Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

unfortunately it's used the same modelling that also said that >500k people would have lost their job between June 2016 and now.

So that analysis is only going to work with those who are already against brexit.

[feral chile]

This is reassuring, if true:
 

Quote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/28/brexit-passions-tory-theresa-may?CMP=share_btn_tw

“Bring it on,” Jeremy Corbyn told Andrew Marr on Sunday, not about a referendum but relishing the prospect of May’s toppling causing an election, as any opposition leader would. Labour’s divide looks no more than business-as-usual, compared with the Tory split. Anti-Brexiters may have taken heart at his new tone of warmth for staying close to the EU. In a confident outing on the Marr show, for the first time he sounded completely positive about staying as close as possible to the single market and customs union. Strongly influenced by Labour’s pro-EU young voters and by the big unions’ deep anxiety about Brexit, those close to Corbyn say he has travelled a long way, reassured that nothing in his manifesto is prevented by EU state aid rules.

 

 

[eFestivals]

Jez is still in cake and eat it land. It's one for the birds.

Not only that, the great democrat doesn't want the people to have a say.

He voted alongside all the tory brexit headbangers as recently as 2011. He has that voting record for 35 years.

And he's supposedly a man of principle.

[lost]

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn told Andrew Marr on Sunday, not about a referendum but relishing the prospect of May’s toppling causing an election

Latest yougov showing May's support amongst tories is at the exact same point as 12 months ago to stay on as PM (69%)

They would be stupid to do anything now. The feminists are being ejected from the labour party, the moderates will follow with mandatory resection, all the Tories have to do is sit and wait and let the labour party punch themselves in the face repeatedly.

[zahidf]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

unfortunately it's used the same modelling that also said that >500k people would have lost their job between June 2016 and now.

So that analysis is only going to work with those who are already against brexit.

So David Davis was lying about the impact reports then?

[zahidf]

47 minutes ago, lost said:

Latest yougov showing May's support amongst tories is at the exact same point as 12 months ago to stay on as PM (69%)

They would be stupid to do anything now. The feminists are being ejected from the labour party, the moderates will follow with mandatory resection, all the Tories have to do is sit and wait and let the labour party punch themselves in the face repeatedly.

whereas the moderates are happy to stay in the Tories?:-/

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

So David Davis was lying about the impact reports then?

No idea, tho his job isn't really to work out the economic impacts.

And anyway, just because something might be shit for the economy doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (not that I agree in this case, but that's another thing).

Fact is the UK voted to brexit, whatever the consequences. Just because there's a new report which says much the same as the reports prior to the vote doesn't really change anything about the reasoning to do it.

It might change enough minds about brexit to bring a stop to brexit, but the report by itself doesn't justify a stop if the vote is being respected.

[sjseabass]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No idea, tho his job isn't really to work out the economic impacts.

And anyway, just because something might be shit for the economy doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (not that I agree in this case, but that's another thing).

Fact is the UK voted to brexit, whatever the consequences. Just because there's a new report which says much the same as the reports prior to the vote doesn't really change anything about the reasoning to do it.

It might change enough minds about brexit to bring a stop to brexit, but the report by itself doesn't justify a stop if the vote is being respected.

The government could choose the least damaging of the scenarios that were modelled, though.

[eFestivals]

Just now, theevilfridge said:

The government could choose the least damaging of the scenarios that were modelled, though.

yep, it could - but neither the tories or labour agree that would reflect what was voted for.

And much as I hate where it leads I can see their point with that. Being under EU 'control' is much like being in the EU, and considered by many to be the worst option with no say on what happens.

 

[lost]

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

whereas the moderates are happy to stay in the Tories?:-/

As already discussed in the other thread, Ruth seems happy enough to stay. I can't see any other option of seeing brexit through for them and then being more united for the next election in 2022.

Edited January 30, 2018 by lost

[zahidf]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

unfortunately it's used the same modelling that also said that >500k people would have lost their job between June 2016 and now.

So that analysis is only going to work with those who are already against brexit.

Steve barker (a breixit minister) said govt forecasts are always wrong and shouldnt be believed:-/

Edited January 30, 2018 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Steve barker (a breixit minister) said govt forecasts are always wrong and shouldnt be believed:-/

and to a degree he's correct.

But whatever, i don't think there's much political mileage in pushing it. That Guardian poll the other day showed that a big chunk of people don't believe brexit will personally financially effect them, and given that it already has with higher food and fuel prices and more, there's no getting thru to them.

The only real solution is some political leadership, but that's nowhere to be seen.

[zahidf]

44 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and to a degree he's correct.

But whatever, i don't think there's much political mileage in pushing it. That Guardian poll the other day showed that a big chunk of people don't believe brexit will personally financially effect them, and given that it already has with higher food and fuel prices and more, there's no getting thru to them.

The only real solution is some political leadership, but that's nowhere to be seen.

I know these are crazy times, but it's absolutely extraordinary to hear a minister stand up in the Commons and completely shitbag the work of his own department just because it's politically inconvenient

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I know these are crazy times, but it's absolutely extraordinary to hear a minister stand up in the Commons and completely shitbag the work of his own department just because it's politically inconvenient

the govt had already decided they were inconsequential for the public domain, otherwise they'd have published them already.

The govt are (when it suits them ) working on the basis that 'the people' are the political leaders for brexit, and the decision to brexit has been made. I don't like where it takes us, but I can't really see how any govt could do it differently, at least, until such time as there's major public support for a rethink.

[sjseabass]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep, it could - but neither the tories or labour agree that would reflect what was voted for.

As you have alluded to, it's not really 'what was voted for' but what they think will give them the biggest electoral advantage. The hard Brexiteers have successfully framed it as being 'what was voted for'.

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And much as I hate where it leads I can see their point with that. Being under EU 'control' is much like being in the EU, and considered by many to be the worst option with no say on what happens.

Yeah, that terrible option with less poverty and better funded public services.

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the govt had already decided they were inconsequential for the public domain, otherwise they'd have published them already.

Are you having a laugh? The reason the government didn't publish them is because they "were inconsequential for the public domain?"

Really?

P.s. what does  "inconsequential for the public domain" mean exactly anyway?

 

[zahidf]

38 minutes ago, LJS said:

Are you having a laugh? The reason the government didn't publish them is because they "were inconsequential for the public domain?"

Really?

P.s. what does  "inconsequential for the public domain" mean exactly anyway?

 

 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, theevilfridge said:

Yeah, that terrible option with less poverty and better funded public services.

we can have that (or not) with or without the EU. It's merely down to what Joe public is prepared to give up of the personal in order to put towards the common.

Our public services are shit now, while we're in the EU - because Joe Public isn't prepared to give up the personal.

(and that 'giving up' would need to go waaaay beyond the oldies that are often given the blame for everything, just to be clear. )

Ultimately in or out of the EU as you've put it above is about personal greed. 'You' don't want to risk your income being cut, which means you wouldn't want it cut to benefit public services either.

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

Are you having a laugh? The reason the government didn't publish them is because they "were inconsequential for the public domain?"

Really?

P.s. what does  "inconsequential for the public domain" mean exactly anyway?

 

inconsequential for what the govt does - because that's already been decided by the vote - and so publishing the reports is inconsequential for policy purposes.

Like it or not, that's a sound democratic position for the circumstances we're in. It's why the tories and labour have the same view about this.

(while miss-lets-have-an-indyref-vote has suddenly got a bit anti about the public having a say or following the agenda the public have been asked to set. The tories and Labour might be morons, but at least it's not so-obviously a self-serving unprincipled position).

Edited January 31, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, zahidf said:

 

yeah, and all of the leavers are going to believe government estimates this time, when they ignored far worse estimates (in how they were talked up, anyway) at the time of the vote.

As I've already said, these reports are very probably an irrelevance to the public. Those who were already against the tories plans are just screaming louder while leavers still think the same.

And at the same time it's starting to cause leave (and remain) voters to stop supporting Labour, as they're starting to look transparent (in both directions) to anyone who doesn't trust them.

Labour need to come up with a *real* position, and stop sounding more insane than the tories.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Labour need to come up with a *real* position, and stop sounding more insane than the tories.

In order for Labour to be able implement their plans for nationalising the utility companies, surely they need to be out of the EU (cos they need permission from Brussels which they won't get as it's against the EU rules). Are these trade rules? If so, any 'exit' which mean's we're still subject to those laws won't be acceptable, so does Labours 'real position need to be for a hard brexit?

Edited January 31, 2018 by Ommadawn

[lost]

I honestly don't think he knows. He was on Marr on sunday talking about seizing unused property for the homeless which is against the Human rights act. I'm sure he's mentioned before he doesn't want to pull out of the human rights act but obviously would need to to do that.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

In order for Labour to be able implement their plans for nationalising the utility companies, surely they need to be out of the EU (cos they need permission from Brussels which they won't get as it's against the EU rules). Are these trade rules? If so, any 'exit' which mean's we're still subject to those laws won't be acceptable, so does Labours 'real position need to be for a hard brexit?

Not correct. EU rules allows for the nationalisation of national infrastructure. 

Jez is using bullshit to justify him wanting the hard brexit he's always wanted.

There are rules which might (just 'might') put constraints on what he's able to do, but they're more about borrowings, etc - and if he didn't have such insanely-big plans (impossible to manage in a single term anyway) they wouldn't be an issue.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

I honestly don't think he knows. He was on Marr on sunday talking about seizing unused property for the homeless which is against the Human rights act. I'm sure he's mentioned before he doesn't want to pull out of the human rights act but obviously would need to to do that.

He's the same sort of 'dangerous' politician as Trump - where he thinks that the constraints put on politicians that have been arrived at for the good governance of society shouldn't apply to him as PM, just because he'd be PM.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

33 minutes ago, lost said:

I honestly don't think he knows. He was on Marr on sunday talking about seizing unused property for the homeless which is against the Human rights act. I'm sure he's mentioned before he doesn't want to pull out of the human rights act but obviously would need to to do that.

What about the changes to the squatting laws? Illegal these days.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42536418
 

Quote

 

More than 11,000 homes across the UK have been empty for 10 years or more, research by the Liberal Democrats has found.

The figures, from 276 local councils, show there are more than 216,000 homes across the country which have been empty for six months or more.

Lib Dem leader Vince Cable called it a "national scandal", at a time when "the homelessness crisis is worsening".

The number of empty homes is down a third since 2010, the government said.

Durham had the most empty homes (6,500) followed by Leeds (5,724), Bradford (4,144), Cornwall (3,273) and Liverpool (3,093).

 

seems it's not against the Human Rights Act:
 

Quote

 

EDMOs allow councils in England and Wales to take over residential properties that have been empty for six months or more.

Just 19 of the 247 councils in England and Wales that responded (the powers do not apply in Scotland) had used an EDMO in the past five years.

Councils did return 23,000 empty homes back into use.