General Election 2017 Poll.

[Xlucine]

Oh, I'd agree ... to a point.

We needed .... sorry about this ... "strong and stable government" ( ) at that time as never before, in the turbulent post-crash era, and I wholeheartedly admire Clegg and Co for putting Country ahead of Party and doing the deal. Especially given that some (private) comments they made that I'm aware of makes it clear they knew there was a strong likelihood of a serious electoral cost come the next election. Whether they realised quite how bad is another matter.

My point was a bit different.

Getting a coalition in the UK under FPTP is the exception that proves the rule. All predictions suggest it'll be the rule under PR. And, as soon as we had a coalition, people voting Tory didn't get the government they voted for, and people voting LD sure as hell didn't.

So, whether voting Tory or LD, after thecekection party mandarins disappear into a back room, do all sorts of horse-trading of this policy or position for that, agree a cosy little stitch-up between them, then present it to the country and pretend they have a mandate.

So, assume a good proportion of LD voters voted LD because of a cast-iron, written pledge on tuition fees, only to find that THAT us one of the things horse-traded away? Those voters may have voted Labour had they known. And EU-sceptical Tories may have voted UKIP rather than have a referendum traded away under LD pressure.

The danger wit coalitions is that the coalition can end up agreeing a position that a large number of voters on both sides do not support, and would have voted elsewhere had they known.

FPTP and PR both have major weaknesses, in the sense of how "democratic" they are. Not that our system is truly democratic at all, when what we have is a conjuring trick pretending to be democratic, but in fact relying on FPTP to keep it at a 2.x party system, with "parties" and the whip system, and as if that's not bad enough, MPs as "representatives" that consider themselves elected to exercise their judgement on an issue, not to representvthe will of their constituents. The whole thing is a monumental con-job bearing, either in FPTP or PR implementations, only a passing resemblance to actual democracy.

And when we do get a truly democratic decision, such as "Leave the EU" we get LibDems, and others, trying to frustrate that, reframe the question, pretend it didn't mean Leave if leave means 'that' type of leave, and even threatening to use their wholly disproportionate representation in the UNELECTED Lords to slow down, frustrate, weaken and if possible, prevent, Brexit. What was it they promised for post-art50? Grind it to a halt" in the Lords?

All that respect I had for LDs going into coalition evaporated when they decided to frustrate and try to reinterpret the one major national referendum we've had in 40-odd years.

It's like this. We had 18 months of debate, most of it admittedly of an incredibly low standard, at least among both -professional' sides.

Then we were asked a BINARY question - Leave or Remain.

And though a proportion of those on the losing side don't seem to want to accept it, the decision as "Leave". Not "leave if we can stay in tne single market", not "leave if we get £350m a week for the NHS". Not "Leave if our peers in the Lords agree".

Not even "Leave if those voting Remain can stomach it" (though, as a matter of fact, a large part of the Remain vote DO accept, despite not liking it, that the result was Leave). Certainly not "Leave if our peers don't dislike any exit deal".

The referendum result was Leave. Period. The ONLY democratic thing to do is to assume that ALL voters evaluated all the various implications (both financial and otherwise) of leave to the best of their individual abilities and understanding, and decided, on balance that their choice from that unqualifued binary option was "Leave".

Failure to accept THAT amounts to either negating the democratic expression of the people, however qualified that opinion is, or saying "damn democracy, do what WE think is best."

The lib dems have every right to run for parliament opposing brexit, for exactly the same reason that farage was entitled to oppose the EU even after the first referendum. If they are elected to keep Britain in the EU, then opposing legislation to remove britain from the EU is not 'frustrating democracy' - that is democracy. The people are entitled to change their minds, otherwise we could have taken the results from the very first general election and kept that government for the past hundred years

[pastymuncher]

I shall be voting for the Tories because up here in Scotland it's the only party that has a chance to put a dent in the SNP. The county that I live in, Moray, was very close in the Brexit vote and there is every chance that the SNP deputy leader, that smug git Angus Robertson, could very well lose his seat which is why they have been out in force this week trying to drum up support. Good riddance if he does lose his seat!!

[peterb]

The lib dems have every right to run for parliament opposing brexit, for exactly the same reason that farage was entitled to oppose the EU even after the first referendum. If they are elected to keep Britain in the EU, then opposing legislation to remove britain from the EU is not 'frustrating democracy' - that is democracy. The people are entitled to change their minds, otherwise we could have taken the results from the very first general election and kept that government for the past hundred years

It's an empty gesture. Now that article 50 has been triggered, the path is set - so if there is a referendum that doesn't agree with the deal, then what? There won't be time to re-negotiate and does he really think the EU would take note that Britain didn't like the deal.

AFAIK, there is no mechanism for retracting the application to leave, and if that application was allowed, what terms would be imposed the ? Adoption of the Euro would probably be top of the demands.

So another referendum is a lose-lose situation and one of Tim 'nice but dim' Fallon's half baked propositions.

[Xlucine]

The way things are looking, we're set for the hardest of breaks possible - so not paying any of the previous agreements, and with no trading agreement. Under those circumstances, I can't see the EU letting so much of its budget slip through its fingers. We'd end up worse off that we were before the brexit vote, but that's been certain since last year anyway. As a campaigning stance, it's just as well planned out as the leave vote was in the first place!

[peterb]

This hard/soft Brexit is a misnomer anyway -it's brexit full stop. We will not be part of the EU. What remains is how much we retain membership of the common market - which is what we joined originally. So far the EU are determined to have a 'Hard Brexit' in that they have defined the 4 inviolable ble principles. Of course that is their starting position - whether that changes and what our relationship is at the end of the process depends on the willingness of both parties to compromise - it isn't one sided.

[Spud1]

It's an empty gesture. Now that article 50 has been triggered, the path is set - so if there is a referendum that doesn't agree with the deal, then what? There won't be time to re-negotiate and does he really think the EU would take note that Britain didn't like the deal.

AFAIK there is no mechanism for retracting the application to leave, and if that application was allowed, what terms would be imposed the ? Adoption of the Euro would probably be top of the demands.

So another referendum is a lose-lose situation and one of Tim 'nice but dim' Fallon's half baked propositions.

It depends - I tend to agree that it's not going to happen, and the odds of the LDs actually winning an election are (currently) 200-1...but thats not to say that the EU would not accept a retraction - and find a way to make it happen. It could be a good PR story to round off the good result we saw in France last week, a "strong and stable EU" if you'll pardon me stealing the phrase for a moment I was a remainer of course.

That's not to say I really want another referendum mind (I would have preferred that the first one was better designed to require a suitable majority for such a big decision) - I think the previous approach they posed of leaving the EU in name only would have been a better way to go..and I think taking this approach is as you say, a bit half baked. It may even lead to the LD's vote share dropping a little as many people will see through this, regardless of how they voted previously.

I'll keep my vote with them given the alternatives and the fact I believe in the majority of their other policies though.

[Corky34]

So far the EU are determined to have a 'Hard Brexit' in that they have defined the 4 inviolable principles.

The thing is the perceived problems that the 4 principals, mainly the freedom of movement, have caused are down to our own governments (throughout the years), from not imposing a temporary block on new member states to having such woeful border controls, governments didn't, and still don't, have a clue whose coming into the UK from the EU or whose leaving, something that makes enforcing the rules all but impossible.

It seems governments throughout the years have been quick to pass rules, regulations, and laws but are awful when it comes to making sure they're enforced.

[peterb]

The thing is the perceived problems that the 4 principals, mainly the freedom of movement, have caused are down to our own governments (throughout the years), from not imposing a temporary block on new member states to having such woeful border controls, governments didn't, and still don't, have a clue whose coming into the UK from the EU or whose leaving, something that makes enforcing the rules all but impossible.

It seems governments throughout the years have been quick to pass rules, regulations, and laws but are awful when it comes to making sure they're enforced.

Indeed, and the UK (I think in 2004) rejected the transitional period for immigration from the Eastern European States. It was the Blair Government that also pressed and supported enlargement of the EU.

However, in the past, the UK has been meticulous in applying the minutest detail of EU directives that were often ignored, or only played lip service to, by other States.

[badass]

What gets me is that these 4 freedoms are supposedly inseparable.
Freedom of: labour, capital, services and goods.

Really?

Really?

Unless you're Cyprus. Or Greece. With capital controls. Mandated by the EU.

Awesome hypocrisy!

[badass]

It's an empty gesture. Now that article 50 has been triggered, the path is set - so if there is a referendum that doesn't agree with the deal, then what? There won't be time to re-negotiate and does he really think the EU would take note that Britain didn't like the deal.

Afrikaans, there is no mechanism for retracting the application to leave, and if that application was allowed, what terms would be imposed the ? Adoption of the Euro would probably be top of the demands.

So another referendum is a lose-lose situation and one of Tim 'nice but dim' Fallon's half baked propositions.

I couldn't disagree more. Multiple EU politicians have stated they would allow the UK to stop the process. In fact, the only politicians that have stated it is irreversible are "Strong and [s]snooping[/s] Stable May"

Should hypothetical referendum reject the deal, then what? Politics of course!

Some would state (falsely) that rejection of the deal was rejection of leaving the EU
Some would state (falsely) that actually the rejection was desire for an even harder brexit
Some would state (correctly) that it is simply a rejection of the deal on offer and nothing more

It could result in a better deal being negotiated. It could result in Britain crashing out. It could result ina complete reversal of Brexit with a better than current deal. Nobody knows of course but then you could say the same about the first referendum.

[badass]

.deleted - wrong button

[Corky34]

Indeed, and the UK (I think in 2004) rejected the transitional period for immigration from the Eastern European States. It was the Blair Government that also pressed and supported enlargement of the EU.

The Blair government wasn't the only one, when our current PM was home secretary border control saw their budget cut by something like a third, the £1 billion E border system got scrapped, we still only have three cutters protecting our coast line, our smaller airports are unpatrolled despite the security services saying they're used by traffickers of people, drugs and arms, she failed to implement the promised exit checks which were meant to be in place by 2015, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50% by 2013, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down.

What gets me is that these 4 freedoms are supposedly inseparable.
Freedom of: labour, capital, services and goods.

Really?

Really?

Unless you're Cyprus. Or Greece. With capital controls. Mandated by the EU.

Awesome hypocrisy!

How are local capital controls anything to do with the EU? Those capital controls were imposed by Greece's government to prevent capital flight.

[opel80uk]

This hard/soft Brexit is a misnomer anyway -it's brexit full stop. We will not be part of the EU. What remains is how much we retain membership of the common market - which is what we joined originally. So far the EU are determined to have a 'Hard Brexit' in that they have defined the 4 inviolable le principles. Of course that is their starting position - whether that changes and what our relationship is at the end of the process depends on the willingness of both parties to compromise - it isn't one sided.

I would politely say that, if by 'Hard Brexit' you mean exclusion from the EEA, then that is nonsense. It is the UK that is determined to have a hard Brexit, by virtue of seemingly being unwilling to acquiesce to the 4 core principles of the EEA, 4 core principles that were always core, or 'defined', long before Brexit. Your argument, that it is the EU determined to have a Hard Brexit is akin to me being a member of a tennis club, but deciding I firstly want to leave, and secondly rejoin and to play rugby, and when the tennis club say no, me complaining that the tennis club is determined to exclude me, that they will miss my membership fees, and that we both have a responsibility to compromise.

Here in Ireland, which is overwhelmingly supportive of Britain given that the economy is so heavily reliant on, and intertwined with, the British economy, and with the full knowledge that a Hard Brexit would be disastrous here and that's not touching on the Border issues, there is an ever increasing disbelief at the British attitude towards this whole affair. Not at Brexit per-se, as the Irish share a lot of the reservations that the British have with the EU, but at the notion that Britain is heading towards a Hard Brexit as a result of the EU, and if that is a prevailing attitude in a country that is an ally, what is the attitude in mainland Europe? Britain is heading towards a Hard Brexit because of Britain, and people would be better served not to kid themselves otherwise, not matter how good it feels.

[Saracen]

I would politely say that, if by 'Hard Brexit' you mean exclusion from the EEA, then that is nonsense. It is the UK that is determined to have a hard Brexit, by virtue of seemingly being unwilling to acquiesce to the 4 core principles of the EEA, 4 core principles that were always core, or 'defined', long before Brexit. Your argument, that it is the EU determined to have a Hard Brexit is akin to me being a member of a tennis club, but deciding I firstly want to leave, and secondly rejoin and to play rugby, and when the tennis club say no, me complaining that the tennis club is determined to exclude me, that they will miss my membership fees, and that we both have a responsibility to compromise.

Here in Ireland, which is overwhelmingly supportive of Britain given that the economy is so heavily reliant on, and intertwined with, the British economy, and with the full knowledge that a Hard Brexit would be disastrous here and that's not touching on the Border issues, there is an ever increasing disbelief at the British attitude towards this whole affair. Not at Brexit per-se, as the Irish share a lot of the reservations that the British have with the EU, but at the notion that Britain is heading towards a Hard Brexit as a result of the EU, and if that is a prevailing attitude in a country that is an ally, what is the attitude in mainland Europe? Britain is heading towards a Hard Brexit because of Britain, and people would be better served not to kid themselves otherwise, not matter how good it feels.

A better analogy would be that having decided to leave the EU tennis club and set up our own rugby club, that it is in the interests of both clubs to work with each other and, on terms yet to be agreed, allow each other's members to enjoy some benefits of membership .... but without allowing the EU tennis club to write snd administer our rules, and determine which cricket clubs we can cooperate with.

EEA membership is NOT an option consistent with the widely acknowledged point of Brexit, including the sovereign ability to control our own borders and set our own laws. EEA would give some things that are Brexit objectives, like a fair degree of trading freedom and exclusion from EU agriculture and fisheries policies, BJT on the vast majority of trade areas, means agreeing to automatic adoption of EU legislation and jurisdiction in a large number of areas, with no say at all in the creation of those laws. To date, something around 12,000 EU laws would automatically apply, as would the operation of all four 'indivisible' freedoms.

EEA membership is not a viable Brexit option, and would be a worse option than EU membership. I remember what a Norwegian minister said, which (paraphrasing) was

If you want to be a member of the EU stay a member, but if you want to be run by the EU go for EEA membership.

The idea behind Brexit, call it hard or otherwise, is to leave the EU and become an independent, self-ruling sovereign nation. That is, we make, amend and repeal and judge our own laws, WE control our own borders, and determine our own immigration policy and we trade with the world on terms to be agreed between us and each other partner, mutually. One such partner would be the EU,

Given that the UK is a major economy and currently closely tied to the EU, an acrimonious future relationship is in neither's interests. But Brexiters see no reason to let the EU core principles of "ever greater union", including monetary but more especially fiscal and political union, apply to us in order to trade, any more than the EU requires China, the US, Brazil, Australia or 180-ish other countries to accept "four indivisible freedoms" in order to trade.

I can't see any reasonable justification for the EU to seek to not trade with the EU BUT ... nor is it reasonable for the UK to seek to leave the EU club and still get the benefits.

But, by the way, when you leave a tennis club, you stop paying subscriptions. The club shouldn't expect ex-members to carry on funding their capital development program.

EEA status? Hell, no. A worse solution than EU membership with most of the disadvantages of membership, and few of the advantages of leaving.

[Saracen]

....

Here in Ireland, which is overwhelmingly supportive of Britain given that the economy is so heavily reliant on, and intertwined with, the British economy, and with the full knowledge that a Hard Brexit would be disastrous here and that's not touching on the Border issues, there is an ever increasing disbelief at the British attitude towards this whole affair. Not at Brexit per-se, as the Irish share a lot of the reservations that the British have with the EU, but at the notion that Britain is heading towards a Hard Brexit as a result of the EU, and if that is a prevailing attitude in a country that is an ally, what is the attitude in mainland Europe? Britain is heading towards a Hard Brexit because of Britain, and people would be better served not to kid themselves otherwise, not matter how good it feels.

Well, as always, thefe's two ways of looking at things.

So, given that the refefendum result was "leave", the UK said we wanted maximum trade, preferably membership of single market. But, EU says no. Four freedoms are indivisible. That amounts to offering what is effectively a binaty choice - hard brexit, or no brexit. One senior Brussels official actually put it in those terms.

Quite what reaction was expected, I don't know. Maybe Brussels thought the UK would say "Oh. Well in that case, we'll stay in".

But all the way though the art.50 preparation, the EU line has been hard. Despite the fact that the eU now puts the situation of EU citizrns here as a priority, the UK government suggested sorting that out LAST YEAR. And got a firm rejection. The PMs Lancaster House speech was all about cooperation and good relations, and the response was that we tbreatened witholding security cooperation. No, we didn't. The art.50 letter makes the same bid for cooperation and acknowledges that the four freedoms are indivisible, because the EU insists they are, and the response ... leaking the Downing Street meeting yo a German newspaper with negative briegings.

Given the oft-stated objectives of Brexit, including control of our borders, freedom from EU laws snd coyrgs jurisdiction, ability to trade with other countries and have our own free trade deals, snd no more massive budget net contributions, exactly what kind of Brexit is on offer that isn't "hard"?

Look, it's not terribly difficult yo understand. The UK has ALWAYS been an uncomfortable EU partner in this project. We declined to join at tbe inception. De Gaulle then showed a huge gratitude for his UK asylum during SW2 by black-balling us when we did apply. When we did finally join, at the same time as the Irish republic, it was to a "common market". And here we are, 40+ years later and we STILL don't have a fully functioning common market, but we do have a long list of things we were promised (by UK politicians) we wouldn't get, ranging from EU laws and court jurisdiction, to a common currency, to EU passports.

Aha, I hear you think .... the UK doesn't have a common currency. We're outside the Eurozone. Exactly. We, the UK, do not want tbd same things out of the EU thst the rest of you apparently do. We do not, for instance, want monetary union, let alone fiscal or polutical union, yet you guys do. So we end up on the outside of the powerblock, with decisions increasingly being taken st a eurozone level, which we are not part of and have no desire to be oart of. The result is a kind of second-class status.

Even in the face of a Brexit referendum, in the full knowledge that at no time had the British people been asked about Maasgricht or Lisbon, at no time had we, the people, agreed to the loss of sovereignty or independence by mutating from Comkon Market to EU, when Cameron tried to get acceptance of the fact that freedom of movement was a major problem here, the Brussels Powers That Be brushed him off witb a few crumbs he had to try (and failed) to present as a success.

So yes, we have a hard Brexit because EVERY attempt the UK has made at reform of the issues that cause us problems, most notably the central ethos of ever-greater union, have been rebuffed or ignored.

And, fair enough. You (apparently) want union, and we don't. You see your future one way, and we see ours differently. We wanted a trading club, and you want somethung much, much more.

We, as a nation, STILL want close trading links. We'd like single market access as before, but EU says it's not possible. So okay, that's your right. We want to negotiate trade ASAP, along with exit. Not possible, says EU. No trade talks AT ALL until "satisfactory progress" on exit. Oh, and €40bn. No wait, €60bn. Oh hang on, €100bn. All unofficial figures, of course ....and all being briefed out by Commission powers, either as a serious attempt at daylight robbery, or a threat. And it even came with the assertion that while, apparently, we have to oay our share of the "liabilities" (using Brussels maths) we get zero percent of the assets.

The mood music from the Commission has been antagonistic from the day of the referendum ... at least, once the shock wore off.

So I'll ask again, what sort of Brexit is there that meets :-

- the whole point of Brexit (sovereignty, control, our own laws, free trade with others, etc)
- the EU assertion of indivisibility of freedoms, AND a refusal, so far, to even START trade talks

... that isn't "hard".

The simple fact is, we want our freedom from EU control and aren't going go give most of it up again.

And, the EU quite rightly says 'no benefits of membership without membership'.

We want a "hard" Brexit because the EU has the position that nothing else is possible unless we give up one or more of the poinrs that were the reason for leaving in the first place.

But even after a hard Brexit, it OUGHT to be possible to trade in a friendly and cooperative manner. That DOESN'T mean we expect the benefits if membership, but nor do we expect obstructionism for the sake of it. An arrangement OUGHT to be possible that works for both the UK andEU, in the interests of both. It OUGHT to be able go recognise that, as a current member, once we leave we automatically still comply with EU laws and standards, which gives a hell of a headstart over any other country in free trade terms. Much that would normally be subject to detailed negotiations is already in place.

Perhaps a better phrase than "hard Brexit" would be sovereign, independent state, but one wanting good relations. If they're on offer.

[Corky34]

So, given that the refefendum result was "leave", the UK said we wanted maximum trade, preferably membership of single market. But, EU says no. Four freedoms are indivisible. That amounts to offering what is effectively a binaty choice - hard brexit, or no brexit. One senior Brussels official actually put it in those terms.

The thing is the only thing the UK said is that they want to leave the EU, they didn't say anything about trade, the single market, the four freedoms, or anything else.

The reason they didn't saying anything else was because nothing more was proposed, plenty was said but the only thing written down was "Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave", there was no whitepaper on what leaving or remaining would look like, there was no public declaration of policy, there was no publication of what leaving or remaining would achieve.

Yes plenty of things were said by both sides covering what leaving or remaining would look like and what they could achieve but what someone says, especially politicians, is a world away from writing it all down as what someone says can change from one minute to the next whereas when it's written down it's immutable.