don't know who I will vote for but it definitely wont be Labour after the mess they left the country in after their last term in office or the Lib Dems due to their anti Brexit stance

[Saracen]

.... the EU member countries need us far more than we need them ....

That's not quite what I said. They export more to us than we do to them, for sure, BUT ... they (combined) are bigger than we are so it's a smaller proportion. But balanced against that is that, once out, we can get a lot that we currently get from inside the EU from outside it instead, including via our own trade deals as/and when they occur.

Both the EU and UK should benefit from a deal .... IF it's about trade. And if the current posturing is about negotiating, then it's a petty and peurile, and counter-productive, strategy.

However, if it's about discouraging other leavers and they are determined to drive a terrible deal through, then that is precisely when we MUST be prepared to just walk.

Ultimately, it takes two to compromise, so a 'deal' needs to be acceptable to both sides and, for both sides, trade is not the only factor. For the EU, preserving The Grande Project is important, and for us (at least for Brexiters) so are the numerous aspects of national sovereignty and self-determination.

It would be a mistake to think a bad Brexit is good for either side, but it's also a mistake to think neither side could just walk away. They want things from us and we want things from them. A deal ought to be possible. But the mood music from the EU is not currently good, and I'm now more inclined to think we'll "just walk away" is more likely than it was, but if that's what they want, so be it.

[wazzickle]

'Look, we're not actually willing to cut off our noses to spite our faces, but we want them to believe that we're willing!'

'They'll never believe that, they're not that stupid and they don't think we're that stupid.'

'I think we should actually be prepared to cut off our noses to spite our faces. That'll show em'

'Oh, ok, a person thinks that?'

'Yes, they need our faces to have noses on them more than we need our noses. They need everyone in the room looking beautiful, and we'd ruin that.'

This sort of bizarre logic is what lead the entire world to be pointing nuclear warheads at each other for the last 50 years. As if that's what guaranteed peace in europe, rather than globalisation, greater trading and cultural ties. It's bizarre, and the most prominent example I can think of where individual hoomans may well be bright and clever and sensitive, but get us in a group, and we're rather just a little slow.

If you want a mathematical representation of why this is stupid, look at the travellers' dilemma.

[big_hairy_rob]

I suppose that my biggest concern is the stumbling block that Eurozone has insisted to be discussed first, namely the free movement of traffic. While a core principle of the Eurozone, this is something that many leave voters fought against; and though a non voter, I do see the appeal of a points based system...

Honestly as it stands, I'm not sure whether a compromise would be possible. Knowing this, I would be looking to establish rock steady deals with other free markets; however, maybe it's time that we export less and become self sufficient where/if possible. Europe also has to understand that loosing trade to this country will damage it as much as it will damage our economy. There is no win-win from the strong arm approach that they are using, and weakness in negotiation will cost us, and this country for generations... The only certainty is 2 years from now we will be out of Europe whether a deal is agreed or not, so let's focus on the likely outcome, rather than the unlikely.

I agree with Saracen that the best outcome is a mutually beneficial one, but I'm not sure how that will happen after the self congratulatory show of power that they've tried. That said, the worst thing for this country is for someone in power who will pander to their every whim. While not siding with any political party, I can see the appeal of voting for strong exit talks, but agree with earlier comments regarding who is actually strong, as well as perceived subjectivity. Right now, I'm quite worried as the number of sensible options is rapidly diminishing.

[Spud1]

i've found it really difficult this time around, as its ultimately really hard to separate out each parties "Brexit" position from their general politics/policies. I think that voter turnout will be a record low this time around, and the majority of those that do vote will do so based on various Brexit issues rather than anything else..which isn't a great situation to be in.

Personally I am going to vote lib dem again, I felt like the government functioned really well over the con/lib coalition and would love to see the lib dems back in coalition again. My party politics are somewhat half way between conservative and liberal (there is a lot of crossover), but I really don't like how Mrs May has handled herself since taking office and the general team she has surrounded herself with are not of the highest caliber. She has made a lot of poor choices and although its clearly been really hard for her in this Brexit world where she can't do whats best for the country and has to follow the Brexit line...shes not exactly covered herself in glory. Or come over as a "strong and stable leader"..she is no Thatcher.

Add to the above the pro brexit attitude of the current cabinet and the Tories rule themselves out for me. I cannot with good conscience vote for Labour (partly on principle, partly as they are a total mess at the moment and partly as I just disagree with their union backed policies). UKIP/Greens/etc are just not credible based purely on policy so are a no go.

That leaves the lib dems - a fairly decent match on policy for me and a determination to push for more of a "soft" brexit where we can potentially keep important things like single market membership, free movement of people etc even if on paper we have to leave the EU.

Regardless of my own views though I am certain it will be a conservative victory...I can't see the lib dems gaining enough traction even with their anti brexit stance, and labour are in too much of a mess to gain any real support. Shame really.

[Saracen]

'Look, we're not actually willing to cut off our noses to spite our faces, but we want them to believe that we're willing!'

'They'll never believe that, they're not that stupid and they don't think we're that stupid.'

'I think we should actually be prepared to cut off our noses to spite our faces. That'll show em'

'Oh, ok, a person thinks that?'

'Yes, they need our faces to have noses on them more than we need our noses. They need everyone in the room looking beautiful, and we'd ruin that.'

This sort of bizarre logic is what lead the entire world to be pointing nuclear warheads at each other for the last 50 years. As if that's what guaranteed peace in europe, rather than globalisation, greater trading and cultural ties. It's bizarre, and the most prominent example I can think of where individual hoomans may well be bright and clever and sensitive, but get us in a group, and we're rather just a little slow.

If you want a mathematical representation of why this is stupid, look at the travellers' dilemma.

That entire 'logic' rests on the assumption that "walking away" is the worst option. If the so-called "deal" involves us being half-out, little or no benefits and a stonking great bill, then it is not the worst deal.

It also implies that walking away means zero trade with the EU. It won't. It just changes the terms of trade to those less beneficial than otherwise might be, and fails to take account of trade with the rest of the planet, which benefit from being outside the protectionist CET of the EU CU.

And as for the EU being what created 50 years of peace, oh hogwash. What created 50 years of peace in Europe was the searing memory of two recent world wars and a firm desire not yo go there again, together with a raft of measures taken to ensure prosperity ib Germany, including vast reconstruction funding. Just because the EU likes to swy it created 50 years of peace doesn't make it true.

Walking away isn't about noses or faces. It's about the fact that nondeal absolutely is better than a really bad deal, and we DO have that option. Not only that, I'd say the chances of exactly that accelerated this week, due to the moronic leaking of the accounts of the Downing Street dinner, and the fatuous Brussels-briefed €100bn story, because anything remotely resembling that is a political impossibility to sell here, and the difficulty of Brussels rowing back to a figure the UK govt could sell here after having flown such a ludicrous kite. Still, I'm sure Mrs may would like to thank JCY for his generous help in her election campaign, and ask him to float another such kite every time Labour looks like they might have a press-worthy policy announcement. Not that the PM needs Brussels help, when she has Diane Abbott on her side.

[TeePee]

And as for the EU being what created 50 years of peace, oh hogwash. What created 50 years of peace in Europe was the searing memory of two recent world wars and a firm desire not yo go there again, together with a raft of measures taken to ensure prosperity ib Germany, including vast reconstruction funding. Just because the EU likes to swy it created 50 years of peace doesn't make it true.

While we are talking about peace, it's also worth remembering that the Human Rights Act and ECHR derives from the Council of Europe, which Britain will remain a member of, and has nothing to do with the EU.

[Corky34]

Hasn't Mrs May said she wants to withdraw from the Human Rights Act and ECHR?

[wazzickle]

That entire 'logic' rests on the assumption that "walking away" is the worst option. If the so-called "deal" involves us being half-out, little or no benefits and a stonking great bill, then it is not the worst deal.

And as for the EU being what created 50 years of peace, oh hogwash. What created 50 years of peace in Europe was the searing memory of two recent world wars and a firm desire not yo go there again, together with a raft of measures taken to ensure prosperity ib Germany, including vast reconstruction funding. Just because the EU likes to swy it created 50 years of peace doesn't make it true.

Walking away isn't about noses or faces. It's about the fact that nondeal absolutely is better than a really bad deal, and we DO have that option. Not only that, I'd say the chances of exactly that accelerated this week, due to the moronic leaking of the accounts of the Downing Street dinner, and the fatuous Brussels-briefed €100bn story, because anything remotely resembling that is a political impossibility to sell here, and the difficulty of Brussels rowing back to a figure the UK govt could sell here after having flown such a ludicrous kite. Still, I'm sure Mrs may would like to thank JCY for his generous help in her election campaign, and ask him to float another such kite every time Labour looks like they might have a press-worthy policy announcement. Not that the PM needs Brussels help, when she has Diane Abbott on her side.

Sorry, but 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is rhetoric. It implies our negotiators are so bad that they can't even do better than WTO terms. And the huge bill for leaving is coming regardless. We do not have the upper hand in these negotiations.

If you look at the history of war and the economics of international trade, what you see is that when you create an incentive for peace, i.e. better living conditions through trade, the likelihood of either side instigating war is greatly reduced. Clearly, the memory of the worst two wars in europe has left us scarred, but that effect hasn't been very good at stopping war in the past - hence why the second world war happened in the first place. What the scarring did was motivate all of the biggest countries to say 'you know what, can we do something to stop this from happening again?' I.E. greater cultural ties and open borders and trading. Hogwash away, if you want, but history bears this out.

[TeePee]

Hasn't Mrs May said she wants to withdraw from the Human Rights Act and ECHR?

The Human Rights act is a 1998 UK law. A longer term conservative goal has been to replace this with a British Rights Act. Theresa May individually wants to reform ECHR, but has no backing from any party.

Personally, I'd like to see better recognition of Human Rights in UK law, and reform is long overdue.